Comcast CFO Cavanagh gets $41 million in 2015

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 04/09/2016 | Bob Fernandez

[Kid Shelleen]

Comcast's new chief financial officer, Mike Cavanagh, knocked it out of the ballpark with compensation in 2015 of $40.6 million. He officially began his job as CFO on July 1.

--SNIP---

Comcast's six highest-paid executives - Cavanagh, Roberts, Burke, and Comcast Cable division CEO Neil Smit, senior executive vice president David L. Cohen, and former CFO Michael Angelakis - were compensated a total of $176.5 million in 2015.

[pepsi_junkie]

I’m not going to go on a rant about CEO pay but I will say that this sort of eye popping compensation for the top people began at the same time that the boards of directors got taken over by the same executives. The board is supposed to represent the interests of the shareholders, not the executives. I believe there is a conflict of interest in serving as both a board member and an executive in the firm and it shouldn’t be permitted. If it weren’t, I imagine some of the more extreme compensation examples would fade away.

[shelterguy]

Big deal. Many baseball players get 20 million a year to swing a stick at a ball once in awhile.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

$41 million.
That’s a nice number.

[Smittie]

$41 million and I bet he can’t even hit, dribble or throw a ball...no one is worth $41 million, most people couldn’t even spend that amount in their lifetime. How many technicians would that hire to provide customer service? Why are do they have price increases if they have that much money to throw away. Everyone should lose the cable.

[CodeToad]

“no one is worth $41 million, most people couldn’t even spend that amount in their lifetime.”

One simple Gulfstream G650 jet is $65.

[Tilted Irish Kilt]

Eric in the Ozarks : " $41 million.
That’s a nice number."

I am sure that he is worth it --_> NOT !!
Highest number of consumer complaints of all cable companies ,.. combined !
Do you think that there is a problem here ?
and now they want to combine with another cable company - can you say VIRUS / INFECTION ?

[Hot Tabasco]

Big deal. Many baseball players get 20 million a year to swing a stick at a ball once in awhile.

I don't have to attend baseball games or watch on TV so I'm not contributing to their salaries........

Unfortunately I'm stuck with cable so I'm paying for this jerk's salary.............

[shelterguy]

If you are a taxpayer you are supporting their salaries. Here in Minneapolis I have recently purchased a new playhouse for the Twins, the Gophers, the Vikings, The St. Paul Saints and now a soccer team wants free stuff.

[Lurker]

Compared to the annual revenues of Comcast 41 million is chump change.

L

[Larry Lucido]

41 million = crony capitalist.

6 billion = politician who can’t be bought.

/s

[Intolerant in NJ]

Wow - and all that in addition to putting up grand new skyscrapers in downtown Philly - no wonder my monthly bill went up six dollars in January (with three fewer channels in the lineup)- somebody has to pay, and it sure won’t be the poor people, who by the way are also getting free internet from Comcast.....

[Wolfie]

Ah yes, Class Warfare. Eat The Rich!

[pepsi_junkie]

Compared to the annual revenues of Comcast 41 million is chump change.

Comcast is has only two or three competitors for services that virtually everyone uses. Further they have special protections from the government that preclude others from entering the market easily. They deserve fair compensation and I would expect it to be high. But forgive me if I think Comcast executives aren't the ones making the difference between huge profits and losses and deserve huge payouts. Some executives like Steve Jobs were truly the heart and soul of the business and they did really define the firm. They deserve eye popping compensation because they earn it.

I don't see it so much in the case of Comcast. They do a job, it's probably a pretty tough one. But as a shareholder I would say that cash is better put back into the business OR distributed to the shareholders (you know, the owners). But since the board of directors is run by the CEO, it doesn't actually represent shareholders interests over those of executives, does it?

[pepsi_junkie]

But my point is that if there is an independent board of directors which represents the owners and they decide the execitives are worth their weight in gold, then so be it. It's their money, they can decide how it gets allocated. On the other hand if the board is run by the executives then I think they have a conflict of interest and they reward themselves beyond the interests of the shareholders.

Now you may say "it's the going rate for high end executives across business" and I'd respond "that's true because it's common practice to turn over the independent oversight to the executives. Unsurprisingly since then, compensation has gone beyond anything previously seen. The solution is to turn oversight back over to the owners and let them decide." My opinion.

[minnesota_bound]

Imagine what he would be paid if Comcast actually served the public

Comcast major outages going on for days.
http://downdetector.com/status/comcast-xfinity/map/