Showing posts with label CEO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CEO. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 17, 2018
Bernie Sanders Takes On Billionaire CEOs
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
United Airlines CEO Attacks Passenger
Sunday, November 11, 2012
The industrialist, who resigned from the oil giant in 2007 after lying in court to cover up circumstances linked to his sexuality, believes that homosexual men and women may not be being chosen for top jobs at FTSE 100 companies because of their sexuality.
Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, Lord Browne, who is now openly homosexual, said that he believes gay rights should be as high on the agenda as other issues such as gender and race.
His comments, in the wake of the recent campaign to ensure fair representation of women in senior board roles, shine a light on an issue that is rarely discussed in the upper echelons of Britain’s leading companies.
Asked if homophobia exists in the City of London, Lord Browne said: “There appear to be no out gay chief executive officers in the top companies listed on the FTSE.
“This cannot be for want of talent. That leaves two explanations: either LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] candidates are self-selecting away from these positions, or they are not being selected for them.” » | James Quinn, Deputy Sunday Business Editor | Sunday, November 11, 2012
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
THE GUARDIAN: If business leaders had to explain why they are worth their extravagant salaries, we might see an end to corrosive inequality
When an economy is booming, unjustifiable inequalities in pay can easily escape our attention. In these straitened times, with big cuts in public services about to hit the most vulnerable, it is time to look more carefully at how work is rewarded in our society. We need to realise that recognising the significance of incentives should not lead to acceptance of the daylight robbery that passes for executive compensation today. A good place to start is by looking at corporate governance.
The facts about income inequality in the UK are nothing less than mind-boggling. The average income of a FTSE 100 chief executive, according to the most recent Guardian survey of executive pay, is over £3m per year, including bonuses and pension contributions. This is more than 100 times median household income. It is not uncommon for CEOs to run 200 or 300 times as much as the median pay of their employees or, in the case of Terry Leahy's final year at Tesco, for a CEO to be paid 500 times the average take-home pay of his colleagues.
Moreover, executive pay continues to march relentlessly upwards, unconnected to skill, judgment or underlying profitability. While the FTSE lost a third of its value in the year to September 2009, executive pay rose 10% during the same period. According to the Work Foundation, the ratio of average CEO pay to average UK earnings rose from 10:1 in 1980 to 75:1 in 2006 (and has continued to grow since). In short, the gains of economic growth are becoming increasingly concentrated in a small number of hands, while the wages of ordinary people have stagnated.
Should we care? New Labour's answer, famously encapsulated by Peter Mandelson, is that we should be "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich". Looking at runaway top-pay with a clear eye on its social and political consequences, Mandelson's claim looks as short-sighted as it is wrong-headed. Read on and comment >>> Martin O’Neill | Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Whatever happened to conscience? No responsible chief executive would feel good about siphoning off the cream for himself and leaving the worker bees with the crumbs. But these days, it seems that 'responsible' and 'CEO' are mutually exclusive concepts.
Taken to the extreme, this situation could eventually lead to revolution. History shows this to be so. Revolutions occur where extreme wealth and extreme poverty collide. The British are very complacent people, especially by comparison with the French, who have currently taken to the streets. But even a worm will turn. The élite shouldn't push their luck. – © Mark
This comment also appeared here
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
SKY NEWS: The outgoing BP chief executive Tony Hayward says he feels "demonised and vilified" over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill as the firm posts one of the biggest corporate losses in history. Joel Hills reports.
No, Tony, life certainly isn't fair when people who screw-up can walk away from a company with millions in the form of a golden parachute, yet others work all their lives, do things well, but walk away with next to nothing. Life certainly isn't fair. You got that right! – © Mark
THE TELEGRAPH: Tony Hayward, the outgoing chief executive of BP, is refusing to appear before a US Senate hearing which is examining whether the oil giant played any part in the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
The refusal of Mr Hayward, who announced his resignation on Tuesday, to travel to Washington was attacked by senior senators who said the company was already on "thin ice with the American people".
Senators are to continue pushing for Mr Hayward to appear, saying they wanted to question him over whether BP "advocated trading blood for oil".
