Reading the article and calculations made sense but still baffled the mind. The comparison to other CEO’s was based on “the net sales of the company; its total return in its 2005 fiscal year; and the degree of risk in the pay package, measured by the ratio of stock-option grants (the most risky form of pay) to total pay.” I understand all of those factors but don’t quite see why CEO’s should profit so much more than the rest of the people making those companies go.
By the way the 2005 annual salaries, including bonuses and stock options ranged from $5.4 to $37.7 million.
I suppose I am a simple thinker with the thought that the wealth should be spread a little more evenly. Somehow I don’t think Crystal would mind reaping a little more reward from Bloomberg.
Take a look for yourself and let me know what your take is.
Comment Preview