Slashdot Mirror


Circuit City Rewards Execs As Stock Tanks

jamie tipped us to Dean Baker's Beat the Press blog, where Baker comments on a followup to Circuit City's firing of all its highest-paid salespeople last March (Slashdot discussion here). Circuit City's stock has cratered in the meanwhile, and their response has been to offer $1 million retention bonuses to executive VPs. Baker points out that each one of these bonuses represents 35 years' salary for one of the fired salespeople.

65 of 354 comments (clear)

  1. Excellent move! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just think how much they could save if they fired all the salespeople?

    1. Re:Excellent move! by Duhavid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Think of how much *more* money they could save if they fired
      all the Executives, the ones who make the decisions that are
      obviously quite poor! It runs to millions!

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    2. Re:Excellent move! by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From the POV of personal profit, there is no reason not to loot and destroy a company if there are no negative consequences.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:Excellent move! by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The question is who do you replace those executives with and how much better would their decisions be?

      Contrary to popular myth, a higher education does not assert one can make superior decisions. By in large our education system has become nothing more than a good 'ol boy network. In fact, the last several large companies I've worked for, could easily have been replaced with high school drop outs and been as successful as making good decisions.

      Generally big business works like this. You used to work for Joe. You brown nosed Joe a lot. You finally get a new position at a new company because the person hiring you went to school with Joe. Joe calls you to find out how you two can now do business together. You take turns propping each other up with sales that only makes sense, short term, on paper. In the mean time, you know have created your own apprentice and the first part is now primed to repeat. Now, since your short term deals look good on paper, you are now given a large raise and your parachute is bolstered. In a couple of years down the road, the short term stupidity catches up with you and you are asked to quietly leave. You now move on to another company where stupidly is rewarded. Repeat.

      The vast majority of big business has nothing to do with sound decision making. American Airlines is the poster boy which usurped the crown from Enron and its kin.

      So yes, superior decision making can EASILY be found by the common man on the street...but business isn't about superior decision making...it's about who you know...who you went to school with...and how readily you can lie to maintain your position to build your parachute up while floating to your next parachute.

      Business work differently in other 1st world countries, but in the US, idiots with huge egos a well connected friends, by in large, run US corporations. Obviously there are exceptions.

    4. Re:Excellent move! by servognome · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When I as a programmer make a poor design decision, I do something to make it up to my customer.
      We'd probably be better off if more people took pride in their work the way you do. Unfortunately, it's all become about the paycheck and getting by doing the bare minimum.
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  2. Let's see here ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lay off all the people that were actually making money for the company, and pay big bucks to keep the people who brought the company to the point where it had to lay people off.

    Brilliant!

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:Let's see here ... by xs650 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's the Golden Rule in action. Those who have the gold rule.

    2. Re:Let's see here ... by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If the company does poorly, you pay big bucks to bring in new hotshot execs. If the company does well, you pay them well to reward their results. It's quite a racket!

      The big problem I see in all this is that US executives have a huge upside (Goldman Sachs CEO got a $68 million dollar bonus this year), but with no downside (Merrill Lynch fired its failed CEO with a $160 million golden parachute). If you want to argue execs deserve huge pay because so much money is at stake, then they should also stand to leave the company hundreds of millions poorer than they came into it, if they underperform. If they don't want to be personally liable for their huge losses, neither should they stand to take so much of the potential winnings (as they do now).

    3. Re:Let's see here ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Much of the fault lies in the fact that the relationship between the CEO and Board of Directors is no longer adversarial in large corporations. This has the effect of removing any check on an errant CEO's actions. Personally, I think a good first step toward fixing that would be to make it illegal for a CEO to serve on the board of another company.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:Let's see here ... by smilindog2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hear you. It's not the "new" American way, though. It's been that way since I entered the work force full time in '86. The problems at Circuit City are that stupid people got into positions of power (kinda like some governments close to home lately). This kind of thing is more common than bombs exploding in Baghdad. I'm surprised it made it onto the main Slashdot page.

      --
      Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
    5. Re:Let's see here ... by rasputin465 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you want to argue execs deserve huge pay because so much money is at stake, then they should also stand to leave the company hundreds of millions poorer than they came into it, if they underperform.

