Suck all you want, you'll still get rich...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This is for all those still thinking and believing that top executives are paid what they're paid because they "earn" it. This guy apparently sucked at his job, was fired (resigning in mutual agreement after failing to perform sort of translates into being fired) and yet he leaves with another $210,000,000.00.

Nardelli Out As Boss at Home Depot

Nardelli Resigns Abruptly As CEO of Home Depot, Leaves With $210M Severance Package

By HARRY R. WEBER AP Business Writer

The Associated Press

ATLANTA - Bob Nardelli abruptly resigned Wednesday as chairman and chief executive of The Home Depot Inc. after a six-year tenure that saw the world's largest home improvement store chain post big profits but left investors disheartened by poor stock performance.

Nardelli has also been under fire by investors for his hefty pay and is leaving with a severance package valued at about $210 million. He became CEO in December 2000 after being passed over for the top job at General Electric Co., where Nardelli had been a senior executive.

Home Depot said Nardelli was being replaced by Frank Blake, its vice chairman, effective immediately.

Blake's appointment is permanent, Home Depot spokesman Jerry Shields said. What he will be paid was not immediately disclosed, Shields said. The company declined to make Blake available for comment, and a message left for Nardelli with his secretary was not immediately returned.

Home Depot shares rose $1.61, or 4 percent, to $41.77 in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange, near the upper end of their 52-week range of $32.85 to $43.95.

Nardelli's sudden departure was stunning in that he told The Associated Press as recently as Sept. 1 that he had no intention of leaving, and a key director also said that the board was pleased with Nardelli despite the uproar by some investors.

Asked in that interview if he had thought of hanging up his orange apron and leaving Home Depot, Nardelli said unequivocally that he hadn't. Asked what he thought he would be doing 10 years from now, Nardelli said, "Selling hammers."

For The Home Depot?

"Absolutely," he said at the time.

Home Depot said Nardelli's decision to resign was by mutual agreement with the Atlanta-based company.

"We are very grateful to Bob for his strong leadership of The Home Depot over the past six years. Under Bob's tenure, the company made significant and necessary investments that greatly improved the company's infrastructure and operations, expanded our markets to include wholesale distribution and new geographies, and undertook key strategic initiatives to strengthen the company's foundation for the future," Home Depot's board said in a statement.

Nardelli was a nuts-and-bolts leader, a former college football player and friend of President Bush. He helped increase revenue and profits at Home Depot and increase the number of stores the company operates to more than 2,000. But the public discussion about his pay and the company's stock price had become a distraction.

Industry experts and analysts said his departure and Blake's ascent to the top job are a good thing for Home Depot.

"This is not about strategy or vision," said James Senn, director of Robinson College's Center for Global Business Leadership at Georgia State University. "This is coming down to two things. Really the foundation of leadership is credibility. Bob has run into some problems there. The second is execution."

The Home Depot board also announced that Carol Tome, its chief financial officer, and Joe DeAngelo, its executive vice president for Home Depot Supply, will be assuming additional responsibilities.

Tome will be assuming responsibility for mergers and acquisitions, credit services and additional strategic responsibilities. DeAngelo was appointed to the newly created position of chief operating officer.

Nardelli and Home Depot have agreed to terms of a separation agreement that would provide for payment of the amounts he is entitled to receive under his pre-existing employment contract entered into in 2000. Under this agreement, Nardelli will receive consideration currently valued at about $210 million.

The package includes a cash severance payment of $20 million, the acceleration of unvested deferred stock awards currently valued at approximately $77 million and unvested options with an intrinsic value of approximately $7 million. It also includes payments of earned bonuses and long-term incentive awards of approximately $9 million, account balances under the Company's 401(k) plan and other benefit programs currently valued at approximately $2 million, previously earned and vested deferred shares with an approximate value of $44 million, the present value of retirement benefits currently valued at approximately $32 million and $18 million for other entitlements under his contract. Those entitlements will be paid over a four-year period and will be forfeited if he does not honor his contractual obligations.