The firm is also refusing to allow Sir Mark Allen- a former MI6 official who helped negotiate a valuable Libyan oil contract for BP with Colonel Gaddafi – to appear at the hearing.
BP has admitted that Sir Mark, an adviser to the firm, also spoke to Jack Straw, the former Justice Secretary, about Britain introducing a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya.
BP announced that it would instead send Peter Mather, the company's head of UK operations to appear before the Senate hearing. It is not clear whether this will be acceptable to the senators.
Robert Menéndez, a Democratic senator from New Jersey, said: "I would have thought that a company on thin ice with the American people for devastating the Gulf Coast would want to fully co-operate with our effort to fully understand the release of a terrorist who murdered 189 Americans". >>> Robert Winnett in Washington | Tuesday, July 27, 2010
What was that they used to speak about back in the good ol' days? It was something like ‘special relationship’. Hum! I wonder if that’s it? – Mark
THE TELEGRAPH: Tony Hayward has resigned as chief executive of BP, after the energy giant announced a record $17bn loss this year on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
The oil company also said that Bob Dudley, the American in charge of BP’s oil spill response unit, will now take over on October 1 and lead the company through an accelerated programme of $30bn in asset sales. BP made “clean” profits of $5bn, stripping out the effect of inventory changes and exceptionals, but took a $32.2bn pre-tax charge on the oil spill.
This is made up of a $20bn compensation fund for victims, clean-up charges and provisions for funding costs. The “clean” profits are a 74pc rise in last year’s figure of $2.9bn, as a result of higher oil prices and more efficient operations. BP will now press ahead with becoming smaller and more profitable, selling $30bn of exploration and production assets in the next 18 months.
Mr Dudley will also have to navigate a criminal investigation into the spill, a slew of litigation and ward off rivals seeking to pounce on the company's trophy assets. Dudley, who ran BP's troubled Russian joint venture, TNK-BP, said last month that for BP to "remain strong and viable in the US, it has a great deal of work to do." >>> Rowena Mason | Tuesday, July 27, 2010
DAILY EXPRESS: BP Boss Tony Hayward Sent to Siberia in £12m Exit Deal: BP boss Tony Hayward is to be sent to Siberia in a £12million exit deal designed to quell outrage in the United States, it emerged last night. >>> Padraic Flanagan | Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
CYBERPRESSE: Une source officielle a confirmé lundi que le chef de la direction de BP (BP), Tony Hayward, démissionnerait de son poste en octobre pour accepter un emploi avec TNK-BP, une coentreprise de la pétrolière en Russie.
L'image publique de Tony Hayward était devenue étroitement liée aux ratés de BP dans ses efforts pour maîtriser la fuite de pétrole dans le golfe du Mexique, qui a coûté plusieurs millions de dollars en dommages. >>> La Presse Canadienne, Nouvelle-Orléans | Lundi 26 Juillet 2010
THE GLOBE AND MAIL: BP’s Hayward to resign in October: Embattled CEO will take job with company’s joint venture in Russia, official says >>> Harry R. Weber, New Orleans, The Associated Press | Monday, July 26, 2010
MAIL ONLINE: The embattled head of BP is on the brink of bailing out today - with a golden parachute to break his fall.
Tony Hayward, who arrived at the company's headquarters in London this morning, will receive a seven-figure payoff and a pension estimated at £584,000 a year.
He will stand down today after three months of abuse left him described as the ‘most hated and clueless man in America’.
The enforced departure of the 53-year-old Briton will top the agenda at a crucial London board meeting today.
He has been widely seen as a ‘dead man walking’ ever since an oil-rig explosion led to the worst-ever environmental disaster in the U.S.
The focus will not be on if he goes but when, and how much it costs. During his 28 years at BP, he has built up a gold-plated £10.8million pension pot which he can start taking at 60.
He is also entitled to a year’s salary, equal to just over £1million.
His departure follows a disastrous series of PR gaffes since 11 died in an explosion on April 20 in the Gulf of Mexico.
One of his most notorious was to admit: ‘I want my life back’, at a time when millions of barrels of oil were gushing into the ocean, wrecking the livelihoods of thousands of Americans.