      This is the whole purpose behind corporations; they were originally given the rights and privileges of a human being in order to alleviate much of the risk to the execs. If the company goes bankrupt, the people associated with the corporation (particularly, the execs) get off scott-free. The movie The Corporation gives a pretty good (albeit somewhat biased) overview of the history, legal structure of corps.

    6. Re:Let's see here ... by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The big problem I see in all this is that US executives have a huge upside (Goldman Sachs CEO got a $68 million dollar bonus this year), but with no downside (Merrill Lynch fired its failed CEO with a $160 million golden parachute).

      First off Goldman Sachs is a terrible example you used. Their performance is phenomenal and their shareholders and clients are happy to pay out these bonuses. The funny part is that $68M isn't even that much for them. They had one of their investment guys making almost $~80M and he quit b/c he wanted more (he was bringing in multi-billions of profit to the company each year).

      CxOs have a huge downside. Most get one shot and that's it. If you fail you'll most likely not have another chance, unless you start your own company. That's why they work their contracts in that manner.

    7. Re:Let's see here ... by xouumalperxe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The big problem I see in all this is that US executives have a huge upside (Goldman Sachs CEO got a $68 million dollar bonus this year), but with no downside (Merrill Lynch fired its failed CEO with a $160 million golden parachute)

      I used to think the same, but was explained recently how the "injustice" of the gold parachute thing is actually a misconception, and that it actually makes perfect business sense.

      Let's use Merrill Lynch, which you brought up, as example. According to Wikipedia, they reported a net income of $7.49 Billion in 2006 (all further numbers are derived from simple arithmetic or taken from this same article). That's about $625M a month. Or $146M every week. Keep that number in mind.

      Now, imagine you're in the board for a big high-stakes company (banking, insurance, that sort of stuff). If you have an incompetent CEO (hey, if Merrill Lynch had one, almost anyone is liable to get one at some point). You want to get rid of him, but, since being CEO for this sort of company is an intrinsically high-paying job, he obviously resists getting the boot. Assuming you don't have anything strong enough to outright fire the CEO, how much money can he make your company lose between now and you actually getting him sacked? That's the monetary value of getting him to leave of his own free will right now.

      Stanley O'Neal got about $161M in stock options and retirement benefits as "severance pay". Based on my earlier math, that's just over 1 week of net income, which is, simply put, peanuts, seeing as he reportedly lost Merrill Lynch some $2.24 Billion (over 3 months' worth of net income) in how he was handling the sub prime crisis. How much would the company stand to lose by keeping him on-board any longer?

    8. Re:Let's see here ... by Firethorn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it wasn't so much to protect the executives so much as the investors.

      Previously, if a company went belly up in a really bad way, the creditors could go after everybody who owned some of the company, even if they had nothing to do with the affairs of the company.

      It'd be quite chilling to business investing if people had to worry that a Enron style failure would be able to reduce their entire portfolio to zero, even cost them their house, instead of just losing the previous value of those shares.

      Some of this I blame on mutual funds and large investment firms - makes it hard to kick out bad executives.

      Personally, I'd dial the 'rights' thing back a bit - corporations aren't allowed to own stock, and can't be convicted on criminal matters(though they'd still be liable in civil cases - feel free to sue the company into oblivion if it's bad enough).

      The criminal matters would come down to employees and executives being put on trial for their company. For bad stuff I'd have it be like the military - sometimes an executive can be held responsible for the acts of his subordinate employees, even without any knowledge.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    9. Re:Let's see here ... by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, top execs are by and large paid a lot, but they do take their lumps (relatively speaking) when the situation demands it.
      Actually they don't, that's the point. At the very worst, they might leave the company with only the money they made before getting fired (like any other employee). If they do well on the other hand (as at Goldman Sachs currently) they can make a vast fortune in a year or two (unlike any other employee). Standing to make a fortune without also standing to lose your shirt means you're gambling with somebody else's money. That's bad, because it promotes risky behavior.
    10. Re:Let's see here ... by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First off Goldman Sachs is a terrible example you used.
      Goldman Sachs perfectly illustrates the point that CEOs who do well can make vast sums of money very quickly. Since the company is doing well and the CEO pay is small relative to the company, what's the problem? Simple. Since there's no corresponding personal downside for bad performance, the CEO is financially motivated to "go long," putting the company at risk. That's what the leadership over at Merril Lynch did for several years, and they raked it in. It turned out to be a bad bet, but so what? The millions paid in bonuses for past years' "good performance" is long gone, only to be repaid by investors and (if there's a mortgage bailout) the taxpayer.

