Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday April 07 2020, @01:50AM   Printer-friendly
from the it-all-adds-up dept.

How much CEOs matter to firm performance:

"Do CEOs matter?" has been a perennial question in management discourse. But "the CEO effect" has been notoriously difficult to isolate -- a moving target caught in the slipstream of dynamic forces that shape firm performance.

So Morten Bennedsen, INSEAD Professor of Economics and the André and Rosalie Hoffmann Chaired Professor of Family Enterprise, along with colleagues Francisco Perez-Gonzalez (ITAM and NBER) and Daniel Wolfenzon (Columbia University and NBER) decided to find out how much CEOs matter by measuring the impact on firm performance when a CEO is absent, specifically, hospitalised.

They find, in a forthcoming paper, "Do CEOs Matter? Evidence from Hospitalization Events", soon to be published in the Journal of Finance, that the financial ramifications of CEO hospitalisation are significant.

Based on data of nearly 13,000 Danish SMEs between 1996 and 2012, Bennedsen and his co-authors find that five-to-seven day hospitalisations sent firm profitability tumbling by 7% in the year of illness. Longer hospital stays of 10 days or more wreaked even deeper damage, lowering operating return on assets (OROA) by a full percentage point.

Journal Reference
Morten Bennedsen, Francisco Pérez-Gonzalez, Daniel Wolfenzon. Do CEOs Matter? Evidence from Hospitalization Events, The Journal of Finance[$] (DOI: 10.1111/jofi.12897)

See also: Phys.org

[Source]: INSEAD research


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday April 07 2020, @02:03AM (50 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday April 07 2020, @02:03AM (#979843)

    In the test: CEO vs no CEO, sure - chaos, confusion, delay, bad press, people stalling decisions until the CEO returns. The position matters, and putting your top decision maker on ice for a week or two has chilling effects on the bottom line.

    Now: are there "magic" CEOs who can make that kind of difference vs. say: any one of thousands of reasonably competent human beings who might also take the position and make responsible, reasonable decisions?

    The severely skewed conditions of the study call into question the motivations of the authors, and those who sponsored them.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Tuesday April 07 2020, @02:25AM

    by captain normal (2205) on Tuesday April 07 2020, @02:25AM (#979848)

    Looks to me like some grant seeking, more money for their chair by playing up to big egos.

    --
    When life isn't going right, go left.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 07 2020, @02:53AM (44 children)

    How many people do you know that are "reasonably competent" at taking responsibility on any scale? How many people do you know that are "reasonably competent" at even comprehending what all goes into a billion dollar market cap company, much less a really large one? How many do you know that fall where Venn diagram overlaps between the two?

    Yeah, this ain't something anyone can do. That's just bullshit from folks overflowing with envy.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2020, @03:26AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2020, @03:26AM (#979868)

      How many CEOs actually understand the workings of their multi-billion dollar market cap company? Being a really good CEO of a company of that size is legitimately very difficult. But there also aren't that many good CEOs. In many cases, the CEO is someone hired to serve the interests of the board of directors, perhaps heavily influenced by activist investors. Do the CEOs actually understand their companies' people, processes, and products? I suspect that far too many CEOs of large companies don't understand those things and end up making really mediocre decisions as a result. While I agree that understanding principles of business, accounting, and finance are essential to be a CEO, they are altogether insufficient to be a good CEO.

      There are some very good CEOs out there who actually make a difference. For that matter, CEOs of small businesses also have a big impact on their businesses. It isn't easy to run a successful business, which is why so many small businesses fail quickly. A good CEO makes a big difference for a business of any size, but there just aren't that many good CEOs. There are a lot of mediocre CEOs and mediocre upper managers, which is what these comments are criticizing. A CEO is just like a head coach in sports. There are some really good coaches who have a big impact, but there are also a lot of really mediocre coaches who move from team to team and aren't particularly successful.

      • (Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Tuesday April 07 2020, @09:52AM

        by Dr Spin (5239) on Tuesday April 07 2020, @09:52AM (#979926)

        In many cases, the CEO is someone hired to serve the interests of the board of directors,

        Serving the interests of the board of directors is indeed the Job Spec. WTF are the other ones doing there?

        --
        Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 08 2020, @02:28PM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday April 08 2020, @02:28PM (#980256) Homepage Journal

        But there also aren't that many good CEOs.

