Interesting article on Bonuses paid to Boeing CEO and quite likely some of the other Executives at Boeing. Are they justified given the fact that he was on the Board of Directors for a lot of the decisions that were made that have gotten Boeing into the current mess it is in?
For details go to:
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlo ... reserved=0

Link does not appear to work. Here is a better one I hope.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compani ... d=msedgntp

Link does not appear to work. Here is a better one I hope.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compani ... d=msedgntp

to be quite frank, no. With these awarded bonuses it just shows how lousy these bonussystem works. Boeing isn't in good shape and largely by doing of the leadership at Boeing, perhaps in the past ten years, but still.
I once read an peer reviewed article which researched if bonuses for executices actually have a net positive effect for the company, stock price as an indicator. It shows that between 10% - 30% of the basic salery of the CEO, it has a positive effect, anything above and below, it only has a negative effect. Bonuses have mostly a perfers effect.

And the CEO's total compensation last year is estimated to be 158 times that of the company's median employee is quite redicioulous. Taking in two days as much as median employee isn't acceptable either.

These kinds of compensation has nothing to do with performence, but just the old boys network doing it's job and of course "mine is bigger then yours"-mentality.

No.

End of thread

Calhoun was tasked with bringing MAX back into the air. That is exactly what happened - MAX got recertified under his watch, hope is that MAX will turn into a major revenue stream for Boeing.
Should Calhoun get a credit for that? SHould that credit have a monetary value? Exactly how much, from your perspective?

kalvado wrote:

Calhoun was tasked with bringing MAX back into the air. That is exactly what happened - MAX got recertified under his watch, hope is that MAX will turn into a major revenue stream for Boeing.
Should Calhoun get a credit for that? SHould that credit have a monetary value? Exactly how much, from your perspective?

So he did what he was actually paid to do, but deserves a fat bonus as well? Revenue is one thing, profit is another thing entirely. It's debatable if MAX will ever now turn a profit for Boeing, but we'll never know because they don't break their finances down by aircraft program.

The whole MAX fiasco happened on the watch of the BOD. None of them lost their job and they get fat bonuses as well? Nice work if you can get it!

scbriml wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Calhoun was tasked with bringing MAX back into the air. That is exactly what happened - MAX got recertified under his watch, hope is that MAX will turn into a major revenue stream for Boeing.
Should Calhoun get a credit for that? SHould that credit have a monetary value? Exactly how much, from your perspective?

So he did what he was actually paid to do, but deserves a fat bonus as well? Revenue is one thing, profit is another thing entirely. It's debatable if MAX will ever now turn a profit for Boeing, but we'll never know because they don't break their finances down by aircraft program.

The whole MAX fiasco happened on the watch of the BOD. None of them lost their job and they get fat bonuses as well? Nice work if you can get it!

I can very well see the agreement along the lines of base pay + reward for MAX.
MAX may not turn a profit per se - but assuming the program in limbo and bringing it back to life definitely reduces those losses. WHich is beneficial for company and shareholders, and does deserve a thank you (possibly with a check stapled to it)
There are definitely cases when achieving KPI does nothing - or worse - for the company's bottom line, but reviving MAX is not the case.

My opinion for what it is worth is that should the current CEO get such a bonus for a problem that developed while he was on the Board of Directors and not properly doing his duties as a board member in letting it develop.
NO!
None of the other Board members along with him who were on the board and getting payments as board members (around $250,000 US a year as far as I understand) for directing the Company can claim they are innocent. He has along with other executives who have been involved have been getting a bonus for creating and/or letting a problem develop and then supposedly fixing it. Not only that because of the slow reaction and lack of admittance/cover up that there was an issue by Boeing and lying to the regulators to what was going on has caused a much longer time for the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft to get declared airworthy again and back in service. They paid a sizable payment to the DOJ while settling out of court to cover up the criminal actions/inactions that occurred within Boeing which has caused the Company one of the greatest losses of any company in US Corporate history. They have been overseeing Boeing during what is regarded in most Business circles as one of the worst management messes in US business history. Other issues that have been mismanaged include the KC-46 on the military side, Boeing 787 delivery halt and the issues with the Space division that show a management that has been asleep and/or of very questionable competence on the job. If this is what management can get bonuses for it does not bode well for the US Aerospace industry and Boeing in the future. As stated before: Nice Work if you can get it!