      CxOs have a huge downside. Most get one shot and that's it.
      Being paid hundreds of millions to go away is not a huge downside. They're set for life and don't need another shot.
    11. Re:Let's see here ... by PixelScuba · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about they fire him and he leaves with NO money? That makes even BETTER business sense. I can pretty much guarantee that if I royally screw up at my job I won't be receiving any bonus and I'll be looking for work again.

      Merill Lynch employs 56,300 people. 161 MILLION dollars for one man is a travesty... I will stake my life that the work of any CEO is no more demanding than jobs most of us do. That chunk of change would have amounted to almost $3000 per employee, now wouldn't THAT be a nice Christmas bonus for those individuals.

      I believe the average CEO pay in the US is FIVE HUNDRED times the average employee wage. Now, I work... oh maybe 55-60 hours a week, including unpaid time spent outside of work ON work. Now... I sure hope that O'Neal, who earned 48 MILLION dollars in 2006, works 27,000 hours a week. I will wager anything that most of us work just as hard and will probably just break ONE million in our lives.

      Maybe some people see egregious severance packages as a "good business decision" but I cannot in good conscience and reasoning even see that. Pay CEO's less and treat them like any employee... bad at your job, 'You're Fired'(tm).

    12. Re:Let's see here ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's stopping you from being a CEO then?

      He has a soul, maybe?

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    13. Re:Let's see here ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Previously, if a company went belly up in a really bad way, the creditors could go after everybody who owned some of the company, even if they had nothing to do with the affairs of the company.

      Well, boo-goddamn-hoo. Maybe if shareholders paid more attention to what the companies they invest in are doing, we wouldn't have so much corporate malfeasance.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    14. Re:Let's see here ... by Haeleth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What's stopping you from being a CEO then?
      He doesn't play golf with the right people.
  3. Sinking ship? by cgenman · · Score: 4, Funny

    And people wonder why they cannot rely upon employee loyalty these days. Personally, I'm investing all of my money in pitchforks and fire insurance.

  4. Not Quite as Bad as it Sounds by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Retention bonuses are common in situations involving sick companies.

    The idea behind them is that without the institutional knowledge that these people have, the company would die even quicker. Few people, including upper management want to stick around on a sinking ship, so in order to keep potentially valuable people from moving to a healthier company, they offer retention bonuses.

    Obviously the hard part is sorting the wheat from chaff and only giving the bonuses to the useful people, at least the marginally useful. Seems to be that they just hand them out to everyone in upper management "just to be safe" which in the end may not be all that safe...

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:Not Quite as Bad as it Sounds by arotenbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The idea behind them is that without the institutional knowledge that these people have, the company would die even quicker. Right, but... aren't the people with the "institutional knowledge" the same ones who are steering the company into the ground? As you point out, it is very difficult to sort the good executives from the parasites. Once they are in, though, you can't get rid of either type without losing money. If you keep the bad management, you are obviously going to keep losing money. If you fire them, they get a golden parachute and you still have to pay the replacement. If you have a management system where the executives control their own bonuses, you have a no-win situation... except for the executives.
      --
      Tomato wedge sperm darts that are Republican.
    2. Re:Not Quite as Bad as it Sounds by CrazyDuke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Back to reality, it's much more likely the execs are trying to pump as much cash into themselves as they can before the company goes backrupt.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    3. Re:Not Quite as Bad as it Sounds by radish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed. It's an unpopular opinion around here, but the truth is it's easy and cheap to hire sales droids and difficult and expensive to hire good management. Firms get sick for lots of reasons, it's not always just because the managers suck. The opinion here is obviously that as badly off as the company is, it'd be much worse if all the VPs left (which they would, if they're good enough to get a job elsewhere).

