Alan Mulally has turned around Ford Motor (F +3.2%) after assuming the CEO post from Bill Ford...


Alan Mulally has turned around Ford Motor (F +3.2%) after assuming the CEO post from Bill Ford Jr. (now executive chairman); now the company has rewarded Mulally with $56.5M in stock - and earmarked $42.4M worth for Bill Ford.
From other sites
Comments (11)
  • richjoy403
    , contributor
    Comments (13467) | Send Message
     
    I don't think anyone...from athlete...to entertainer...to CEO or Chairman... is worth that compensation for 1 year. On the whole, the compensation in this country is broken.

     

    However, for those who don't agree, I offer that if anyone is worth $56 million in stock (plus salary) it, it is Mullally.
    8 Mar 2011, 01:01 PM Reply Like
  • D. McHattie
    , contributor
    Comments (1844) | Send Message
     
    This is also how I see it. I don't see how any individual adds that much value to the economy that would justify extracting that much value for themselves.

     

    The corporation is a structure that has a way of concentrating wealth and income in a relatively small elite.

     

    The bitter irony is that corporations would not exist if our government didn't write laws that create and enforce corporate laws - those claiming that whatever a corporation pays an individual is what that individual is 'worth' conveniently forget this point.
    8 Mar 2011, 04:19 PM Reply Like
  • richjoy403
    , contributor
    Comments (13467) | Send Message
     
    McHattie
    Your comment seems not aimed to the issue of compensation so much as a rant on corporations as a legal entity:

     

    1. I can't imagine we would have the standard of living we have in the 20th and 21st centuries without corporations, which as you allude to, have the ability to grow to giants (if the marketplace so votes with dollars expended on the products/services of the corporation) and survives the death of any owner (shareholder).

     

    2.With respect to "those claiming that whatever a corporation pays an individual is what that individual is 'worth' conveniently forget this point."...your point addresses only corporate compensation...thus, one must ask...if you reject the 'worth' logic for corporate compensation, do you also reject the 'worth' argument for football players, entertainers, and others not members of corporations?
    8 Mar 2011, 07:40 PM Reply Like
  • D. McHattie
    , contributor
    Comments (1844) | Send Message
     
    Thank you, richjoy, I absolutely reject the notion that athletes and entertainers are 'worth' what they are paid. Is A-rod a better ballplayer than Ted Williams? Is Tom Cruise a better actor than Laurence Olivier?

     

    It is legislation and the legal structure that promotes the concentration of wealth among a relatively small elite. That goes for copyright legislation and corporate law.

     

    But let me be perfectly clear: there is nothing inherently wrong with the corporate structure. It is our legislation that is wrong.

     

    I don't blame corporations per se as an evil and worthless creation of government. What I blame are the particular laws that favor them and allow them to grow so large and accumulate such wealth to the detriment of fairness and justice.

     

    I would not outlaw corporations - that view is simplistic and destructive.

     

    But I would certainly alter some legislation that works in their favor. One example: corporate 'personhood' which guarantees the right of corporations to pay your elected representatives to write more laws to favor corporations.
    8 Mar 2011, 09:31 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1707) | Send Message
     
    He was at right place at right time. Some people are just lucky.
    8 Mar 2011, 01:02 PM Reply Like
  • Deepv
    , contributor
    Comments (517) | Send Message
     
    THe idea that we are in a secular bear market and this is cyclical bull is predicated on looking at the Dow or S&P. If you take a look at a REAL index, like value line 1650 (KVY on bloomberg) and draw it back to 2000 you will see the idea that we have a lost decade as complete MYTH.
    8 Mar 2011, 01:03 PM Reply Like
  • capitaledgeny
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    He was just lucky?!! At the right place at the right time??! He came from an operating/manufacturing background at Boeing, raised money before the crisis so Ford didn't have to go to the gov't, dealt with the unions to get costs manageable and is profitably producing decently made cars the consumer seems to like. You call that luck? (long F)
    8 Mar 2011, 01:25 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1707) | Send Message
     
    Yes Sir. It is a luck. You can put monkey there and ford will make the profit. It is not Alan who make the car. There are several thousand bright people work for the company.
    8 Mar 2011, 03:51 PM Reply Like
  • nfantis
    , contributor
    Comments (89) | Send Message
     
    They didn't make a yearly profit for years before Mulally. You should watch the CNBC documentary to learn a bit more about the changes he introduced to promote success.
    8 Mar 2011, 04:20 PM Reply Like
  • Duude
    , contributor
    Comments (3413) | Send Message
     
    He ought to be thanking the US taxpayer for his bonus. What's that? They didn't get any taxpayer money? Wrong! In 2009 Ford received a low interest rate government loan of $5.9B for retooling. Did they use it for retooling? Not exactly. In fact, not at all. They paid down union medical debt and paid down other already outstanding debt with the proceeds thus lowering their interest expense. They also received another $1.8B low interest rate government loan from the energy department. Who knows what they'll use that for. But the point is Ford isn't the only auto company to reject government help as so many like to repeat. It just seems so when compared to government motors.
    8 Mar 2011, 01:40 PM Reply Like
  • capitaledgeny
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Duude - I think it was technically the Canadian gov't they borrowed the money from and dealt with the Canadian UAW; but honestly I'm not positive and am not going to spend the time to research it. Even it was the US gov't, if they hadn't paid down medical and other debt, our tax dollars would have paid for it anyway thru the PBGC. Pick your poison. More importantly, under Mulally, it appears we won't have to again deal with this. And hopefully everyone is able to draw a nice parallel of the self-serving, unionized auto industry (and teachers unions) and...what they're trying to change in Wisconsin-i.e. UNsustainable fixed costs vs very flexible rev's. (Leave collective bargaining out of equation) and what is going to have to ultimately change in the entire United States.
    Tigersam - so presumably there were many bright people working at Ford and making the cars before Mulally, yet those "monkeys" were clearly NOT able to earn a profit. So what changed?...that's right, Mulally!
    8 Mar 2011, 10:10 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
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