If you're outside the 1 or even 0.5%, you're never getting on a BOD to make decisions on bonus criteria anyway. And even if you're in that club, if you're too outspoken or don't toe the line, there's no seat for you on any board anywhere. It's a rigged game.

Bonuses are needed to even RETAIN the services of people who MIGHT be able to get the job done.

I think IF they have the right team in place, they are worth a TON of money. If they do NOT, then their pay should not exceed $1 million. They should be placeholders until the actual leadership team can be hired.

Your goal is X. If you exceed that goal, you also get a bonus. It may not be right, but it happened.

LCDFlight wrote:

Bonuses are needed to even RETAIN the services of people who MIGHT be able to get the job done.

I think IF they have the right team in place, they are worth a TON of money. If they do NOT, then their pay should not exceed $1 million. They should be placeholders until the actual leadership team can be hired.

Not necessarily - having experience in 'the right areas' is overrated given the range of leadership challenges some companies face. Corporate strategy aptitude is as much about getting people to move the same direction as knowing which pieces need to be moved and when. In some situations, hiring a regional construction superintendent would make more sense than an MBA who only knows how to promote efficiencies. Every incoming CEO would do well to remember that the directors who brief them upon entry have their own fiefdoms and BS to defend, and are not always giving them an accurate view of the organization's strengths and weaknesses.

seb146 wrote:

Your goal is X. If you exceed that goal, you also get a bonus. It may not be right, but it happened.

A few years ago the BOD got bonusses for delivering the MAX on time and budget. Having done so by cutting corners that are now biting them in the ass.

Now the BOD get bonusses for solving the mess they themselves made and got bonusses for!

I am sure from a legal point of view it all adds up, but how does this make sense?
How can the BOD, with a straight face, tell their employees and vendors that costs need to be cut, while at the same time rewarding themselves generously for incompetence?

petertenthije wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Your goal is X. If you exceed that goal, you also get a bonus. It may not be right, but it happened.

A few years ago the BOD got bonusses for delivering the MAX on time and budget. Having done so by cutting corners that are now biting them in the ass.

Now the BOD get bonusses for solving the mess they themselves made and got bonusses for!

I am sure from a legal point of view it all adds up, but how does this make sense?
How can the BOD, with a straight face, tell their employees and vendors that costs need to be cut, while at the same time rewarding themselves generously for incompetence?

The same way logic that it is "completely" justified that Benjamin Smith (Air France - KLM CEO) is getting a bonus for getting state support

Aaron747 wrote:

If you're outside the 1 or even 0.5%, you're never getting on a BOD to make decisions on bonus criteria anyway. And even if you're in that club, if you're too outspoken or don't toe the line, there's no seat for you on any board anywhere. It's a rigged game.

This. That's why since the 1970-ish the CEO salaries and bonuses have exploded, while the median salaries for employees have been stagnated.

Dutchy wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

If you're outside the 1 or even 0.5%, you're never getting on a BOD to make decisions on bonus criteria anyway. And even if you're in that club, if you're too outspoken or don't toe the line, there's no seat for you on any board anywhere. It's a rigged game.

This. That's why since the 1970-ish the CEO salaries and bonuses have exploded, while the median salaries for employees have been stagnated.