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  5. 35 years salary? by nacturation · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... firing of all its highest-paid salespeople ... offer $1 million retention bonuses to executive VPs. Baker points out that each one of these bonuses represents 35 years' salary for one of the fired salespeople. So their highest paid salespeople made just under $30K a year? If highest-paid == best producing, they can easily command a lot more than that elsewhere.
    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    1. Re:35 years salary? by iamhassi · · Score: 2, Informative

      "So their highest paid salespeople made just under $30K a year?"

      $30k/yr is about $15/hr, which sounds like high pay for someone that works at circuit city and isn't upper management.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    2. Re:35 years salary? by electronmaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      As a current employee of 3 years (at circuit city), i figured id share my $0.02:

      I think the firings were worth it to the company. Granted, the people that were there were friends, most of them were overpaid. We had about 6 cashiers making over $18 an hour. To ring people up. No sales. In fact, there were only about 3 sales people that lost their jobs in our store, all of which were "department seniors" that sold almost nothing, and told others how to do their jobs, more like mini managers making about $16.

      A new associate makes $8.50 if seasonal, and an experienced part timer like me, makes about $10 to $11.

      O, and now more than half of the people that were fired are now working at my store again for a pay cut.

  6. And this surprises WHY? by Chas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's typical corporate "head up ass" syndrome.

    CC is on it's way out/down, so the execs are going to raid the coffers before everything tanks.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  7. End of the corporate raider era, part II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is the last year for corporations to cash in bush-style on corporate raiding. Watch Wall Street with michael douglas and charlie sheen is still the best movie on this strategy. Hell I never made any money in corporations... might try it 9 years from now myself.

  8. Broken Logic by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Baker points out that each one of these bonuses represents 35 years' salary for one of the fired salespeople."

    Right. There's a small little detail, though: The execs make the decisions that make the difference between making and losing millions of dollars. The sales people, even if they were paid 1 million dollars, would not generate anywhere near that much income to save the company. If Circuit City's business model is broken, then it makes sense they try to keep the decision makers from leaving the sinking ship. If anything, to devise and carry out a new strategy. What they're doing actually makes some sense, even though that little blippet was intended to make them sound idiotic.

    But, that's just me responding to sensationalist bullshit. I personally think they should use those retention bonuses to hire new execs, preferably those with a proven track record in this sort of business. Hypocricial? Nah. Still non-sensical? Yeah, maybe.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  9. Last Time by Divebus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's the last time I buy something from Circuit City. If that's where my money is going, then (1) I KNEW there was more margin in that sale and (2) I'll buy from the same sales people when they move to a different place.

    --

    Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    1. Re:Last Time by iamhassi · · Score: 2, Informative

      "That's the last time I buy something from Circuit City. "

      well don't go to Best Buy either. They're not well liked around here:
      Best Buy Hands Out Cease & Desist Letters for Christmas
      Best Buy 'Geek Squad' Accused of Pirating Software
      Best Buy hopes to exorcize devil patrons

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  10. Better yet by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    they should consider closing their stores, while outsourcing what little remains. Why those VPs would save all sorts of money.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Better yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The alternative is to reward great employees with fat options, and then have shareholders complain that employees are benefiting at their expense!

      Take a look at Apple, where shareholders are suing despite its stock outperforming the industry by a huge margin, because they're worried that company employees might have received awards for their efforts.

      ---
      Save a whale - harpoon a bind-torture-kill NeoCon

    2. Re:Better yet by Peter_JS_Blue · · Score: 3, Interesting
      In some cases shareholders are necessary but it seems to me that they are the main problem. What many seem to have forgotten is that if you pay your workers less, they :-
      1. Become demoralized and work less effectively.
      2. Leave and take their expertise elsewhere.
      3. Have less cash to spend on your products - ensuring you have to make more cuts.
      4. Have less cash to spend on their kids education - ensuring that the next generation is even less effective.
      Money is like blood - its only useful if its moving around.
      --
      Art Makers Just an excuse to show photos of naked women !!
    3. Re:Better yet by agent_no.82 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If firing all their top-paid salespeople lead to the stock cratering, and the decision was made by the management, then why should the management be considered such valuable employees? The management controls the money flow however, and will act in their own self-interests, regardless of whether this might be good for the rest of the company.
      You assume that a corporation must act logically. That assumption is false. Corporations are composed of humans.

