21–30 of 31 posts
Sears Canada had a similar approach... millions to a bunch of sr. execs and complete default on pensions to the workers. "We need this to save the company" was their cry. We need those sr. executives to get us out of this situation that they've been in charge of for years. Oh, Sears Canada is now out of business and the workers got nothing... but don't worry the executives that the company was so worried about receiv…
I understand that it's hard to read these headlines, but if Toys 'R' Us wants to retain key qualified executives during these delicate times, they must do that and even greater bonuses than a company where an executive also has equity as an incentive.
Currently, my take away is a sizable risk-free bonus for holding the company's hand to imminent bankruptcy.
I understand that it's hard to read these headlines, but if Toys 'R' Us wants to retain key qualified executives during these delicate times, they must do that and even greater bonuses than a company where an executive also has equity as an incentive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically, "we need to make sure they are incentivized to perform". "I won't do my job well without a few extra million dollars." And this, "it is the employees - and more particularly the senior management team - that must execute at this critical juncture" ... "Screw you, people actually working the stores, you'll be lucky if we have a pension fund at the end of this. You need to be executing. Bonus? Haven't you he…
Yea I mean it sucks to be a commodity worker vs an executive with experience, connections and ability to join any other company with way less risk and pressure. You pay them the bank because if they screw up if proliferates all the way down and they lose even more.
That’s what pisses people off.
"Among the 17 executives who would get payments is chairman and CEO David Brandon, who joined the company in 2015."
I understand that it's hard to read these headlines, but if Toys 'R' Us wants to retain key qualified executives during these delicate times, they must do that and even greater bonuses than a company where an executive also has equity as an incentive.
Sears Canada had a similar approach... millions to a bunch of sr. execs and complete default on pensions to the workers. "We need this to save the company" was their cry. We need those sr. executives to get us out of this situation that they've been in charge of for years. Oh, Sears Canada is now out of business and the workers got nothing... but don't worry the executives that the company was so worried about receiv…
That's a terrible situation, but this is exactly why people should want their retirement savings to be kept in an account with their own name on it. When the music stops for a pension, your chair is up for grabs. When the music stops for a 401k, nobody can grab your chair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't know the backstory, which is that Toys R Us is a bust-out private equity ploy, where KKR acquired them and larded them with debt, which pushed them into bankruptcy when they would have very likely been solvent otherwise. Toys R Us Downfall Due to Debt, Not Competition http://fortune.com/2017/09/20/toys-r-us-bankruptc-debt-lever...
Perhaps it was the only way the company was able to get sold? If anything, blame the old shareholders for selling to an LBO player.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps it was the only way the company was able to get sold? If anything, blame the old shareholders for selling to an LBO player.
Why did the company need to be sold at all? Why is a steady state of respectable profits/meeting consumer needs seen as "losing" in "modern" capitalism simply because it isn't exciting drama to shareholders?
Companies are owned by people, you know? They might not want to pass down (large) companies for 10+ generations, due to different interests and passions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps it was the only way the company was able to get sold? If anything, blame the old shareholders for selling to an LBO player.
Why did the company need to be sold at all? Why is a steady state of respectable profits/meeting consumer needs seen as "losing" in "modern" capitalism simply because it isn't exciting drama to shareholders?
Economics isn't about enabling the creation of new ideas. It's about controlling the movement of capital for the benefit of capitalists. All the inputs lead to the financial system. All the outputs lead to their account numbers.
Fortunately for them, the rubes are convinced that is how things get made.
Not, you know, with their own two hands and minds, as is the reality.
But I'm curious why we need to prop up such things forever anyway. Corporations used to have an expiration date. Term limits for private power.
Do we need factories churning out plastic crap for decades, to make kids giggle, only for us to tell them "Grow up and get a job?"
The epitome of disposable nonsense. Humanity must record and elate itself at each and every one of its own farts for the rest of time.