Replies

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?

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.