  11. all industries by phrostie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    there is a growing trend where all Ex's are being paid more and more and the pay for the people who do the work is stagnating.
    many of these Executives never do anything to justify the increases.

    it's all industries though, not any one.

  12. IMHO the funds are to blame by whoever57 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Investment funds have huge ownership of shares -- it is the fund managers who should be looking out for the interests of their investors and putting an end to this BS. IMHO, their lack of action makes them complicit. It's the guys at Fidelity and others that we should get mad at.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  13. Re:Management Must Stop the Bleeding by jo42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why the frak would you want to keep, and reward, the people that butt fucked the company into the ground in the first place?

    1) You reward success.
    2) You punish failure.
    3) Profit.

    Now you owe me $1M Euros in management consulting fees.

  14. Take the time to find another store. by Kludge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here's a suggestion: Don't shop Circuit City even if it is convenient. Find a nice mom & pop electronics store. They're harder to find, but worth the effort.

    1. Re:Take the time to find another store. by Detritus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mom & Pops often have problems with relatives. There are plenty of psychopaths that are never fired because they are a relative/spouse of the owner.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  15. Talk about waste in the face of change... by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Years ago, I used to work for CompUSA corporate in Atlanta, GA. When they got bought out by the holding company that recently liquidated the company (took years longer than I thought it would), CompUSA fired all their corporate, education, and government sales staff. Oddly enough, I kept my job along with a few others in the southeast, albeit with more responsibilities and better pay. The vast majority of folks working for them weren't so lucky. They got their pink slips on a Monday morning, if I recall correctly, with no advance warning.

    Essentially, it's like you put it: let's lay off everybody in the company who had anything to do with generating sales out of three huge markets, and who cares about the personal relationships they had built with customers (especially with respect to public sector folks)? Oh, I forgot to mention... lots of people were offered a "chance" to keep their job if they felt like relocating to Dallas, TX where CompUSA was building a multimillion dollar call center to centralize all their corp/gov/edu sales operations. What a bargain, right?

    On the many occasions I visited that new call center on business, I got the distinct impression that things were, well, about as fucked up as a football bat. They had it all; an entire hotel rented out for six months housing only CompUSA employees, a new SAP rollout that kept mysteriously screwing up orders large and small (while sucking up untold amounts of contractor labor and prompting Microsoft execs to hold fun-filled meetings about revoking CompUSA's large account reseller status), midlevel managers running around trying to figure out whether their charges were coming or going.

    Let's be fair in Circuit City's case, though... the old expressions goes: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

  16. Responsibility? by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think a bankrupt company like CompUSA should be able to recover funds from the executives whose decisions tanked the company.
    Instead of bonuses, they would pay for the damages they caused.

    --
    I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
  17. Good to Great by rpillala · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In his book Good to Great, Jim Collins cites Circuit City as an example of a company that made the transition to greatness, bypassing its comparison company Silo. For each GTG company, Collins identified the company's core purpose, which in his theory must be identified as the one thing that company can do better than anyone in the world. Circuit City's concept was the creation of a large number of stores that provided a consistent experience for the customer. I can say from my own experience at Circuit City stores that they seem to have gotten that part right. I always get bad or no service. Does everyone? I don't know. I'm from India and nonwhite - my sister gets the same treatment with the added derision afforded to girls in that setting. Things like customer service can be hit or miss depending on where we travel. Now, maybe the same people who led the company to "greatness" aren't there anymore. It seems more likely to me that Collins' metric of return on money invested is the wrong way to measure greatness in a company.

    --
    When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    1. Re:Good to Great by ucblockhead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm a white man and get shitty service there too. Not as bad as at CompUSA, but significantly worse than at Fry's. (And if you've ever been to Fry's, you know how damn low that bar is.)

