Did the former CEO start at the salary he ended up with? Looks to me like his salary was mostly in stock. Increases in stock options can yield better dividends than upping her salary. Seems it would act as an incentive, too. The better your company does, the more money you make.
Cindie
You are exactly right with the smoke and mirrors, Cindie. Observe:
But while she may have shattered that glass ceiling, her pay is another story. Looking at the company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Elizabeth MacDonald notes that Barra will be paid $4.4 million in total compensation, which includes a base salary of $1.6 million. Akerson, on the other hand, made an estimated $9 million, with a $1.7 million base salary and $7.3 million in stock. That means Barra will make less than half of what he made. In fact, Akerson will continue to make more as her, as GM will pay him $4.68 million as an outside senior adviser.
Notice, they do not reveal what her other compensation is and yes, his stock is likely priced out at what it was when he cashed out the options minus their value when he aquired them for that compensation amount. Her's is likely only the value of the options given so far, not any appreciation on them if she has not cashed them out. So as far as base pay they are 100,000 between them and there is ZERO indication that we are comparing STARTING salaries or his Final salary versus her starting. Liberals are such distortion artists. Disingenous pigs. So tired of double speak either because they do not understand what they are looking at OR they are hoping to deliberately deceive people who don't know what they are looking at. That said, she makes 7% less then he does in base salary, again not knowing if we are comparing starting versus final salaries.
Edit to add: Dummies, CEO's and other senior and even middle managers are compensated with stock options as an incentive to performance. Many times their compensation package outside of BASE pay is considerably higher depending on how well the performance of the company is and how the stock options increase in value. Yes, there can be ethical issues inherent to that, many of which are being nipped in the bud by making directors and executives PERSONALLY responsible for financial statements, but putting ethics aside, CEO's and other executives and even middle managers are basically given large incentives they can help 'create' for themselves via exceptional performance for the company. That larger part of their compensation packages usually are directly tied to their ability to create benefit for that corporation and as an extension create benefit for themselves so any difference over the years you may see in that more caustic form of compensation is usually due to market conditions, economic realities(like those created by your savior), and the performance of that individual CEO not what sex parts they have between their legs you boobs.
