Activision's CEO Got An 800% Raise

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Damn, Bobby Kotick got a 800% raise? It sure must be nice to be a CEO these days. :eek:

Robert Kotick, president and chief executive officer of Activision Blizzard Inc. (ATVI), increased his compensation almost eightfold to $64.9 million last year, becoming one of the highest-paid CEOs in the U.S. The bulk of the increase for Kotick came in stock awards valued at $55.9 million, based on regulatory reporting rules, that were tied to a new employment agreement signed in March 2012, according to a filing yesterday by the video-game software company.
Click to expand...
 
mzs_biteme said:
Burning question: WHY????!!!???
Simple answer: BECAUSE THEY CAN!!!!

Not a reflection of actual company performance.... Never is anymore!
Click to expand...

Actually, they had one of their best years last year and performed better then expected.
They increased outlook in revenue for 2012 and had a record breaking year as well as 4th quarter. Though I am curious how they're doing in 2013, reports aren't in for them for another couple weeks.
 
"Increased his compensation" - now there's an ability I'd like to have!
 
They should have paid him in hookers and blow. Would have been more interesting to see in the regulatory report. :)
 
""Kotick’s compensation plan was approved by shareholders last year.""

the headline is a little misleading. a lot of corporate ceo's do not make a salary, so this type of compensation is normal.

"""The stock grants in Kotick’s new employment contract cover performance retroactive from July 1, 2011, and run through the deal’s end in June 2016, according to a March 19, 2012, regulatory filing. He received no stock awards in 2011 and $1.9 million in 2010, and no stock options in any of the past three years. """"
 
cptnjarhead said:
the headline is a little misleading. a lot of corporate ceo's do not make a salary, so this type of compensation is normal.
Click to expand...

Yeah normal for CEOs. And the no-salary thing is a great tax dodge. lol. Who wouldn't choose to be paid in a fashion where you pay less than half your taxes, and in some cases only a third?
 
Ahh lets not forget bobby and Activision. My has time change in a short few years lol
 
28871602.jpg
 
UrielDagda said:
Yeah normal for CEOs. And the no-salary thing is a great tax dodge. lol. Who wouldn't choose to be paid in a fashion where you pay less than half your taxes, and in some cases only a third?
Click to expand...

stock is not liquid until you sell. yes earned income is taxed more than investment income, but thats so people keep their money in the market.
imop, a ceo is far more valuable than a person who can throw a ball into a hoop, yet both make insane amounts of money. performance based income.
as long as the share holders are happy, not much else to say.
 
cptnjarhead said:
stock is not liquid until you sell. yes earned income is taxed more than investment income, but thats so people keep their money in the market.
imop, a ceo is far more valuable than a person who can throw a ball into a hoop, yet both make insane amounts of money. performance based income.
as long as the share holders are happy, not much else to say.
Click to expand...

If all you base compensation on is the money returned to shareholders, on what basis do you conclude a CEO is more "valuable" than a "person who can throw a ball into a hoop?"
 
And so the supreme a**hole has even more incentive to be the supreme a**hole.
 
Magnus said:
If all you base compensation on is the money returned to shareholders, on what basis do you conclude a CEO is more "valuable" than a "person who can throw a ball into a hoop?"
Click to expand...

"performance based income" from my post.

both occupations compensation is based on performance.
I place more value on a ceo. Corporate direction, planning, management, team building, budgeting... the list goes on.

the other occupation... ball in hoop on this end, stop the ball from going in the hoop on the other.
 
cptnjarhead said:
"performance based income" from my post.

both occupations compensation is based on performance.
I place more value on a ceo. Corporate direction, planning, management, team building, budgeting... the list goes on.

the other occupation... ball in hoop on this end, stop the ball from going in the hoop on the other.
Click to expand...