      There is one simple way to create good customer service: Treat your employees well. Look at any company known for good customer service, and you'll find reasonably happy employees. This is understandable, because people who hate their jobs are likely to take that anger out on whoever they deal with day to day. (Your customers.) They are also likely to not particularly value their jobs and thus won't go the extra mile.

      --
      The cake is a pie
  18. "Greed is good" - Mod Parent Up by ObiWonKanblomi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's too bad you are modded up for this. I just saw Wall Street for the first time a week ago and thought of corporate raiders.

    In case you may not know, there is an upcoming sequel coming out next year. I believe the title is "Money Never Sleeps", taking place in the present day and Gordon coming out of prison to take a piece of the hedge fund market. Michael Douglass is returning as Mr.Gecko.

    Interestingly enough, it's amazing that a lot of people who are brokers look up to the fictional Gecko... Here's a quote from a NY Times article:

    Speaking by telephone from Bermuda, Mr. Douglas said he wouldn't mind if he never had "one more drunken Wall Street broker come up to me and say, 'You're the man!' "

    Pretty sick, eh?

  19. Re:Management Must Stop the Bleeding by happyemoticon · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think that's the kind of common sense that MBA programs spend two years beating out of people.

  20. Management is the source of the bleeding by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sounds more like a case of the problem dictating the solution to me.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  21. Here's the problem by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

    Circuit City Rewards Execs As Stock Tanks

    Well, I'm not sure what a stock tank is (I presume it's where you keep your liquid stocks) but maybe if they'd tried rewarding their execs as people rather than as storage facilities, they might've had better luck.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  22. Re:Your numbers are screwed and so is your logic by happyemoticon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And for every one of you in America, there's about fifty otherwise perfectly functional people who haven't the foggiest idea how to set up a home theater system, and cannot be educated by anyone as to how. They simply need a sales person or a nerd to tell them what to buy, and a lot of them feel downright embarrassed about asking a teenager to do it for them.

  23. What is wrong with the system? by Wise+Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's obvious to me that the corporate system rewards short-sighted execs. What can be done to fix this systemic problem?

    1. Re:What is wrong with the system? by evilviper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's obvious to me that the corporate system rewards short-sighted execs. What can be done to fix this systemic problem?

      Change the tax code to eliminate the double taxation on dividends. I recall numerous people, much smarter than I, confidently announcing that the decline of dividends (due to the increase in taxation many years ago) would have a terribly destabilizing effect on the stock market. In hindsight, it's amazing just how understated their doom and gloom predictions seem to have been.

      I believe you will see a strong correlation between the sudden steep decline of dividends, and the start of the stock market insanity we see in-force today. Because of the decline of dividends, perpetual increases in stock price are the only thing that matters to investors. Also, because of the large number of amateurs, and simplistic advice by professionals, it seems such simple metrics like quickly increasing stock prices, P/E ratios, etc., have gained mythic proportions... So much so that stocks crash on a small drop in profits, and skyrocket to hundreds of times the value of a company (not to mention more than some entire nations) when there is a small increase in profits.

      This has caused much of the stock market to become nothing but a massive pyramid scheme. Unfortunately, those who are the most idiotic, and bought into the scheme at the highest and most recent price, are now the ones who get to vote on what the company does, and of course they vote for more mergers, more insanity, and more short-term profits, and will pay executives ANYTHING to just keep sustaining the pyramid for a little while longer, until they can cash out and go destroy some other company that's still in the earlier stages of the pyramid. But unlike a standard pyramid scheme, the entire world is being affected by it, even if they didn't opt in.

      Note: I'm not a Republican, CATO, or Heritage Institute shill. By all means, increase income taxes (on the higher tax brackets) to make up the difference. But unlike something like the estate tax, singling out dividends for extra taxation doesn't make much sense, as the rich and the poor both are subjected, and has had the unintended side effect of largely ending the practice of dividends, and (IMHO) more than any other factor, caused the change of the stock market into a much more unstable and irrational entity.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  24. Ordinarily, I'd say "so what"? by unassimilatible · · Score: 2, Interesting
    My standard comment would be "what a publicly held corporation pays its employees is not any of the average Slashdotter's business - assuming you aren't CC stockholders - since I know you are all libertarians and not lefty redistributionists." How is this tech news or any of your business, for that matter? Is this Liberal-dot-org?