        Which is exactly why they're paid so well. Now if we could just get board members who could tell the difference and would reliably pick a good candidate.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2020, @03:43AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2020, @03:43AM (#979872)

      Too many words. Let me know when you come across a CEO like that.

    • (Score: 2) by gtomorrow on Tuesday April 07 2020, @08:01AM (7 children)

      by gtomorrow (2230) on Tuesday April 07 2020, @08:01AM (#979913)

      Oh, you mean like Brian Driscoll...or maybe Edward Lampert...or Dr. Gil Emelio...or maybe Lloyd Blankfein.

      BTW, I personally don't know any CEOs (at least at that level)...you?

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 08 2020, @02:32PM (6 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday April 08 2020, @02:32PM (#980257) Homepage Journal

        I mean the ones you never hear about because they're quietly doing their job and making a tidy profit over a sustainable timeline for whatever company they work for. Making outrageous profits over a quarter or four and then crashing is not a job well done.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by gtomorrow on Wednesday April 08 2020, @07:08PM (5 children)

          by gtomorrow (2230) on Wednesday April 08 2020, @07:08PM (#980342)

          Yeah, well, these days "CEO" is, right or wrong, synonymous with razing iconic decades-old industries and floating safely to the ground on the golden parachutes. You know, kinda like how "democracy", "freedom" and "terrorism" are defined differently these days.

          Oh, I forgot to add Roger Smith to that list before. My apologies.

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 09 2020, @01:45PM (4 children)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday April 09 2020, @01:45PM (#980565) Homepage Journal

            Only within a certain subset of the population. You know, the one whose positions are based almost entirely on demanding what they do not deserve.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by gtomorrow on Thursday April 09 2020, @06:07PM (3 children)

              by gtomorrow (2230) on Thursday April 09 2020, @06:07PM (#980624)

              Ah, then we agree...the likes of Roger Smith and the other aforementioned pillars of society.

              Mr Buzz, you're too old to help move giant limestone blocks into pyramid position anymore...what will they have you do?

              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 10 2020, @12:12AM (2 children)

                I ain't nobody's slave, yo. My boss may be an asshole but he also tells me to go fishing way more often than to get to work. Now if I could just get him to quit wearing my underwear.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 2) by gtomorrow on Friday April 10 2020, @05:43AM (1 child)

                  by gtomorrow (2230) on Friday April 10 2020, @05:43AM (#980763)

                  Now if I could just get him to quit wearing my underwear.

                  ...aaaaaaaand now we're sliding into other territory. I guess this is the effect of breathing the fumes a 3-day-old article! 😷😆

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2020, @08:47AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2020, @08:47AM (#979918)

      I bet TMB could do it! He's got the bullshit that smells like success, and low taxes for Job Craterers! Yessiree Bob! Ain't two ways about it! TMB for CEO of SN, WTF, LOL, and EOF.

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday April 07 2020, @12:33PM (29 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday April 07 2020, @12:33PM (#979944)

      How many people do you know that are "reasonably competent" at taking responsibility on any scale?

      In the circles I travel in, better than 1%. Maybe in the population at large the number is closer to 0.1%, and I totally believe that CEOs are worth that kind of compensation: 3SD above the mean, when performance merits it, and perhaps 2SD above the mean compensation as a guarantee against circumstances beyond anyone's control.

      $10M annual compensation for an "average" CEO is just bullshit, that level of remuneration should be for people who take a difficult situation, turn it around and hit it out of the park:

      https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/gsb/files/publication-pdf/cgri-quick-guide-17-ceo-compensation-data.pdf [stanford.edu]

      It's not money anymore at those levels, it's power, and we should have other ways to distribute power that aren't tied to money.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 07 2020, @04:55PM (18 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 07 2020, @04:55PM (#980008) Journal

        3SD above the mean

        What's the distribution that you're basing your "SD" on? Pay is not a normal distribution.

        It's not money anymore at those levels, it's power, and we should have other ways to distribute power that aren't tied to money.