You haven't answered the question, just diversified it. Why is "corporate direction, planning, management, team building, budgeting" etc. more valuable or shows more "performance?"
 
cptnjarhead said:
stock is not liquid until you sell. yes earned income is taxed more than investment income, but thats so people keep their money in the market.
imop, a ceo is far more valuable than a person who can throw a ball into a hoop, yet both make insane amounts of money. performance based income.
as long as the share holders are happy, not much else to say.
Click to expand...

No its so people will invest more new money... The lower capital gains encourages cashing out of the market. Since realizing your earnings is taxed less then if you actually worked for the money.

If they wanted to encourage people to keep their money in investments then the tax rate would be higher.
 
cptnjarhead said:
"performance based income" from my post.

both occupations compensation is based on performance.
I place more value on a ceo. Corporate direction, planning, management, team building, budgeting... the list goes on.

the other occupation... ball in hoop on this end, stop the ball from going in the hoop on the other.
Click to expand...

But the people that do all the actual work, not so much, in the scheme of things.

I don't get how vast payment on performance for a CEO is worth so much more than, say, a person busting their ass all day to actually turn the ideas into something concrete. At some point in the last 40 years or so there's been a vast disconnect on the value between the two, and people tend to just sit back and say "that's how it is".

For some reason that question just itches the back of my brain when I read about these compensation packages on one end, then later, layoffs at the other. Something always smells a little funny to me about it.
 
Magnus said:
You haven't answered the question, just diversified it. Why is "corporate direction, planning, management, team building, budgeting" etc. more valuable or shows more "performance?"
Click to expand...

i did answer the question, not sure i can make it any clearer.
 
dandirk said:
No its so people will invest more new money... The lower capital gains encourages cashing out of the market. Since realizing your earnings is taxed less then if you actually worked for the money.

If they wanted to encourage people to keep their money in investments then the tax rate would be higher.
Click to expand...

I think the low taxes are the cause of stock market burping. It makes the wealthiest people essentially pump the market for quick, low tax money. Then when that happens all the long term investors are who get taken for their money, thereby making more people wary of long term investing, creating even more volatility.

Throw in bizarre financial instruments, shorting and commodity speculators, the average guy is better off just keeping his money out, the ones who would benefit the most from a lower tax bracket on investments.

Who here isn't just sitting back, watching and waiting for it all to implode again?
 
UrielDagda said:
But the people that do all the actual work, not so much, in the scheme of things.

I don't get how vast payment on performance for a CEO is worth so much more than, say, a person busting their ass all day to actually turn the ideas into something concrete. At some point in the last 40 years or so there's been a vast disconnect on the value between the two, and people tend to just sit back and say "that's how it is".

For some reason that question just itches the back of my brain when I read about these compensation packages on one end, then later, layoffs at the other. Something always smells a little funny to me about it.
Click to expand...

Yeah the CEO compensation ratio vs avg employees has sky rocketed to insane levels. Match that with the "Golden Parachute" insanity (when normal employees mess up they get the bit F* off not a check).

CEOs are worth a lot of money, they have value... At the ratio above employees now... don't think so.

The basketball analogy isn't a good one though... a star player can bring in tons of cash whether the team wins or loses due to good/bad leadership.
 
cptnjarhead said:
i did answer the question, not sure i can make it any clearer.
Click to expand...

You have not made it clear what you are measuring performance or value by. Are you saying it takes more brains to be a CEO? If so, than you are rewarding for more than just the earnings of the organization. So, then why are other intelligent people not rewarded in this manner?
 
Also the weird thing about it is, those people that make tons of money putting balls through hoops also pay a much higher tax rate, because they're still paid a wage.. A high wage, but in the end, it's still a wage. So they have to pay full local, state and federal taxes as well as payroll taxes on it.. Something that CEOs getting "compensated" don't wind up doing.

It's not even that, that bugs me so much as the vast amounts that keep growing no matter how much the economy is shit for everybody else. It's all out of whack.
 
cptnjarhead said:
stock is not liquid until you sell. yes earned income is taxed more than investment income, but thats so people keep their money in the market.
imop, a ceo is far more valuable than a person who can throw a ball into a hoop, yet both make insane amounts of money. performance based income.
as long as the share holders are happy, not much else to say.
Click to expand...

Actually many athletes are underpaid due to salary caps, especially when their merchandise generates $50+ million in extra sales (separate from endorsement deals) and owners can flip their franchise for a $500+ million gain over 7 years if they have one or two great players and playoff wins.

And executives do not follow this model in all countries even if they run very successful, lean companies.
 
dandirk said:
No its so people will invest more new money... The lower capital gains encourages cashing out of the market. Since realizing your earnings is taxed less then if you actually worked for the money.

If they wanted to encourage people to keep their money in investments then the tax rate would be higher.
Click to expand...

the lower tax rate does give people incentive to invest their money. but if the tax was high, people wouldn't invest in the first place. but you are correct. i should have worded it differently.
as i said. earned income is taxed more than investment income
 
Apples performance post Steve Jobs is a good example of CEO's effect on company.
Steve Jobs pretty much is the best modern day argument for the CEO impact. Apple would be nothing if not for his return. (Make no mistake I am no Jobs fan (am a WOZ fan but another topic), but whoever you are you have to respect what he did with Apple).

Ballmer post Gates.

Or for a less literal translation Obama on the U.S.

Figure heads are important, in that the final decision (the ones no one else wants to make) are given to them and they set the corporate tone, the company direction.

What is sad is the CEO wins regardless of their decisions. Could another manager make correct decision (or perhaps informed decision) I will argue that no names might be able to do a better job in many cases. Are they over paid? Absolutely! So are actors, athletes, musicians and politicians. Not much we are going to do about it unless we quit supporting them, make your choice...
 
Sorry if it sounded like I was trying to start a political roil on here. lol.. It's just when somebody says that some huge CEO payout is justified, while wage earners are getting paid shit these days... I just really, really, really am trying to understand why. The logical part of my mind just contorts into a major "wtf?!" mode, and generates a zillion questions burning in my brain, and I swear trying to understand it makes me get the brain's equivalent of a groin pull.
 
cptnjarhead said:
the lower tax rate does give people incentive to invest their money. but if the tax was high, people wouldn't invest in the first place. but you are correct. i should have worded it differently.
as i said. earned income is taxed more than investment income
Click to expand...

That still makes no sense to me. That's like saying if somebody had a million bucks, and could invest it and make $250,000 after tax, then they raised the tax and he could only now make $180,000, he'd just say "fuck it, I'd rather not have the $180,000 and shove my money under a mattress instead".

Only an asshat would do that. So we'd stop asshats from investing, I'm sure there would be plenty of people behind him saying "well if you won't I will!" and step in and invest, and make that money.
 
UrielDagda said:
But the people that do all the actual work, not so much, in the scheme of things.

I don't get how vast payment on performance for a CEO is worth so much more than, say, a person busting their ass all day to actually turn the ideas into something concrete. At some point in the last 40 years or so there's been a vast disconnect on the value between the two, and people tend to just sit back and say "that's how it is".

For some reason that question just itches the back of my brain when I read about these compensation packages on one end, then later, layoffs at the other. Something always smells a little funny to me about it.
Click to expand...

"I don't get how vast payment on performance for a CEO is worth so much more than, say, a person busting their ass all day to actually turn the ideas into something concrete"

a ceo can or does work as many hours if not more than the employees. the media has made a CEO into this persona that is not accurate. being in charge is not as easy as some portray. as for the "vast payment" why would anyone want all the responsibility if they could make the same money or close too it just being an employee with less responsibility and experience.
 
XeenSD said:
At least actors, athletes and musicians are the ones that are directly doing the work, and are well paid for it. Especially athletes in something like hockey or football, where they get the crap kicked out of them and their brains smashed in for their pay.

I bet no billionaire or mega-millioniare CEO ever ended their career at age 30 due to concussion syndrome. Look at Sidney Crosby. After taxes he'll probably wind up making a little under $5 million this year.. Hell that's a lot of money, but in the process his face got smashed in and he's going to need a head full of new teeth! Now THAT'S what I call working for your money!
Click to expand...
 
dandirk said:
Yeah the CEO compensation ratio vs avg employees has sky rocketed to insane levels. Match that with the "Golden Parachute" insanity (when normal employees mess up they get the bit F* off not a check).

CEOs are worth a lot of money, they have value... At the ratio above employees now... don't think so.

The basketball analogy isn't a good one though... a star player can bring in tons of cash whether the team wins or loses due to good/bad leadership.
Click to expand...

"a star player can bring in tons of cash" - no argument there
as i said. "imop" "i place more value in a ceo"
a CEO making 60 million at a company making 1.15 billion annually does not bother me.
but a person who can put a ball in a hoop making that much money, bothers me.
not saying its wrong. that is the market value for the palyer, but i do not have to like it.
both get paid base on performance, but i think a ceo is worth it not the ball player. hence i wouldn't make a good franchise owner cause i would never pay the high dollar, but that would make be a terrible ceo of the franchise, so i guess im stuck doing my current occupation.
 
As much as I despise what Kotick does to gaming I have to admit he deserves the raise. The Vivendi merge happened under his watch, the explosion of COD happened under his watch, under his reign as CEO Activision has made a ton of profit. How many CEOs get a raise when the company is losing money ? At least he has made his company money.
 
cptnjarhead said:
"a star player can bring in tons of cash" - no argument there
as i said. "imop" "i place more value in a ceo"
a CEO making 60 million at a company making 1.15 billion annually does not bother me.
but a person who can put a ball in a hoop making that much money, bothers me.
not saying its wrong. that is the market value for the palyer, but i do not have to like it.
both get paid base on performance, but i think a ceo is worth it not the ball player. hence i wouldn't make a good franchise owner cause i would never pay the high dollar, but that would make be a terrible ceo of the franchise, so i guess im stuck doing my current occupation.
Click to expand...

Why are CEOs the only thing worth anything? Are they godlike beings worthy of worship or something? What's so magical about the almighty CEO that makes them worth being paid so much more than any other being on the planet?

I just don't get the fetishism. lol
 
cptnjarhead said:
"I don't get how vast payment on performance for a CEO is worth so much more than, say, a person busting their ass all day to actually turn the ideas into something concrete"

a ceo can or does work as many hours if not more than the employees. the media has made a CEO into this persona that is not accurate. being in charge is not as easy as some portray. as for the "vast payment" why would anyone want all the responsibility if they could make the same money or close too it just being an employee with less responsibility and experience.
Click to expand...

Oh goody, now I get to ask what you mean by "responsibility" since you won't answer how you define "performance" or, "value" of a CEO. Tell me is what a CEO does worth a salary double what those hard working employees earn? 3 times, 4 times? How about 20 times or more the salary? Because, that's what most CEO's earn.
 
UrielDagda said:
Sorry if it sounded like I was trying to start a political roil on here. lol.. It's just when somebody says that some huge CEO payout is justified, while wage earners are getting paid shit these days... I just really, really, really am trying to understand why. The logical part of my mind just contorts into a major "wtf?!" mode, and generates a zillion questions burning in my brain, and I swear trying to understand it makes me get the brain's equivalent of a groin pull.
Click to expand...

what justifies the amount of pay for a job in your opinion?
how much is too much? is there a dollar amount? if so what is it?
im not being argumentative, just wondering.

when you work for a company, you agree to get pay=x for output = y.
so if y is not enough than you need to renegotiate, get a different job or start your own business. no one puts a gun to your head and says "you will work for this amount"?
people do not even blink at an athlete, movie star, musician making millions, but if an evil ceo makes millions then they are the devil. that makes no sense to me. a top level ceo is like a starter in a professional team and that is why they make the big bucks. i just think athletes make too much but that is my opinion. if the player can draw that amount in the market then so be it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top