Slashdot Mirror


Google Execs Happy With $1 Salaries

DarkClown writes "ZDNet is on the one hand reporting that Google execs will keep their $1 salaries again this year, and on the other hand is reporting that the executives cashed in more than $160 million worth of stock last month." From the stock article: "Since the search giant went public in August 2004, Brin has sold about 6.5 million shares at a market value of $1.68 billion. Page has sold about 5.8 million shares at a market value of $1.4 billion, according to calculations from Thomson Financial. Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, who was brought in to run the company before it went public, has sold more than 2.1 million shares, worth more than $502 million." They could be getting a multi-million dollar salary *and* the stock money. Good faith efforts go a long way in my book.

12 of 595 comments (clear)

  1. Not to be a dick... by Siguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But can we really say it's some amazing piece of good faith that they settled ONLY for 1.4 billion dollars in salary for the year?

    1. Re:Not to be a dick... by Feyr · · Score: 5, Informative

      From TA, they sold 6 millions shares, but they still own 30 millions. so they still have an interest in Doing Good (stock-price wise)

    2. Re:Not to be a dick... by Gravaton · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I am utterly saddened to see a comment like this modded "Insightful"

      "Stock - A type of security that signifies ownership in a corporation and represents a claim on part of the corporation's assets and earnings." -- dictionary.com (Stock)

      "A holder of stock (a shareholder) has a claim on a part of the corporation's assets and earnings. In other words, a shareholder is an owner of a company. Ownership is determined by the number of shares a person owns relative to the number of outstanding shares. For example, if a company has 1000 shares of stock outstanding, and one person owns 100 shares, that person would own and have claim to 10% of the company's assets." -- dictionary.com (Stock)

      So there, that's where people learn "stuff like [that]"...with basic research on the subject. You know, the way one learns just about anything.

      Your attitude towards your mutual funds genuinely confuses me. If you dislike them so much, why do you bother putting any money in? If you don't see any real growth, why do you carry on the investment? On the one hand, you're upset that your money hasn't grown. You "REALLY don't want to have to think about this shit. Someone should do it for [you]." So you're saying that someone should take care of and grow your money for you without you having to put in any effort. On the other hand you declare that you're 'old fashioned' and insist on working for your money, and that people who gain money without working (at something you define as legitimate work) for it are somehow in the wrong. So which is it? The good ol' Protestant Work Ethic, or "Someone should make my money more money for me because doing it myself is hard and I don't get it?"

      Not to mention that as a man who works in a technical field, you should understand the equally 'old fashioned' idea of RTFM. I hope you've never complained about an ignorant user, or someone who wanted you to do every simple little computing task for them. Your attitude towards managing your own assets seems to be a lot like theirs towards their computers...only they just want free time and help, you want free money!

      Having worked with brokers in the past and spoken with them at length to attempt to get an idea of how they do their job, I can assure you that investing is not "a pool cue to move billiard balls around a table". There's a lot of research, planning, analysis and careful thought put into trying to find the wisest strategies for investing. Is it a guess in the end? Well sure, nobody knows the future. But blasting an entire field simply because you couldn't bother taking the 5 minutes it would take to at least get a vague idea of what it involves? That's not "insulting" so much as it is offensively stupid.

      If you want to talk about what of value is created by the market...well that's a tough call. There's a lot of room for discussion on that point, and if you want to take the stance of "no" there's a lot of good arguments you could make. However, think about all the brokers out there putting in 9-12 hour days to try their best to grow the mutual funds that millions of Americans (I'm sure other nations as well, though I'm not as familiar with how their markets work) have their savings and retirement funds invested in. Maybe it's a super-idealistic idea, but if I could go home knowing I'd given a few million people $5 each more towards retirement with my day's work, I think I'd feel like I accomplished something tangible.

      Then we go back to a lengthy discussion about the "evils" of these large corporations. So let's do these one by one.

      The Sony Mavicam purchase - First you complain about how the manufacturer's warranty is "unacceptable"....yet you obviously accept it because you're buying their product. An angst-ridden teenager working a shitty job (and earning comission, most likely, for each warranty he sells) looks at you funny for not going for it. But in the end, you gave him your money.