        It's just vastly better to pay with money (or even better stock shares, which is most of that) than with say, Roman Republic-style power plays where thousands of people die. Or maybe you think gourmet chefs in the company cafeteria mean we can shave a few million off the compensation package?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2020, @10:38PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2020, @10:38PM (#980107)

          I'm a fan of bringing back slavery and paying CEOs with permanent "servants" comprised solely of people who celebrate CEOs and unironically say they deserve their obscene pay. Y'know, neolibs, repubs, and liberts. Sorry hallow, you'll probably end up as the family tech support bitch.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 08 2020, @12:16AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 08 2020, @12:16AM (#980145) Journal
            And I'm a fan of people getting a taste of their own idiotic suggestions. All I can add is that if the best you can do is fantasize about bad things happening to people who merely disagree with you. then your argument is worthless.
        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday April 07 2020, @11:19PM (15 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday April 07 2020, @11:19PM (#980119)

          For better or worse, our organizational world is built on pyramids. If an organization has roughly a 7:1 ratio at each layer, a 7 layer organization has about 137,000 employees in total. If such an organization has a base pay structure that increases by ~41.4% at each level, the ratio of base pay from the ~115,000 rank and file employees to the CEO is 8:1. If those rank and file employees earn $35K salary, that puts the CEO salary at $280K/yr. Of course, there are performance based bonuses, which the better companies extend down to the rank and file at something like 10% of salary, and it makes sense for these bonus ratios to increase up the chain also, keeping that same sqrt(2) 41.4% ratio per level, by the time you're CEO, you'd have normal bonuses of %80 of salary for meeting target, for a total rank and file compensation (on a normal bonus year) of $38.5K/yr and total CEO compensation of just over $500K, with graduated steps up the ladder. That's a reasonable, rational ~13:1 pay ratio across all people in the company.

          What we have more often today, in the same 7 layer 7:1 organization of ~137K people, is the rank and file paid somewhat lower, perhaps $27K/yr with maybe a 5% bonus if they're lucky, and a much steeper ratio of something like 150% between layers (actually, the ratios tend to increase toward the top of the pyramid), resulting in CEO base compensation of say $6.5 million per year, with performance based compensation to the sky, $100M+/yr in some cases. That works out as a 1:244 ratio for base pay, and more like a 1:3000 ratio for total compensation. CEOs are out there swinging for the big hits, putting rank and file jobs at risk so they might get their big bonuses if the risks pay off, and if they don't, well, hell, over 200x rank and file pay is nothing to cry over.

          It happens because it's cheap and easy to give the big raises to the pointy top of the pyramid, pushing that compensation down to the rank and file makes the "wow" factor so much less, so screw 'em, instead of a 2% raise for everybody, stiff the bottom and give a 100% raise at the top. A friend graduated in 1990 with a BS in psychology, went to work as a bank teller making something like $22K/yr. Her boss made more like $45K/yr at the time. Every year, the bosses would have the bank pay to fly them to a "retreat" somewhere like Cabo San Lucas where they got together and decided, with great regularity, that the rank and file would get ~2% COLA raises while the senior levels (those at the retreat making the decisions) would get +15%, or more in good years. With 15 rank and file for every manager, the math is easy: half of the raise money is going to the manager level - it makes sense, right? Sure, if you're a psychopath.

          30 years on, the psychopaths have normalized the concept that the bottom of the pyramid is for abuse. I think it was Jorma Ollila, CEO of Nokia at the time, I saw an interview with where he was more or less embarrassed by his position. He can afford the best car, the best house, the best of everything 20x over - it's not like he can drive more than one car at a time (though Jay Leno could show him a thing or two...)

          Money is a stupid proxy for power for several reasons: starting with nepotism, moving on through senility... Just because you finally got lucky in your '60s and beat the game doesn't mean you should continue to tell people how to run the world after you go dotty; and odds are if you beat the game that well, you probably neglected the raising and passing on of your wisdom to your offspring, but they usually get a big chunk of the money anyway. Power should be wielded by those who can continue to convince people they should have it, without buying them Bloomberg/Caesar style.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 08 2020, @12:20AM (14 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 08 2020, @12:20AM (#980151) Journal

            Money is a stupid proxy for power for several reasons:

            The biggest reason of all is that you can take away the money, and then the power goes away.

            Power should be wielded by those who can continue to convince people they should have it, without buying them Bloomberg/Caesar style.

            That's generally how it works in the business world.

            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday April 08 2020, @02:04AM (13 children)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday April 08 2020, @02:04AM (#980174)

              That's generally how it works in the business world.

              This would be the same business world that has deified the top of the pyramid to the point that you need a CEO who's in the stratosphere club just so they can relate to the other CEOs that the company has to do business with.