Nardelli has also agreed not to compete with the company for one year, and not to solicit employees or customers of the company for four years.

Home Depot did not say what Nardelli would be doing next.

In conjunction with the management changes, the board also announced that it had waived the retirement age of 72 and has asked John L. Clendenin, Claudio X. Gonzales and Milledge A. Hart III to stand for re-election at the 2007 annual shareholders meeting. This action was taken to retain these directors' experience. Home Depot said the action was temporary.

Source

[mawilson 2,133]

$210m..... good man.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

$210m..... good man.

Yes, that is for taking the company from somewhere arounf $50.00/share to somewhere around $40.00/share. A 20% decline over 6 years makes one eligible for this type incentive? I'm sure the Home Depot employees heard year after year that the raises were miniscule or out of the question altogether due to the company going through hard times. This principle somehow never applies to the top execs...

[Muuuuah 0]

Give me his job and i will suck at it also for that kind of money

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

This is for all those still thinking and believing that top executives are paid what they're paid because they "earn" it.

If your argument is that they are paid too much, as a corproate peon, you'll get no argument for me. Anyone who makes more than I do is paid too much. I'm paid too little and people who make less than I am are the Goldilocks contingent of corporate America, they are paid "just right" mmm mmm mmm.

If your argument is that all top executives are incompetent (I don't think that is what you are saying) then clearly that is not true.

[mawilson 2,133]

Give me his job and i will suck at it also for that kind of money

What else would you suck for that kind of money?

[eric&gen 0]

Ill break out my knee pads for that kind of job lol.

[Savanphil 3]

Ill break out my knee pads for that kind of job lol.

[eric&gen 0]

When it comes to money ill suck like a vacum lol

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This is for all those still thinking and believing that top executives are paid what they're paid because they "earn" it.

If your argument is that they are paid too much, as a corproate peon, you'll get no argument for me. Anyone who makes more than I do is paid too much. I'm paid too little and people who make less than I am are the Goldilocks contingent of corporate America, they are paid "just right" mmm mmm mmm.

If your argument is that all top executives are incompetent (I don't think that is what you are saying) then clearly that is not true.

It's the former. Obviously, there are some very competent top execs out there. I have no issue with top execs raking it in big time as long as the company they're running and the employees working for said company are doing extremely well. Most of the time, though, it seems that compensations is plain out of whack...

[BJZags 17]

It's the former. Obviously, there are some very competent top execs out there. I have no issue with top execs raking it in big time as long as the company they're running and the employees working for said company are doing extremely well. Most of the time, though, it seems that compensations is plain out of whack...

I'd agree with a stipulation that if the CEO is making the big bucks because the company is performing well, then he/she should ensure that ALL employees share in this success in some substantial form.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is for all those still thinking and believing that top executives are paid what they're paid because they "earn" it.

If your argument is that they are paid too much, as a corproate peon, you'll get no argument for me. Anyone who makes more than I do is paid too much. I'm paid too little and people who make less than I am are the Goldilocks contingent of corporate America, they are paid "just right" mmm mmm mmm.

If your argument is that all top executives are incompetent (I don't think that is what you are saying) then clearly that is not true.

It's the former. Obviously, there are some very competent top execs out there. I have no issue with top execs raking it in big time as long as the company they're running and the employees working for said company are doing extremely well. Most of the time, though, it seems that compensations is plain out of whack...

Since 1990, average worker pay has increased 28%, just slightly more than inflation, while CEO pay rose 481%. The faces of women and people of color also reflect the widening pay gap. According to recent Census Bureau data, women earn just 74 cents for every dollar earned by a man.

Our resolutions seek to restore a corporate social fabric tattered by frequent downsizings and compensation policies that offer a few leaders boundless rewards, while undervaluing the contributions of the broader workforce.