A few weeks later, his decision to go sailing on his yacht in the Isle of Wight added to suspicions that Mr Hayward was not being suitably contrite. But the level of the fury from America has been extraordinary and relentless despite the fact that BP was not solely responsible for the disaster.
President Obama warned: ‘He wouldn’t be working for me after any of those statements.’
Yesterday a BP spokesman insisted that Mr Hayward, whose family have been the victims of crank phone calls, hate mail and death threats, remains the company’s chief executive.
But his departure is inevitable, and will be the second headline-grabbing exit of a BP chief executive in just three years. In 2007, his predecessor Lord Browne dramatically resigned after admitting lying on oath to a High Court judge. >>> Becky Barrow and Daniel Bates | Monday, July 26, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
BBC: BP's chief executive Tony Hayward has been negotiating the terms of his exit, with a formal announcement likely within 24 hours, the BBC has learnt.
Mr Hayward has been widely criticised over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
BBC business editor Robert Peston said it was likely he would be replaced by his US colleague Bob Dudley, now in charge of the clean-up operation.
BP said Mr Hayward "remains our chief executive and has the full support of the board and senior management".
Our correspondent added that while BP had been preparing for a change at the top for some time, the company was waiting until progress had been made on stemming the leak and until it was possible to quantify the financial costs of the disaster.
BP is due to release its results for the second quarter on Tuesday.
It is expected to reveal a provision of up to $30bn (£19bn) for the costs of capping the well, compensation claims and fines to be paid, resulting in a massive quarterly loss.
BP's board is scheduled to meet on Monday ahead of the results.
Mr Hayward has been with the company for 28 years. >>> | Sunday, July 25, 2010
Friday, September 25, 2009
SPIEGEL ONLINE INTERNATIONAL: In a SPIEGEL interview, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, 55, discusses his astronomical bonuses, the mistakes and failures of his bank prior to the start of the global financial crisis and his proposals for better regulating financial markets.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Blankfein, two years ago, your $67.9 million bonus was the largest ever paid to a Wall Street banker. You recently said that you could understand the anger that people are expressing over inflated bonuses. How are we to understand this?
Blankfein: I think people legitimately question whether compensation is tied to performance and, looking back, they see that some people were enriched but did not seem to have any alignment with their shareholders. A large part of the compensation paid to our senior people, including mine, is paid in shares, which may be worth less or more depending on our performance well after they were granted. This is what our shareholders want and we are convinced of this alignment of interests.
SPIEGEL: Still, $67.9 million is an astronomical sum. Is there any way to justify this?
Blankfein: Our board of directors sets the pay of our most senior executives, including mine. They tie pay to the firm's performance and I believe we have established a strong track record of correlating growth in revenues to growth in compensation. The real test is whether compensation is reduced when performance changes. For example, in 1994, the firm made a loss and the partners had to pay money back to the firm so that the staff could be paid. And, in 2008, which was a very difficult year as you know, I was paid no bonus, even though the firm was profitable.
SPIEGEL: That all sounds very rational. But don't such payments promote greed as the primary motivator?
Blankfein: I think we all know that greed can drive behavior, but it tends to be short term and ultimately destructive. Our leadership team stands out because most of our people have built their whole career at the firm and stayed through many years and many changes in the market. When our people leave they tend to go on to other positions -- whether in government or other forms of public service -- that no one would do if their were motives were financial. Those characteristics don't make me think of "greed."
SPIEGEL: So only modest, good people work for Goldman Sachs? We hardly believe that.
Blankfein: I have stated my honest view of things.
SPIEGEL: This week in Pittsburgh, the G-20 will discuss stricter regulation of bonus payments. Based on what you have said, you believe that such efforts will do nothing to prevent future crises?
Blankfein: That is not what I said. The incentive aspect played a role in the crisis, but it was not the primary cause -- I think you have to look at the macroeconomic backdrop, the concentrations of risk in certain institutions and the fact that many, including regulators, should in hindsight have had better information and acted sooner to address capital and liquidity shortfalls. >>> | Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)