              I accept your premise that CEOs are, generally, only kept around as long as they're productive, but giving them hundreds of millions, sometimes billions, in compensation while they are there lets them leave with unwarranted investor power in the marketplace - and, almost following the Peter principle - they stay in the game accumulating this cash hoard until they are no longer useful actually running a company, then you have to humor their senile ass to get their investment money.

              Actually reminds me of the old retired CEO I met from Naples, guy was 90+ and chasing skirts at the bar - not senile, but definitely retired and unable to run day-to-day operations anymore. We wined and dined him and got his stamp of approval on a partnership we proposed with his company, he took us around to meet everyone and tell them what a good idea the partnership was - and out of respect all his old employees did the deal, signed on the bottom line, and then proceeded to ignore the fuck out of his intent the minute he was out of sight.

              Bottom line - we're all just people, and for every smart, capable person who could run a 100K employee organization with a little exposure and experience, there are less than 0.01 of those positions available. The giant piles of cash that float around in those circles distort the picture to where you get people who aren't so smart or capable running things, just because they're connected with the cash and those connections are sometimes perceived as more valuable than actually being able to make good decisions.

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 08 2020, @05:12AM (12 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 08 2020, @05:12AM (#980203) Journal

                I accept your premise that CEOs are, generally, only kept around as long as they're productive, but giving them hundreds of millions, sometimes billions, in compensation while they are there lets them leave with unwarranted investor power in the marketplace - and, almost following the Peter principle - they stay in the game accumulating this cash hoard until they are no longer useful actually running a company, then you have to humor their senile ass to get their investment money.

                And it's unwarranted why? I looked and there's actually one CEO, Elon Musk with a genuine $2.6 billion over ten years [theverge.com] performance-based compensation package. That's about high as it gets. And if Elon can actually turn Tesla into a major auto company (or for another end state, get it bought out at a premium by an existing auto company), then it'll be worth it.

                Bottom line - we're all just people, and for every smart, capable person who could run a 100K employee organization with a little exposure and experience, there are less than 0.01 of those positions available. The giant piles of cash that float around in those circles distort the picture to where you get people who aren't so smart or capable running things, just because they're connected with the cash and those connections are sometimes perceived as more valuable than actually being able to make good decisions.

                So what? All we know here is that the sums of money in question go past your threshold for "warranted". That's not saying much.

                These threads end up the same way. A bunch of people without a clue telling us that companies could be getting those CEOs cheaper.

                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday April 08 2020, @12:49PM (3 children)

                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday April 08 2020, @12:49PM (#980240)

                  A major auto company is "worth" $2.6B to the world why?

                  I'll grant that Musk is an outlier among CEOs, and it's great that he's coming close to doing some great things, it has been too long since that sort of thing has happened in the world. Meanwhile, the rest of the Fortune 1200 averages $10M per year in CEO compensation, 200 to 500x what their rank-and-file employees are compensated, and generally that compensation is given in exchange for nothing particularly special or outstanding.

                  Also, your published lists of contractually agreed compensation fail to accurately value things like option plans - another all too common mechanism whereby huge risk taking is rewarded in exchange for a quarterly bump in value as perceived by an under-informed marketplace.

                  A bunch of people without a clue telling us that companies could be getting those CEOs cheaper.

                  The problem isn't even that "the CEOs could be cheaper" CEO compensation is just numbers on a page, just like all money is imaginary numbers made up and loosely tied to the shaping of human behavior.

                  The problem is the relative valuing and de-valuing of human beings, and in the current pointy pyramid system, we're putting some human contribution at over 200x the value of other humans who are just as capable, and many times just as valuable to the organization and the world, and the ratios continue to increase. High wealth disparity was the hallmark of medieval kingdoms, slave societies like the ancient Egyptians, and today's third world whether you're looking at gun-thugs ruling in Africa or drug lords in South America (nevermind how those drug lords came to be in the first place...) The biggest problem is that we've been moving, relatively quickly, in the bad direction toward more inequality, and we are continuing down that path at an increasing pace.

                  If we want to continue to be a strong society, we need to value the whole pyramid, not just the points at the tip.

                  --
                  🌻🌻 [google.com]
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 08 2020, @07:14PM (2 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 08 2020, @07:14PM (#980345) Journal

                    A major auto company is "worth" $2.6B to the world why?

