Jonathan Prince on Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:00:03 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] Lou Dobbs on Bush Speech |
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0207/09/lt.13.html LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: John, the president's caught in something of a bind here. This as you say a non-regulation, anti-regulation president, yet he is now presiding over what will be an enormous expansion and a number of regulations. He has also been a president preaching small government. He is presiding over the largest expansion in government in more than a decade. He talks about free trade, yet he's the first to raise tariffs on steel imports. The president has a number of issues here. The administration looks a little off balance in point of fact. [....] DOBBS: Yet, for the first time, Aaron, on July 3, the Pew Research Poll showed for the first time more than 60 percent of those surveyed think the president should be doing, and must be doing more to improve the economy. Yet, our own poll yesterday, the CNN-USA Today Gallup Poll, showed that more people blame President Clinton for the malaise, the level of corruption in corporate American, than do President Bush. [....] DOBBS: Because it is fundamentally, as Patricia said, it is fundamental to the level of compensation that CEOs have become used to receiving over the course, particularly of the last five or six years, emanating in large measure from the technology sector. But the fact is, companies not charging their income statements, writing up hundreds of millions of dollars. You have a situation in which Larry Ellison, a founder, could receive $700 million in compensation. Jerry Levin the former CEO of AOL Time Warner, to put this in total context, receiving $160 million the previous year in compensation for a company whose stock is now in the mid-teens, and these examples go on and on. [....] DOBBS: Well, typically, not lower than it's trading at. Typically, where it is, the strike price as it's called, but for a future exercise, the presumption being and the assumption being that the price will be higher at that time. The real issue for the stock option for the CEO who receives these, and other top corporate officers and others in the company, is that there's no downside. There is no risk whatsoever. And, Patricia, I don't know whether you would agree with this or not, but I see that as a major issue. It has also deluded of shareholders, and typically the shareholder has no right in voting... [....] DOBBS: And it becomes blatantly, and Patricia again, I will invite you to comment on this, to corroborate or argue with me, but to me the stock option focus the CEO, the senior management team, indeed the company on short-term results. Drive the stock price. Forget about the assets that are built. Forget about the quality of the business, the fundamentals of the business drive for that short-term focus and in some cases, the temptations. The incentives were just overwhelming to the point that we have seen things like WorldCom. We've seen Enron, the most egregious example of that. Do you agree, Patricia? [....] DOBBS: The fact is that there was -- 20 years ago, there was a requirement, an expectation, a fundamental precept in corporate America that the CEO, the top management team, would be invested in their company. They would have ownership to whatever measure they could, given their financial condition. Today, options are handed out like confetti, many of them worth precisely the same as confetti, but it has really been a change. And, the idea of aligning CEOs, management, with shareholder interest is an interesting concept, because in point of fact, CEOs and management are the hired help, just like you and me, Aaron, and they have a job to do. _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold