Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CEO Questionably Used Pseudonym to Post Online

Posted by Zonk on from the anonymity-+-the-internet-= dept.

jpallas writes "The Wall Street Journal reports that court filings by the FTC about Whole Foods' plan to acquire Wild Oats reveal an unusual detail: The CEO of Whole Foods regularly posted to a Yahoo! stock bulletin board under a pseudonym. His alter ego was feisty, to say the least, and regularly disparaged the company that he later decided to acquire. A former SEC chairman called the behavior 'bizarre and ill-advised, even if it isn't illegal.' This certainly raises questions about online rights to free speech and anonymity, especially when the line between free speech and regulated speech depends on who is speaking as much as what they are saying."

6 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. SEC Rules by sunderland56 · · Score: 2, Informative
    The SEC has very strict rules about the public comments an officer of a corporation can make, particularly in the period between the end of a financial quarter and the public release of that quarter's results. If any of his postings fell within that period, they are illegal.

    And as a friend of mine who had dealings with them points out: the SEC make the CIA look like nice, friendly people.

  2. Re:I sh8t, I'm guilty by bonius_rex · · Score: 3, Informative

    A CEO is differentiated by registering as an insider with the SEC.

    http://biz.yahoo.com/t/85/3871.html

  3. smarmy doesn't mean what you think it means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Smarmy means "unpleasantly and excessively suave or ingratiating in manner or speech." This kind of behavior can't reasonably called "unpleasantly and excessively suave or ingratiating."

    It could, however, rather fairly be considered "scummy."

  4. Salary cut by teasea · · Score: 3, Informative

    That sure sounds impressive. How much did he cut it, and how prescisely did the employess benefit thereby?

    Article states he cut his salary to $1. Since CEOs make the majority of their money from other sources (especially those who found the company and have an enormous share of the stock), I'm guessing he cut his pay by 2 or 3 percent. Might be as much as 20 or 30 percent if the company had a bad year, though bad years rarely affect the execs compensation.

    I'm sure his total compensation is in a report somewhere.

    1. Re:Salary cut by Kreigaffe · · Score: 2, Informative

      That, actually, is fairly awesome. Though I don't know about those foundations at all. I may disagree strongly with what they stand for.

      That said, it's certainly a refreshing break from the CEOs who increase their compensation at the expense of the employees, and, occasionally, at the expense of the continued existence of the company itself.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    2. Re:Salary cut by fiendy · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not many CEO's behaving that way these days.

      Google "CEO salary of $1" and you get tons of hits. Google, Yahoo, Apple, etc, etc.

      I would disagree, there are quite a few CEO's that have their compensation in this format. Basically ties the objectives of management to the performance of the company (and in most cases - the company's stock price) through bonus packages, stock options, etc.

      Don't let the salary fool you. They still have access to $100k+ "expense accounts" and other reimbursements, which makes it nothing more than a cheap gesture.