$44.4 million for a few hours work

[kochman]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Having power and personally making the purchase are two vewry different things. He is using assests owned by shareholders (he is not the sole shareholder) to pay for the few hours of that guy's time.

Dude... he's using the assets of his old company, as far as you know... which he no controls.
Again, why do you care so much?

Or, do you expect the other CEO just to be out on the street without a penny because his company was bought out?
This happens in every single merger, the difference being, they usually get the other guy out beforehand, rather than a "few hours" after the deal is final. Your making a mountain out of a molehill.

[JollyRoger]

Duke is owned by many shareholders. The Duke CEO does own a majority of the shares. He is not making the purchase himself - he wasting the money of the company to pay for a few hours work. The fact that you have this fat parachutes for every single merger just underscores the point - tens of millions going to pay someone not to work. The people left holding the bag on that are shareholders and consumers.

And yes - if you get bought out and can't justify being retained - why should you get paid beyond a couple of weeks severance? What entitles a washed out CEO a bigger parachute than anyone else?

[kochman]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Duke is owned bvy many shareholders. The Duke CEO does own a majority of the shares. He is not making the purchase himself - he wasting the money of the company to pay for a few hours work. The fact that you have this fat parachutes for every single merger just underscores the point - tens of millions going to pay someone not to work. The people left holding the bag on that are shareholders and consumers.

And yes - if you get bought out - why should you get paid beyond a couple of weeks severance? What entitles a CEO a bigger parachute than anyone else?

Ok, JR... try to follow me though...

When a company buys out another company, the CEO of the now defunct company almost always pays out the former CEO.
This just happened a "few hours" on the other side of the transactions, but is the same process other than that.

Why should you? I don't know... I don't have any control of it... why is this one putting such a burr in your saddle when it happens almost all the time?

What entitles a CEO to more? I don't even care... that's up to the business... if you don't like the practice, don't invest in them.

[JollyRoger]

The CEO of company A does not personally buy out the CEO of Company B - the shareholders do. I can't follow you when your first step is a stumble.

[kochman]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

The CEO of company A does not personally buy out the CEO of Company B - the shareholders do. I can't follow you when your first step is a stumble.

Dude... what the hell are you even arguing about.
I know the CEO doesn't personally pay, I was being tongue in cheek...

CEOs get paid out all the time... why are you wigging out about this one?
The only difference is, it occurred several hours later than it would have usually happened.
What's the problem?

[JollyRoger]

What is the problem? As a shareholder of many companies, I think this practice is practically theft. The beta dog was justly compensated when he was running his company. If he can't justify his place in the merged company - so long - no need to rob the shareholders of 44 million - it is money for nothing.

[kochman]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

What is the problem? As a shareholder of many companies, I think this practice is practically theft. The beta dog was justly compensated when he was running his company. If he can't justify his place in the merged company - so long - no need to rob the shareholders of 44 million - it is money for nothing.

Ok, so, don't invest in the companies that engage in this practice...
I guess the fact that the stock went up 200% overnight meant that they felt they could give him a cut of that. Doesn't really matter though... I just don't understand why you are singling this occasion out when it happens regularly... as a shareholder of many companies, you should remember, as I do, all my investments are purely voluntary and I don't have to support Monsato or whoever if I don't like their practices.

I don't think anyone should get $44M (per annum) for anything... but it's out of my hands, so I don't spend much time worrying about it.

[JollyRoger]

First of all, the stock hasn't gone up 200%. Duke has traded in a range of $50 to $70 dollar a share the past 52 weeks and is currently in the mid-60's. And if every publically traded company is doing this, then that takes a large option off the investment table if you think that instead of complaining, I should just not invest. Why should I not complain about beta dogs making off with tens of millions of dollars?

[kochman]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

First of all, the stock hasn't gone up 200%. Duke has traded in a range of $50 to $70 dollar a share the past 52 weeks and is currently in the mid-60's. And if every publically traded company is doing this, then that takes a large option off the investment table if you think that instead of complaining, I should just not invest. Why should I not complain about beta dogs making off with tens of millions of dollars?

Not historically 200%, but it had a 200% rise in one day last week or the week before that.

