Oracle Shareholders Vote Against Ellison's Compensation Package (Again) 213
angry tapir writes "A majority of Oracle shareholders have once again voted against the company's executive pay practices, including for CEO Larry Ellison. The vote at Oracle's annual shareholder meeting is nonbinding, and follows complaints from some large shareholders and their representatives who say Ellison is overpaid compared to his peers. Ellison is paid US$1 in salary, receiving the rest of his pay in stock options. In Oracle's past fiscal year, that totaled $76.9 million. Shareholders voted against Oracle's executive pay practices at last year's meeting as well."
Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
While TFA provides a good summary of the vote, it does a terrible reason of explaining why the shareholders voted as they did.
So why are the shareholders against Larry's compensation package? The use of stock options means that Larry only gets paid if the company is doing well; or rather more specifically if the company's shares are doing well, which is all the shareholders are going to care about in the first place. At 4.6B shares the company is big enough that Larry's compensation isn't going to meaningfully dilute the value of shares. And switching to traditional compensation packages would eat into Oracle's profits.
What am I missing here? For a company that's doing well, this seems like the perfect way to pay Larry. What is it the shareholders would rather do, and why would it be any better?
Two Presidents (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: A bunch of spineless wimps... (Score:0, Interesting)
You really should shut up.
You don't what communism is. Just. Shut. Up.
Re:A bunch of spineless wimps... (Score:0, Interesting)
Also, do you have no fucking common sense? Think about it, nobody needs and deserves 77 million a year. He does not work 1000 hours a day. And what judge has any common sense?
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)