Solutions...

1. Link CEO and Average Worker Pay

This resolution asks that the company establish a maximum ratio between the pay of the CEO and the pay of the lowest paid worker. The resolution does not specify what the ratio should be, and instead asks the company to wrestle with this question and justify its response to shareholders. Though opponents of this resolution have argued it would cap CEO pay, this is not the case. CEOs would be able to earn more as the company's wage floor was raised. Criterion for selection: companies with large and growing disparities between CEOs and lowest paid workers.

2. Freeze CEO Pay during Periods of Downsizing and Cost-Cutting

Despite record corporate profits during the 1990s, layoffs have continued at levels usually only seen during recessions. A study completed by the American Management Association concluded that fewer than half the companies that undertake restructuring activities, including employee downsizings, experience any improvement in earnings following the restructuring. Still, corporate executives have commonly received large compensation increases following cost-cutting announcements. We believe that in a shared enterprise, both rewards and sacrifices should be shared among all employees. A standard that increases the rewards to executives while asking all other employees to sacrifice leads to poor morale and related problems. This resolution calls for a pay and option freeze for executives in years when more than 5% of workforce or 1,000 employees are laid off.

3. Pay Equity Report

While some women and people of color have successfully advanced into the leadership ranks of U.S. corporations, the experience of many women and people of color is that they continue to be paid significantly less than their male and white colleagues doing the same work. Pay discrimination has been illegal in America since 1973. Enforcement, however, has been lax. Initiatives by the Clinton Administration during the last two years have stepped up enforcement, opening pay discriminators to adverse publicity and legal liabilities. This resolution calls on companies to join other leadership companies and conduct pay equity audits to identify and correct pay equity violations.

Wealth Gap Resolutions

Broadened Ownership

The pay gap between CEOs and the average American worker widened to 419:1 in 1998, according to Business Week. The largest factor in this wide gap has been the explosion of executive stock options. One means of bridging the economic divide is to increase the number of shares owned by employees. Several studies have concluded that firms with significant employee ownership grow faster and have lower turnover. A recent study by Hewitt Associates and the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern found that between 1971 and 1991, companies with employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) had total stock returns that averaged 6.9% higher in the four years after the ESOP was set up than similar firms without ESOPs.

Resolution asks the company to establish an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) funded annually with an equivalent number of shares as are distributed to corporate officers (includes options, restricted stock and stock units).

http://www.responsiblewealth.org/shareholder/2000/index.html

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's the former. Obviously, there are some very competent top execs out there. I have no issue with top execs raking it in big time as long as the company they're running and the employees working for said company are doing extremely well. Most of the time, though, it seems that compensations is plain out of whack...

I'd agree with a stipulation that if the CEO is making the big bucks because the company is performing well, then he/she should ensure that ALL employees share in this success in some substantial form.

That's what I said. But let's not hold our breath...

[mawilson 2,133]

It's the former. Obviously, there are some very competent top execs out there. I have no issue with top execs raking it in big time as long as the company they're running and the employees working for said company are doing extremely well. Most of the time, though, it seems that compensations is plain out of whack...

I'd agree with a stipulation that if the CEO is making the big bucks because the company is performing well, then he/she should ensure that ALL employees share in this success in some substantial form.

That's what I said. But let's not hold our breath...

They are more likely to share their wealth if they are rich.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's the former. Obviously, there are some very competent top execs out there. I have no issue with top execs raking it in big time as long as the company they're running and the employees working for said company are doing extremely well. Most of the time, though, it seems that compensations is plain out of whack...

I'd agree with a stipulation that if the CEO is making the big bucks because the company is performing well, then he/she should ensure that ALL employees share in this success in some substantial form.

That's what I said. But let's not hold our breath...

They are more likely to share their wealth if they are rich.

It's not "their" wealth. They're not entrpreneurs, they're employees who effectively get to write their own paychecks.