It's a somewhat different story. There is an established practice of overpaying top executives - and even Boeing is not in position to change that right now. Company is in a tough situation, and they do need competent leadership, more than ever.
Could they offer new CEO reduced compensation because they think company is hurting? Sure
Same as with lower level folks - if there is another job which pays more - go ahead and look for better pastures.
I suspect Calhoun would have a better chance of finding new job than most machinist or FAs.
Is it fair? Not really. But it is what it is.

kalvado wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

If you're outside the 1 or even 0.5%, you're never getting on a BOD to make decisions on bonus criteria anyway. And even if you're in that club, if you're too outspoken or don't toe the line, there's no seat for you on any board anywhere. It's a rigged game.

This. That's why since the 1970-ish the CEO salaries and bonuses have exploded, while the median salaries for employees have been stagnated.

It's a somewhat different story. There is an established practice of overpaying top executives - and even Boeing is not in position to change that right now. Company is in a tough situation, and they do need competent leadership, more than ever.
Could they offer new CEO reduced compensation because they think company is hurting? Sure
Same as with lower level folks - if there is another job which pays more - go ahead and look for better pastures.
I suspect Calhoun would have a better chance of finding new job than most machinist or FAs.
Is it fair? Not really. But it is what it is.

Fair or not, isn't really the question for me. The question is more, is it desirable for society at large. I do not think so. And there is loads of evidence to suggest it isn't. Compensation needs to be just and there needs to be more of a fair balance between senior management and the people lower on the food chain. Who to solve this? I do not have an answer to it. I only know that we need to solve it, otherwise this will end very badly.

Dutchy wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

This. That's why since the 1970-ish the CEO salaries and bonuses have exploded, while the median salaries for employees have been stagnated.

It's a somewhat different story. There is an established practice of overpaying top executives - and even Boeing is not in position to change that right now. Company is in a tough situation, and they do need competent leadership, more than ever.
Could they offer new CEO reduced compensation because they think company is hurting? Sure
Same as with lower level folks - if there is another job which pays more - go ahead and look for better pastures.
I suspect Calhoun would have a better chance of finding new job than most machinist or FAs.
Is it fair? Not really. But it is what it is.

Fair or not, isn't really the question for me. The question is more, is it desirable for society at large. I do not think so. And there is loads of evidence to suggest it isn't. Compensation needs to be just and there needs to be more of a fair balance between senior management and the people lower on the food chain. Who to solve this? I do not have an answer to it. I only know that we need to solve it, otherwise this will end very badly.

End badly? It has been going badly since the early 1970s. Much of what's going wrong in the world today has some connection to it - namely hardening of political divisions.

Aaron747 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Bonuses are needed to even RETAIN the services of people who MIGHT be able to get the job done.

I think IF they have the right team in place, they are worth a TON of money. If they do NOT, then their pay should not exceed $1 million. They should be placeholders until the actual leadership team can be hired.

Not necessarily - having experience in 'the right areas' is overrated given the range of leadership challenges some companies face. Corporate strategy aptitude is as much about getting people to move the same direction as knowing which pieces need to be moved and when. In some situations, hiring a regional construction superintendent would make more sense than an MBA who only knows how to promote efficiencies. Every incoming CEO would do well to remember that the directors who brief them upon entry have their own fiefdoms and BS to defend, and are not always giving them an accurate view of the organization's strengths and weaknesses.

I totally, agree, and do you have a solution to those corporate governance problems? If you do, (and build a track record to that effect), maybe you can get a $50MM CEO job.

That's all, just saying the RIGHT people are worth a lot of money. I have worked for companies that hinged almost entirely on the CEO navigating tough situations. Without the right CEO, any company can be destroyed. Shareholders pretty much understand this. Boeing shareholders are acutely are of it.

I'm a firm believer in employees (including the CEO here, who is a mere employee) having a stake in the business, as an incentive to perform.

The problem with these CEOs is that they're given a huge stake, but along with it get also a huge salary, and bonus on top of it ! And golden hello, and golden parachutes, and golden pensions, etc.

It's totally ridiculous, and there is little incentive to perform anymore : the worse you can do is being very rich instead of ultra rich.