                    Actually, it's worth greatly more than a few billion dollars these days.

                    and generally that compensation is given in exchange for nothing particularly special or outstanding.

                    [...]

                    Also, your published lists of contractually agreed compensation fail to accurately value things like option plans - another all too common mechanism whereby huge risk taking is rewarded in exchange for a quarterly bump in value as perceived by an under-informed marketplace.

                    [...]

                    The problem isn't even that "the CEOs could be cheaper" CEO compensation is just numbers on a page, just like all money is imaginary numbers made up and loosely tied to the shaping of human behavior.

                    [...]

                    The problem is the relative valuing and de-valuing of human beings, and in the current pointy pyramid system, we're putting some human contribution at over 200x the value of other humans who are just as capable, and many times just as valuable to the organization and the world

                    The cognitive dissonance is interesting here. In one breath, you're complaining that CEOs are overpaid and overvalued to society. In the next, you claim the compensation is imaginary. Why should we care that CEOs are getting hundreds of times more than workers, if the pay is imaginary?

                    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday April 08 2020, @11:13PM (1 child)

                      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday April 08 2020, @11:13PM (#980427)

                      In one breath, you're complaining that CEOs are overpaid and overvalued to society. In the next, you claim the compensation is imaginary. Why should we care that CEOs are getting hundreds of times more than workers, if the pay is imaginary?

                      It's not dissonance, it's your inability to perceive multiple aspects of the same issue.

                      Money is vastly more important to people who don't have it and yet we continue to shovel ever greater quantities of it in the direction of the people who need it least.

                      --
                      🌻🌻 [google.com]
                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2020, @01:33AM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 09 2020, @01:33AM (#980469) Journal

                        It's not dissonance, it's your inability to perceive multiple aspects of the same issue.

                        Then why are you arguing so fiercely for something that you termed imaginary?

                        Money is vastly more important to people who don't have it and yet we continue to shovel ever greater quantities of it in the direction of the people who need it least.

                        So imaginary money is actually really important to poor people? Ok, I'll just give everyone a zillion Joe Merch Bux. Just did it. Now everyone has a vast amount of imaginary money. You can thank me for solving global poverty later after some sense has had a chance to creep into your head.

                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday April 08 2020, @01:34PM (7 children)

                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday April 08 2020, @01:34PM (#980245)

                  Put more simply: the monkeys are organized and all food flows through the kitchen.

                  The hundred monkeys with control of the kitchen have decided to keep all the grapes for themselves, they only pass out cucumbers to the million monkeys outside.

                  It's what was wrong with the USSR - we're not at those levels of popular demotivation yet, but we're heading in that direction. Demotivate any farther than the USSR and you need to resort to threat of violence or starvation to motivate the workers. We don't need many workers to feed the people anymore, but handing out cucumber while keeping all the grape doesn't work out in the end - and even if it does, do we as a society want to take 99.9% cucumber?

                  It has been ~40 years since The Clash wrote this, it's a shame that we have made so much technological progress and so little societal progress since then:

                  This is a public service announcement
                  With guitar
                  Know your rights
                  All three of them

                  Number one
                  You have the right not to be killed
                  Murder is a crime
                  Unless it was done
                  By a policeman
                  Or an aristocrat
                  Oh, know your rights

                  And number two
                  You have the right to food money
                  Providing of course
                  You don't mind a little
                  Investigation, humiliation
                  And if you cross your fingers
                  Rehabilitation

                  Know your rights
                  These are your rights
                  Hey, say, Wang

                  Oh, know these rights

                  Number three
                  You have the right to free speech
                  As long as
                  You're not dumb enough to actually try it

                  Know your rights
                  These are your rights
                  Oh, know your rights
                  These are your rights
                  All three of 'em
                  Ha!
                  It has been suggested in some quarters
                  That this is not enough
                  Well

                  Get off the streets
                  Run
                  Get off the streets

                  --
                  🌻🌻 [google.com]
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 08 2020, @07:16PM (6 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 08 2020, @07:16PM (#980346) Journal

                    It has been ~40 years since The Clash wrote this, it's a shame that we have made so much technological progress and so little societal progress since then:

                    Yes, it's only the best improvement [soylentnews.org] in the human condition ever. Nothing to see here.