    But having just been in a Circuit City looking for a TV, I can tell you that company is doomed. The customer experience in there is so bad, mostly due to the lowest-common-denominator employee. Young, dumb, surly, and don't give a rat's ass about the company or the customer. From a business perspective, CC retail is a disaster. The CC execs shopuld walk into an Apple (up 120% this year, and the most profitable retail business per square foot on the earth) store (advice I have just written to them) and see how the customer experience differs from that in a CC (stock down 66% this year) store. Yes, Apple pays a lot more, but it is a pleasure to walk in there. Now that is an argument for better pay.

    If they wanted to have crappy, harmful employees that alienate customers, they sure are going about it the right way.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
    1. Re:Ordinarily, I'd say "so what"? by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 3, Insightful

      what a publicly held corporation pays its employees is not any of the average Slashdotter's business - assuming you aren't CC stockholders - since I know you are all libertarians and not lefty redistributionists.
      Since I know you are a libertarian and not a neocon sycophant, you'll no doubt agree that we're free to debate and discuss any goddam fucking thing we please, and if some of us would prefer not to shop at Circuit City because we disapprove of their compensation schemes, we're free to do that as well. That's the great thing about the free market -- we can buy or not, for any reason whatsoever. And we can think whatever we please about Circuit City. And say whatever we please about Circuit City. Our business is whatsoever we choose it to be, thank you very much.
  25. Summit Seekers by scoove · · Score: 5, Insightful

    many of these Executives never do anything to justify the increases.

    Actually, they do quite a bit in the short term to "justify" the increases, but to the detriment of the rest of us.

    A year ago, I read a speech by Sir Edmund Hillary explaining how horrified he was that climbers of Mount Everest violated the ethical code of climbers, ignoring a man in trouble on their climb upward and letting him die without help. These summit-seekers were intent on reaching their own self-gratifying goal. They spent their tens of thousands on the "trip of a lifetime" and weren't about to let someone else's misfortune spoil it. Instead of setting aside their summit-reaching goal to rescue someone in trouble, they choose to let him die while they kept on seeking great returns.

    As a professional operational risk manager, I see the same behavior in countless execs. It's called leptokurtic risk (or kurtosis) - the condition of seeking artificial enhancement of returns at the center of a distribution while also taking on excessive outlier risk in the tails (called "fat tails"). These executives take on excessive risk for all of us as they seek their own personally-rewarding summits. The company I work for has struggled through significant catastrophic risk due to the neglect of systems maintenance by previous executives. Instead of spending money refreshing hardware, maintaining trained staffing and continuing license agreements with vendors, they threw it all overboard so they could puff up quarterly numbers and reward themselves for their "achievements." They left before the disasters began to occur, millions richer. They cashed out with hundreds of millions while shareholders and employees were left holding the bag. Their summit-seeking behavior let them seek greatness and riches while screwing the rest of us.

    A simple example of this would be a airline pilot who is rewarded for getting to his destination faster. Once he realizes all the safety equipment (mid-air collision avoidance, oxygen systems for depressurization, fire retardants and other items taking up weight) can be discarded letting him fly faster, he tosses it all overboard and takes on excessive risk for all the passengers. He flies this way until he's realized the plane's certain to crash, and jumps out with a golden parachute, letting the gutted aircraft collide directly into the side of a mountain, taking the lives of everyone on board. Increasingly, this is a common practice for public company and private equity executives.

    As Circuit City witnessed, there is a direct correlation between this behavior in executives and the failure of the company they harvested. The only thing I can recommend for those who find their behavior disgusting is to flee any and all companies that you observe rewarding executives for summit seeking. If they're taking on excessive risk (usually by ignoring it and dismantling all the safeguards so they have even greater funds to line their pockets with), abandon these companies. Let them collapse while the parasites are within, taking them down with them. Until capital markets become savvy to this parasite racket, we're all at risk. Watch for this summit-seeking behavior in the companies you work for and invest in.