Aaron747 wrote:

End badly? It has been going badly since the early 1970s. Much of what's going wrong in the world today has some connection to it - namely hardening of political divisions.

Exactly, extrapolate the past 40 years with another 20years of the same policies......... you don't need to be a genius to see what is will happen to society at large. Add the far-reaching consequences of robotization and what that will do to the job market and you have some ideas of what needs to be done.

These bonuses are excessive, but only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. A system change is needed to bring the balance back. And that will happen one way or another. The only question is, are we going to do it slowly and controllably, or do we collectively choose to get it past the boiling point and move from there.

Aesma wrote:

I'm a firm believer in employees (including the CEO here, who is a mere employee) having a stake in the business, as an incentive to perform.

The problem with these CEOs is that they're given a huge stake, but along with it get also a huge salary, and bonus on top of it ! And golden hello, and golden parachutes, and golden pensions, etc.

It's totally ridiculous, and there is little incentive to perform anymore : the worse you can do is being very rich instead of ultra rich.

Agree, agree and agree. I too am a firm believer that employees should have a stake, and a bonus if the company performs well. But given that a company is a collective enterprise and each and everyone contributes to the result, why not have the bonuses and stock option equally divided among everyone? Why should a CEO get more than a cleaner? The job part is what you get paid for. There you can differentiate, not in bonuses and stocks.

LCDFlight wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Bonuses are needed to even RETAIN the services of people who MIGHT be able to get the job done.

I think IF they have the right team in place, they are worth a TON of money. If they do NOT, then their pay should not exceed $1 million. They should be placeholders until the actual leadership team can be hired.

Not necessarily - having experience in 'the right areas' is overrated given the range of leadership challenges some companies face. Corporate strategy aptitude is as much about getting people to move the same direction as knowing which pieces need to be moved and when. In some situations, hiring a regional construction superintendent would make more sense than an MBA who only knows how to promote efficiencies. Every incoming CEO would do well to remember that the directors who brief them upon entry have their own fiefdoms and BS to defend, and are not always giving them an accurate view of the organization's strengths and weaknesses.

I totally, agree, and do you have a solution to those corporate governance problems? If you do, (and build a track record to that effect), maybe you can get a $50MM CEO job.

That's all, just saying the RIGHT people are worth a lot of money. I have worked for companies that hinged almost entirely on the CEO navigating tough situations. Without the right CEO, any company can be destroyed. Shareholders pretty much understand this. Boeing shareholders are acutely are of it.

A solution is unrealistic because ultimately BODs are comprised of people from similar backgrounds and ways of thinking. To them, pedigree and reputation are paramount. There are cases where seemingly ‘unqualified’ persons have performed well as CEO, but not commonly enough to turn the tide.

In any case, I wouldn’t be interested in a CEO gig because they don’t have much reservoir for hobbies or family life. Then they hit 65 with bags of money and realize it’s time to start living.

Incentives for short-term goals deliver short-term focus. The BOD is incentivizing the same shitty leadership that has put them in their mess.

Dutchy wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I'm a firm believer in employees (including the CEO here, who is a mere employee) having a stake in the business, as an incentive to perform.

The problem with these CEOs is that they're given a huge stake, but along with it get also a huge salary, and bonus on top of it ! And golden hello, and golden parachutes, and golden pensions, etc.

It's totally ridiculous, and there is little incentive to perform anymore : the worse you can do is being very rich instead of ultra rich.

Agree, agree and agree. I too am a firm believer that employees should have a stake, and a bonus if the company performs well. But given that a company is a collective enterprise and each and everyone contributes to the result, why not have the bonuses and stock option equally divided among everyone? Why should a CEO get more than a cleaner? The job part is what you get paid for. There you can differentiate, not in bonuses and stocks.

If you owned a company worth $100 million, and you decided that the perfect leader cost $1 million/year to safeguard your organization's future, would you also make the decision to pay the cleaner $1 million / year? Why or why not? Remember, I am asking you about your personal property, and it is your decision. Very interested in your thoughts.