                    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday April 08 2020, @11:09PM (5 children)

                      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday April 08 2020, @11:09PM (#980425)

                      only the best improvement

                      Evidence gathered and presented by your favorite delusionist - colour me unsurprised.

                      There is some truth to the fact that the peasantry is only now starting to complain because they are somewhat at liberty as compared with centuries gone by - the old maxim of idle hands being the devil's workshop is quite true, if you represent the establishment. It was the idle rich of the Renaissance who had the means and opportunity to upset that applecart of societal control systems.

                      It's all rather academic to us, assuming mortality continues to claim us within ~100 years of our birth, and if that ceases to be true in the next 40-50 years, the wheels are going to fly right off the applecart.

                      --
                      🌻🌻 [google.com]
                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2020, @01:38AM (4 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 09 2020, @01:38AM (#980472) Journal

                        the wheels are going to fly right off the applecart.

                        Unless, of course, they don't. Reality just isn't following the narrative after all. My take is that if suddenly everyone lives a lot longer, they'll finally get around to looking at and solving the problems that take longer than a present day human lifespan to develop - whatever those end up being.

                        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday April 09 2020, @03:06AM (3 children)

                          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday April 09 2020, @03:06AM (#980485)

                          My take is that if suddenly everyone lives a lot longer instead of adding 75 million per year to the population total, we will shoot straight up to 125 million per year - and if functional reproductive health is also pushed into higher aged people the birth rate will climb even higher.

                          --
                          🌻🌻 [google.com]
                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2020, @03:20AM (2 children)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 09 2020, @03:20AM (#980490) Journal

                            we will shoot straight up to 125 million per year

                            A problem that can be solved by having a lot less kids. Note that the developed world already has this solved.

                            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday April 09 2020, @07:16PM (1 child)

                              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday April 09 2020, @07:16PM (#980645)

                              Note that the developed world already has this solved.

                              I note that the developed world currently is in a population expansion pause - predictions about the future are notoriously inaccurate.

                              --
                              🌻🌻 [google.com]
                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2020, @08:20PM

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 09 2020, @08:20PM (#980658) Journal

                                predictions about the future are notoriously inaccurate.

                                Arguments from ignorance fallacies typically are too.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 08 2020, @02:35PM (9 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday April 08 2020, @02:35PM (#980260) Homepage Journal

        The mean doesn't have anything to do with their value, that's envy speak. Their value is judged by the difference they make in filling the position.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday April 08 2020, @03:31PM (8 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday April 08 2020, @03:31PM (#980285)

          Their value is judged by the difference they make in filling the position.

          Is it, though? When entry negotiations include multi-million dollar bailout provisions, that seems like a hollow argument.

          Company I worked for in Houston had a Cowboy CEO come though, damn near sink the place, then excuse himself and his CFO from further leadership on pretense of an options scandal - taking "only" $5M on the way out the door as "punishment" for his poor performance (would have been $15M cash + hundreds of millions more if he had made his options to be worth anything...)

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 08 2020, @04:05PM (7 children)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday April 08 2020, @04:05PM (#980290) Homepage Journal

            Yep. Actual value not what the board pays them because of shady kickbacks or what Clueless George on the street thinks they should be paid because he's unhappy with his shitty wages.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday April 08 2020, @04:50PM (6 children)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday April 08 2020, @04:50PM (#980305)

              This is where I expect more from leadership: Clueless George may be clueless, but once you're "up there" with 1000x Clueless George's income (nevermind net worth, Clueless George's net worth is negative), I expect leaders to bring the Clueless Georges of the world not only a little more clue, but also a little more opportunity.

              The net compensation of the bottom rungs should be increasing, percentage wise, faster than the net compensation of the top rungs - not the opposite. It's not that the top rungs shouldn't get more, it's that they shouldn't continue to accelerate their climb to the stratosphere on the backs of hundreds of thousands of people they could be doing more for, but choose not to - and I'm not talking about eyewash philanthropy, I'm talking about the mainstream economy.

              Going from where we are all the way to all singing Kumbaya in an egalitarian circle around a campfire is neither realistic, nor necessary, but the direction we're traveling in does matter; we've been going the wrong way for my entire adult life, and we seem to be accelerating. The top will reach much greater heights by building up all levels than they will by extending their distance from the bottom, but that doesn't seem to enter into their thinking much, if at all.

