Hearing the views of (former) CEO’s and their legislative proxies, I was saddened by the ungrateful, shareholding “public”.
Mr. Mozilo’s situation pained me. Shareholders ought to understand that it is ok to use company resources to help the spouse if things are “not out of whack”. In fact, if things are really good, shareholders should, with alacrity, seize further opportunities. I'd recommend, for example, paying for spring break in Cancun for their CEO’s teenaged offspring; retaining the dog whisperer to improve the pet poodle's manners; etc. Bravo Mr. Mozilo!
Now, some might be inclined to check the credentials of Mr. Issa’s optician; and comment in a snooty, educated manner on the difference between buying stock and just getting them free. Call me naïve, but I find it perfectly plausible that managers would be extra cautious and care deeply about stock-based losses, the same as shareholders who happen to have paid for their shares.
I would also like to commend Mr. Davis III for trying to point out that managers have no control over external things such as the “economy” when he rightly says that the housing crisis would have happened no matter what. Obviously when things go south people should blame, say, Mr. Bernanke; China; or perhaps global warming. I am sure he has good reason not to reveal why managers do deserve credit during boom times. My plebian brain just cannot figure it out, but I suspect it might have something to do with national security.
Lastly, one must praise Mr. Finnegan’s excellent skills distinguishing “judgment” from “ethics”. Would that they had taught me that in b-school!
No comments:
Post a Comment