Aesma wrote:

I'm a firm believer in employees (including the CEO here, who is a mere employee) having a stake in the business, as an incentive to perform.

The problem with these CEOs is that they're given a huge stake, but along with it get also a huge salary, and bonus on top of it ! And golden hello, and golden parachutes, and golden pensions, etc.

It's totally ridiculous, and there is little incentive to perform anymore : the worse you can do is being very rich instead of ultra rich.

If you are a Boeing shareholder, do you care about what the CEO and his/her family actually deserve, or do you care about retaining the right person to run the business? The right person has opportunities. The window of time is very short when you have enough background, but are still young and agile enough to be a CEO. Getting the right person to run a $140 billion company like Boeing is worth a lot of thought. The wrong person could tank the company forever. Much is at stake. If the company tanks, a lot of middle class people's retirement account will be affected. The industrial base of the USA will be affected.

Aesma wrote:

I'm a firm believer in employees (including the CEO here, who is a mere employee) having a stake in the business, as an incentive to perform.

The problem with these CEOs is that they're given a huge stake, but along with it get also a huge salary, and bonus on top of it ! And golden hello, and golden parachutes, and golden pensions, etc.

It's totally ridiculous, and there is little incentive to perform anymore : the worse you can do is being very rich instead of ultra rich.

That’s exactly my problem with these positions as well.

It’s a no lose situation at the top. New CEO gets a few million just for showing up. Meets some of his promises...a few more million. Screwed up and accidentally tanks the company?... well, here’s a few million for trying but please leave.

I’d gladly take on the role of CEO. I have no experience, would make some poor decisions, and I would undoubtedly be let go in short order. But that ending is not so different from my current position anyway. Difference is they won’t pay me a few hundred thousand to a few million to leave. It might be a tumultuous few months for the company, but hey, I'm cashing out anyway so who cares. Then I'll write a book about it and go on the pubic speaker tour.

petertenthije wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Your goal is X. If you exceed that goal, you also get a bonus. It may not be right, but it happened.

A few years ago the BOD got bonusses for delivering the MAX on time and budget. Having done so by cutting corners that are now biting them in the ass.

Now the BOD get bonusses for solving the mess they themselves made and got bonusses for!

I am sure from a legal point of view it all adds up, but how does this make sense?
How can the BOD, with a straight face, tell their employees and vendors that costs need to be cut, while at the same time rewarding themselves generously for incompetence?

No, it is not right. But, it is in the contract.

LCDFlight wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I'm a firm believer in employees (including the CEO here, who is a mere employee) having a stake in the business, as an incentive to perform.

The problem with these CEOs is that they're given a huge stake, but along with it get also a huge salary, and bonus on top of it ! And golden hello, and golden parachutes, and golden pensions, etc.

It's totally ridiculous, and there is little incentive to perform anymore : the worse you can do is being very rich instead of ultra rich.

Agree, agree and agree. I too am a firm believer that employees should have a stake, and a bonus if the company performs well. But given that a company is a collective enterprise and each and everyone contributes to the result, why not have the bonuses and stock option equally divided among everyone? Why should a CEO get more than a cleaner? The job part is what you get paid for. There you can differentiate, not in bonuses and stocks.

If you owned a company worth $100 million, and you decided that the perfect leader cost $1 million/year to safeguard your organization's future, would you also make the decision to pay the cleaner $1 million / year? Why or why not? Remember, I am asking you about your personal property, and it is your decision. Very interested in your thoughts.

I was not talking about salaries, I was talking about bonuses linked to the performance of the company. I guess you missed that part.