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 08 2020, @07:18PM (4 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 08 2020, @07:18PM (#980347) Journal

                but once you're "up there" with 1000x Clueless George's income (nevermind net worth, Clueless George's net worth is negative), I expect leaders to bring the Clueless Georges of the world not only a little more clue, but also a little more opportunity.

                Sorry, that's not their job. Look to the thousands of Clueless Georges instead. It's their jobs to get both clue and opportunity. If the Clueless Georges aren't interested, then that's a strong indication that nobody else should be either.

                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday April 08 2020, @11:03PM (3 children)

                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday April 08 2020, @11:03PM (#980419)

                  Look to the thousands of Clueless Georges instead.

                  Yes, of course, shall we fight a thousand cat sized elephants, or a single elephant sized cat?

                  Billionaires are much more pleasant creatures when they go places like Yellowstone, the majority of the population on the planet (human and otherwise) are not so well treated by them.

                  --
                  🌻🌻 [google.com]
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2020, @01:39AM (2 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 09 2020, @01:39AM (#980473) Journal

                    Yes, of course, shall we fight a thousand cat sized elephants, or a single elephant sized cat?

                    You have yet to show that we should mess with the elephants/cats in the first place.

                    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday April 09 2020, @03:09AM (1 child)

                      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday April 09 2020, @03:09AM (#980487)

                      The cat sized elephants get their asses kicked every day, and they outnumber the elephant sized cats 100,000:1.

                      Yes, the cat sized elephants should stand up and demand more, but that's a tall order when you're either occupied with a 40+hr per week career or marginalized by society.

                      --
                      🌻🌻 [google.com]
                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2020, @03:40AM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 09 2020, @03:40AM (#980491) Journal

                        Yes, the cat sized elephants should stand up and demand more, but that's a tall order when you're either occupied with a 40+hr per week career or marginalized by society.

                        In other words, this "ass kicking" isn't very important to the elephants. I think you know my take on that, if it's not important to them to improve their lives in this way, then it's not important to me.

              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 09 2020, @01:42PM

                by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday April 09 2020, @01:42PM (#980564) Homepage Journal

                I expect leaders to bring the Clueless Georges of the world not only a little more clue, but also a little more opportunity.

                What. The. Fuck.

                Dude, their job is running a business. They are not Clueless George's daddy and they are not his community leaders. They are his employer. Clueless George is there because he says he has something to offer in exchange for money. Contracting someone for their labor does not obligate you to do anything except pay them the agreed upon amount.

                The net compensation of the bottom rungs should be increasing, percentage wise, faster than the net compensation of the top rungs - not the opposite.

                That is one hundred percent commie bullshit. People should be paid according to the value they bring to the company. Period. If they can be easily replaced by a teenager who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, it would not only be foolish but also unethical to pay them any more than a teenager who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

                Why the hell do progressives seem to want everyone to be their fucking daddy? Very distinctly progressives and not liberals here. Actual liberals would never stand for being bossed around like children in return for someone solving all their problems like children. Is the idea of personal responsibility really that terrifying to you guys?

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by MostCynical on Tuesday April 07 2020, @02:58AM (3 children)

    by MostCynical (2589) on Tuesday April 07 2020, @02:58AM (#979858) Journal

    but they didn't test CEO vs No-CEO. They tested "market perception of ability of company to cope with indisposed CEO, reflected in share price"

    A better, but far harder to answer question would be "How much value did CEO add to the share price, above any average changes in similar stocks and across all stocks in the period, and how much of any positive variance can be attributed to the CEO and not other identifiable causes?"

    --
    "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2020, @03:15AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2020, @03:15AM (#979865)

      There's nothing in the article about stock prices. The article and the paper abstract do mention "profitability", but that's a bit different from stock price.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday April 07 2020, @12:37PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday April 07 2020, @12:37PM (#979945)

      how much of any positive variance can be attributed to the CEO and not other identifiable causes?"

      Oh, but that question is too hard and too open to subjective influences... so we just picked an irrelevant objective situation instead so that people have something that can't be immediately shot down as opinion to point to that sounds like what they're trying to say, even though it's not.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 08 2020, @02:37PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday April 08 2020, @02:37PM (#980262) Homepage Journal

      Yeah, it was a pretty pointless study because the folks behind it didn't understand what they were even studying.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.