So, don't invest if you don't like it, again.

I didn't say don't complain... feel free... I just don't get why you think this is such a special case compared to every other merger that has similar events occuring?!

I don't care what you invest in, but, if this is something that makes you upset... it stands to reason, you should take a stand... or, just trade purely with profit in mind... and then you don't have a lot of moral high ground from which to berate the profit driven CEOs on...

You're being pretty contradictory... to yourself.

[JollyRoger]

Show me the 200% rise in either stock. On the day the merger was announced, Duke lost 21 cents a share and Progess lost 73 cents a share (its biggest loss over a three month period). You keep wanting me to follow you, but you need to get your facts straight before I go down that rabbit hole.

[kochman]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Show me the 200% rise in either stock. On the day the merger was announced, Duke lost 21 cents a share and Progess lost 73 cents a share (its biggest loss over a three month period).

It happened July 3.

[JollyRoger]

On July 3, Progess shareholders got Duke shares in exchange for their Progess shares. They did not make a 200% gain that day. You are welcome to show me the math if you have it though.

[kochman]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

On July 3, Progess shareholders got Duke shares in exchange for their Progess shares. They did not make a 200% gain that day. You are welcome to show me the math if you have it though.

Google DUK... Look at the 5 day record.

There is a huge jump the morning of July 3, compared to July 2nd.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

[JollyRoger]

You do realize that there was a 3 for 1 reverse stock split, right?

As an example, someone that owned 30 shares at 10 dollars per share before the split would own 10 shares at 30 dollars per share after the split. No net gain - so to answer your question - sure the beta dog should have got a cut of that big pile of nothing.

[kochman]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

You do realize that there was a 3 for 1 reverse stock split, right?

As an example, someone that owned 30 shares at 10 dollars per share before the split would own 10 shares at 30 dollars per share after the split. No net gain - so to answer your question - sure the beta dog should have got a cut of that big pile of nothing.

I realize what that means... and believe me, certain folks (CEOs, ex CEOs) reaped the benefits.

Anyhow, you still haven't said why you are so up at arms about this particular merger beyond the golden parachute being opened a few hours after the regular time?

[JollyRoger]

If you realize what it means, then why are you pretending a 0% gain is a 200% gain? Why should any executive benefit from a zero net gain on a bookkeeping entry?

As for my complaint, this is just a specific example of a general trend. Should I not complain if my house gets robbed? Is my solution to move elsewhere?

[innonimatu]

Originally Posted by Mise

Now, I don't know whether Johnson was in on it, whether he double-crossed Duke's board by resigning in such an attention grabbing way, or whether he was pissed off at being tossed aside by the board and so resigned like that to highlight the shenanigans to the regulators and Progress's board members. Either way, though, it's not as straight forward as the media is generally making it out.

I was. The fiction that shareholders control corporations should be ended. The top executives control them, usually in a close relationship with the boards.

What I want is for corporations to be controlled by boards of elected representatives of their stakeholders: workers, customers, suppliers. We keep rearing politicians say that countries should be run like corporations, well, I say turn that logic around: if democracy works for countries it should work for other large organizations.
Shareholders? Just convert all shares to bonds after a set number of years. Corporations do not need shareholders, and shareholders are incapable of managing corporations.

[kochman]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

If you realize what it means, then why are you pretending a 0% gain is a 200% gain? Why should any executive benefit from a zero net gain on a bookkeeping entry?

So, you refuse to answer the original question...
The company did what every company does... why such excitement over this one?

Does there need to be a public gain for a CEO to get a package? No, not a prerequisite...

So, I ask, for the final time... Why the excitement over this one company in particular (and the misleading thread title, a la Foxnews)?

[JollyRoger]

The thread title is not misleading. The pay was structured as post-merger. He only worked a few hours post merger. He had already been richly rewarded for his pre-merger work.

[Formaldehyde]

Why is it so difficult to read the two articles in this thread before responding? And Forbes used almost exactly the same headline as the Daily Finance article in the OP, which is where the thread title originated.

Ousted Duke Energy CEO Earns Up to $44.4 Million for a Few Hours Work