    1. Re:Summit Seekers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your terminology/phrasing needs work - "These executives take on excessive risk for all of us" sounds like the executives are shouldering the burden of the risk, removing it from our shoulders, when it's presumably the opposite that you mean, that by their summit-seeking behaviour, they push excessive risk onto our shoulders.

  26. Libertarianism sure does work now, doesn't it? by jhylkema · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder if these geeks still think unions are "outmoded" and "unnecessary." In other words, the real world is slight at variance with your Ayn Rand masturbation fantasies in your parents' basements, right?

  27. Is Circuit City owned by Home Depot? by Newer+Guy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, is it?

  28. Chance by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Where's the downside?

    If you fail you'll most likely not have another chance
    Yes, but you fail with enough money that you could immediately retire and STILL live out the rest of your life in wealth and luxury. Hell, even one million dollars is enough -- properly invested -- to live out the rest of your life wealthier than 60% or 70% of all Americans.

    How, exactly, have CEOs convinced moronic jackasses that they're soooo hard done by when they get their multimillion dollar golden parachutes?

  29. Contracts by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 2, Insightful
    There's something wrong with the fact that someone who has lost the company $2.24 billion dollars can't be fired on the spot. Frankly, there's something wrong with the fact that someone who has lost the company $2.24 billion dollars can't be taken out behind the warehouse and promptly dispatched.

    It's ridiculous that's it's so hard to fire people.

  30. Sales Droids by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You've never actually worked in the service industry have you? It's easy and cheap to hire shitty salespeople -- the kind that make customers think "I'm am NEVER coming back here". The kind that don't speak English. The kind that don't bathe real often. The kind that don't comprehend how to properly utilize the technology of the "belt", so as to prevent the display of asscrack. The kind that steal shit.

    In the service industry, a competent employee is a gem, a thing of wonder and beauty to be treasured. Although they certainly are as cheap as the shitty ones, they are extraordinarily difficult to hire because they're so rare. Companies that are well-run identify those competent employees and hang on to them, work aggressively to retain them, because they make a HUGE difference in the bottom line. Failing companies routinely purge the competent employees, because they're often somewhat better paid or get more benefits -- because someone had the good goddam sense to try and retain them.

    When I say competent, I'm not referring to some kind of genius wunderemployees here. I'm just talking about people who can be trained to do the job properly, who don't leave the customer/client with a bad taste in their mouth. They truly are rare.

  31. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  32. A good analogy here by tkrotchko · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A good analogy here is that when a sports team is under performing, generally the owner fires the coach, not the entire team.

    Circuit City has turned that rule upside-down and seems to be suffering the consequences of it.

    If I was a shareholder, perhaps I'd want to fire the entire management team at this point.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  33. Re:Nice by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nobody here has all the answers, I merely seek to cut down those who pretend that they do -- by saying, for example, that the free market doesn't work and we need the Democrats to ride in on their white horses and save the world from the evils of the market.
    I took a quick look, and I can't find even a single post in the entire thread that even mentions the Democrats. There is heaps of criticism for the Bush Government, for neoconservatives, and for the Republican party (which, at this point, is basically the neoconservative party). Now, I understand that to you, that is probably synonymous with saying "Vote Democrat!", but it ain't the case. The Democrats just one extremely compelling trait: they're not a bunch of corporate-sycophant neoconservatives that want to completely deregulate everything except how people fuck and who can marry who.

    No sane person would claim that the Democratic Party is a panacea, or anything better than a least-of-two-evils. But the Republican party has become an extraordinarily destructive force in the world. To America, and to people and societies around the globe. There are seventy nine thousand innocent people dead because of the Republican Party's lies and deceptions, and a whole generation of Islamic extremists who need nothing more than an accurate history of this decade to motivate them to violence.

    And for what? Some magical non-existent deregulation that the Bush government hasn't provided? A reduction in government power? The PATRIOT act?! Massive increases in warrantless domestic spying? And you can actually sit there and bitch that the Democrats wont fix things?

    As long as they wont make things worse as quickly as Bush is, that should be enough for you to at least admit that they are vastly preferable to the Republicans. I mean, how perfectly do the Republicans have to re-enact the rise of Fascism before people sit up and notice?