Interesting, I have worked for 3 Aerospace companies in two different countries with many different "Superstar" CEOs who were getting big bonuses and salaries and I have seen these superstars have a complete total lack of leadership, knowledge and make stupid decisions that cost the companies millions of dollars in losses and walk off with millions of dollars after. I believe that the cleaner could have done a better job and cost less money than the CEOs. I am not certain what these CEOs were taught in business school as they all had been there to obtain Finance, Accounting and/or MBAs but it sure wasn't how to run a company successfully. The only thing they had learned was how to obtain as much money as possible before the company got into trouble and then walk out the door either by force or by leaving.

Boeing is one of the worst run companies in the country. But on the bright side, capitalism competes executive pay up, while the vast majority of the employees see their wages competed down. You know...to “retain talent”

MaverickM11 wrote:

Boeing is one of the worst run companies in the country. But on the bright side, capitalism competes executive pay up, while the vast majority of the employees see their wages competed down. You know...to “retain talent”

Funny how retaining talent only works in one end of the corporate ladder.

Chemist wrote:

Incentives for short-term goals deliver short-term focus. The BOD is incentivizing the same shitty leadership that has put them in their mess.

And the short-term goals are there because of they way the stock market works. It used to be that you will buy a company's shares and wait for dividends. Now the price of the shares themselves is the most important factor. So, the long term health of the company is no longer the main focus of the management. Cut the costs, see the price of the shares go up, then sell the shares. If as a result of your cost cutting the company declines and go bankrupt it's not your problem anymore.

1st Quarter Results 2021. No surprises just more cash bleed as expected.
For details go to:
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... /#comments

Only in their own minds.

kalvado wrote:

Calhoun was tasked with bringing MAX back into the air. That is exactly what happened - MAX got recertified under his watch, hope is that MAX will turn into a major revenue stream for Boeing.
Should Calhoun get a credit for that? SHould that credit have a monetary value? Exactly how much, from your perspective?

So Calhoun singlehandedly solved all the MAX problems? What the f**k was he doing in the BOD ( became chairman as at his watch less than 500 people died because of Boeing).

Having worked at Boeing before, it's a bit of a dilemma (ethically speaking). Should executives receive fat checks when regular employees don't get any incentives? No. However, part of being an executive is that their incentive is different from regular employees: for the top C-Suite, theirs is tied to an average performance of the company for the preceding 3 years. And given that many put in long hours of work, while I would like for them to share the pain with their lower tiered employees, I can't exactly fault them if they'd rather earn a bonus.

I was at the company at the time Calhoun took over and he was a breath of fresh air (not to say Muilenburg was bad; he was just stale) so I think he deserves his bonus.

I am retired now from Boeing and I would sure like to see an Executive there that put in long hours of work. I saw a lot of executives who where there long hours but they did not appear to be doing much work just putting on a show. I worked six day weeks for most of my time there including almost all weekends and I don’t ever recall seeing an executive around on a weekend and/or a holiday.

Reminds me of 2008. There was a demand to limit bankers' bonuses. The banks argued in that case they may not be able to maintain the best talent.

Anybody heard the name Zeiss before?
"Carl Zeiss AG branded as ZEISS, is a German manufacturer of optical systems and optoelectronics, founded in Jena, Germany in 1846 by optician Carl Zeiss. Together with Ernst Abbe (joined 1866) and Otto Schott (joined 1884) he laid the foundation for today's multi-national company.
...
Carl Zeiss AG is owned by the foundation Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_AG

The foundation was founded in 1889 with only 17 paragraphs. Abbe later also gave his shares to the foundation. In 1896 the paragraphs were expanded to 122 paragraphs.

The left wing politician/ political philosopher Sahra Wagenknecht in her book "Prosperity without greed" takes this foundation as an example how capitalism should work. Apparently the management compensation was restricted to IIRC 20 times average (or was it lowest?) salary in the company.
Somehow neither the Zeiss Foundation nor Google wants to tell the original paragraphs/ statutes. Instead the foundation says that in 2004 the statutes were adapted to social, economic and legal changes.
Well, they did quite o.k. even before 2004.
In German:
https://www.carl-zeiss-stiftung.de/germ ... tatut.html