      DirecTV - You liked your TV rates, but t

  2. Not only that... by k4_pacific · · Score: 5, Funny

    In addition to the billions they are making from their stock, their $1 salaries also allow them to qualify for food stamps. Just another perk...

    --
    Unknown host pong.
  3. Re:Good faith? by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I believe that Capital Gains Tax is higher than Income Tax (at least from personal experience). I'd be willing to believe "Good Faith" based on that.

    --
    "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
  4. Pay checks? by bmwatm · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, do they divy their one dollar up into bimonthly pay checks?

  5. Yes, but... Real stocks here. by Phoenix+Rising · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In this case, the Google founders and executives are cashing in on their IPO. It's not really the same as the typical salary to stock option crap that's going around. Let's face it, if you could get paid via capital gains (15% tax rate, until it's not taxed at all...) instead of salary (38% tax rate), why would you want a salary?

    Make dividends and true stock investments (investing in IPOs, new stock offerings, and startup stock payments) taxable at the capital gains rate and revert all the daytrading/recycled stock profits to the full tax rate; it will benefit new technologies and put the brakes on silly speculation trading (read: gambling for the rich).

    --
    Let us live so that when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry -- Mark Twain
  6. Another day another dollar... by Loquax · · Score: 5, Funny

    Or to be more truthful-- another day another 0.0027378507871321013004791238877481 cents

  7. Re:Rewarding Effort by Skippy_kangaroo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sadly this is not the way it has worked in practice.

    Executives are granted options that are already in the money on issue. Thus, they get substantial income even if the stock does nothing. If the stock goes down these options are regularly repriced with lower exercise prices which effectively removes all the downside risk.

    Furthermore, options are a poor tool. The link should be between the executives performance and outcomes, not the stock price. The stock price will move for many reasons unrelated to the executive's performance - for example, stocks go up in booms and yet you would be hard pressed to argue that any executive was responsible for the economic boom. Thus, at a minimum, they should only be paid when their stock outperforms other similar stocks (or even just the whole market index). Instead, you see executives being rewarded heavily for good luck. If the market is going up, only the most grossly incompetent executive could make a stock go down. A mere seat-warmer is still likely to get significant returns.

    The basic economics is that poorly designed incentive schemes, of which option grants are an example, encourage gaming of the system and not proper results or rewards.

  8. Re:Good faith? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ask yourself what the various levels of government have done to earn a quarter of the wealth spawned by Google.

    On top of all the standard responses (cops, roads, an army, etc), they built the Internet, without which Google couldn't exist.

  9. Re:Rewarding Effort by EvilMagnus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It isn't about tax evasion or good faith

    You're right. Technically, the term is tax avoidance : Tax evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance is making money while paying the smallest legal amount of tax on that money.

    Stock (dividend income) sales are taxed at a much lower rate than Regular Income. They were one of the tax cuts passed by Bush back in '02 (?). Prior to that, your tax rate on stock sales was whatever your Ordinary Income rate was (seems fair, right? The more you earn, the more you're taxed). What Bush did was scrap that, and said that so long as the stock was from a US company or certain multinationals, your tax rate was capped at 15%.

    When people talk about 'tax cuts for the rich', the dividend income tax change was the biggie.

    In the case of The Google Boys, it's the difference between paying a base 35% on $1.4Bn in Income, or paying a base 15% on $1.4Bn. That's over $200 million dollars less in tax.

    --
    -EvilMagnus
  10. Dark Side? by kunwon1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These guys started at the bottom of the pile, right? Just like the great majority of us, they were workers. Then they had a great idea, and now years later, they're billionaires because of it. It's the american dream. Why does everyone assume that just because they've made money they've turned to the dark side? 99% of you put in the same position wouldn't be turning down the billion dollars from stock sales. You'd have earned it fair and square, and you'd be very happy with yourself. I'm happy for them too, they've created probably -the- most useful tool on the internet, IMHO. Dave

    --
    Specialization is for insects. -Heinlein