tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19837575.post6960666807164427878..comments2009-02-19T10:42:17.189-05:00VC Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17683655895197663690noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19837575.post-27330017671700095692009-02-19T08:26:00.000-05:002009-02-19T08:26:00.000-05:00Dan - I agree that if Company X is 5 times bigger than Company Y you probably are should be looking at a bigger base salary for company Y. But holding that variable constant I don't see any reason James's personal stake in the company should matter. I definitely agree we need more founder CEO's (or if not founder then a higher equity stake). <BR/><BR/>I'm having flashbacks to all those economic theories about incentive alignment! Definitely an interesting debate in the current economic times.Kris Aebischerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17306013293399652530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19837575.post-22370960774433753232009-02-17T16:43:00.000-05:002009-02-17T16:43:00.000-05:00@Kris: I can understand your observation. My core point was that using base salary for setting arbitrary ceilings is missing the point that compensation is a total package -- especially if the prime example used (Tom James) involves a CEO who was also the founder. <BR/><BR/>Most of the largest corporations in question aren't still run by their founding CEO with significant founding ownership so comparing their base salaries to Tom James is misleading.<BR/><BR/>A decent conclusion from the James/Iger comparison could be that we need more founder CEOs, but you can't draw anything valuable from comparing their base salaries.<BR/><BR/>So, taking James/founders out of the equation, how should base salaries compare between a CEO managing $30 million of company/shareholder value and a CEO managing $30 billion of company/shareholder value? I would guess the janitors in those two companies would make about the same, but should the CEOs make the same given their relative impact on shareholder value?VC Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17683655895197663690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19837575.post-54568766027060554412009-02-17T08:49:00.000-05:002009-02-17T08:49:00.000-05:00Dan - I would say that paying Iger more (in base salary) because he owns a smaller percentage only exacerbates the problem. I don't have the link in front of me but you've probably seen the Michael Lewis piece on the end of Wall Street where he talks about Investment Banks having CEO's w/o significant equity and how that trend in the 80's ultimately led to the problems we've seen recently.Kris Aebischerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17306013293399652530noreply@blogger.com