Incentives don't kick in for Coca-Cola

Coca-Cola (KO -1.3%) CEO Muhtar Kent saw his compensation fall 16% last year as some incentives failed to kick in.

The exec took home $18.2M for the year.

Most of Kent's incentives are linked to the company's global growth rates.

From other sites
Comments (9)
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2863) | Send Message
    Poor guy, how's he going to raise a family on $18.2 million?
    12 Mar 2014, 02:49 PM Reply Like
  • Cfritter
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
    Yea even worse, he might lose his health benefits and have to go on Obama Care!
    12 Mar 2014, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • JD in NJ
    , contributor
    Comments (1634) | Send Message
    That's the kind of lower compensation I could live with.
    12 Mar 2014, 02:55 PM Reply Like
  • rayfrechette
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
    How many of you who own stock in any company would vote to pay such a salary if our vote were mandatory and not a suggestion to directors? Also, how many of you wish we had a choice of more candidates to vote in as directors than the positions open?
    12 Mar 2014, 03:06 PM Reply Like
  • JD in NJ
    , contributor
    Comments (1634) | Send Message
    Surely you're not suggesting that someone could possible run Coca Cola for only 7 million dollars a year? I wouldn't even try for less than twelve million.. hint, hint.
    12 Mar 2014, 03:20 PM Reply Like
  • California Dividend Bull
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
    Agree with the comments about this poor guy but on the other hand I'm actually glad that the incentives described in his contract actually seem to be truly connected to the firm's performance. I'm so tired of seeing CEOs being nicely compensated for underperforming. If my job performance would be mediocre or worse I wouldn't get that raise every other year so why should they...
    12 Mar 2014, 03:49 PM Reply Like
  • Rudester
    , contributor
    Comments (3410) | Send Message
    The game is rigged. BOD's are largely composed of CEO's from other companies and it is in their best interest to ensure that CEO's are highly compensated. They then hire a "compensation consultant" to tell them that they need to increase the CEO's compensation and will produce all kinds of charts to prove it, or he will not be hired as a compensation consultant again. So, they then develop an even more lavish compensation plan than the one they developed the year before. The vicious cycle then repeats itself the following year.


    I wish stock holders in this country had the opportunity to have a binding say on pay.
    12 Mar 2014, 11:50 PM Reply Like
  • bunky13
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
    After the Wall Street screw up that destroyed the world economy, many of the bankers were given over 1 million dollars as a bonus.
    12 Mar 2014, 10:08 PM Reply Like
  • User 23929533
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
    Rudester is right on; it is a rigged game devised by the rich to make the rich richer. Every proxy statement there is always a vote on adding shares "so they can have it to hire good people" but is always used to give the top managers & BOD's a bigger piece of the pie for themselves. That also give them more voting power against the small shareholders.
    13 Mar 2014, 10:59 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs