Conference 7.286::digital

	About $950,000 of that (if I remember correctly) was salary. This
	is about a 3% raise from the year before. The rest is due to exercising
	of stock option grants. Apperently there was some change in the tax
	law that made it alot less painful to do this last year and a lot
	of people with lots of outstanding options exercised them last year.
	I believe the thinking was that the tax laws could change again.

	So about $9,000,000 is the difference between fair market value of
	the DEC stock KO bought and the price he paid. I don't know but I
	would not be surprised if KO has had some of these options for a
	while. I also believe that he would have looked like he was making
	a whole lot more if he had bought them when the stock was up around
	$200 a share. It's all paper profit though until he sells it.

				Alfred

    As .1 points out, the vast majority of the CEO's total compensation
    is due to non-recurring items like stock options.  These items are
    usually tied directly to the performance of the company, and can
    fluctuate wildly.  There's always the chance you can hit it big
    a one year, after some "leaner" times.
    
    Ken's base salary is quite lower than a lot of our competitor's
    CEO's, many of whom are not averse to taking some cream off the
    top even when their companies are in bad financial situations.
    Personally, I'm glad I work for someone like Ken, rather than
    you-know-who ...
    
    Geoff

    I've seen figures for some CEOs who can say nothing more than "I've
    made a big company bigger".  Some of these folks make a living by
    buying out small companies and firing half the staff to increase
    profits.  Those who are "permitted" to stay are expected to work
    long and cheaply.  People become the pawns which are used to pad
    the pockets of those in power.  I've seen this situation from
    the inside -- and it stinks BIG TIME!
    
    Ken can say that he has guided a company from a rinky-dink startup
    to the second largest computer company in the world.  He has managed
    to keep the word "layoff" out of the active vocabulary of his managers.
    And he STILL makes less than many CEOs who have done far less.
    
    IMHO, KO would be a bargain at twice the price!
    
    -- Russ
    
    Afterthought:  Which CEOs would you say would be entitled to MORE
    than KO (given his accomplishments)?  I think the list would be
    very VERY small...

    FWIW:
    
    Ken typically gives {insert incredibly large dollar amount} to
    various charities each year.  He gave something like a million
    shares of stock to his foundation a year or two ago.
    
    I don't think he has to justify his compensation anyway, but
    it would be nice if the reported amounts included a footnote
    about how much he gives away.  He donates a LOT of money.
    
    K.

    I was reading an interesting piece about a call for MINIMUM and
    MAXIMUM wages.(maybe it was in SOAPBOX) I suggest we set the maximum
    at whatever Ken makes since his compensation is more than reasonable
    for a guy who's done what he has.

re: < Note 813.4 by WIRDI::BARTH "Whatever is right, do it" >
                  -< Why don't we hear about his donations? >-

>    I don't think he has to justify his compensation anyway, but
>    it would be nice if the reported amounts included a footnote
>    about how much he gives away.  He donates a LOT of money.
    
    Well, how 'bout 'cause when he gets paid it's a corporate issue and
    (arguably) public information, but once he receives it it's his and
    what he does with it is his own personal business?

    I'll second all the previous .*'s re: Ken's being worth every penny
    he receives, and then some.

    -Jack

    IMO-
    
    It is silly to propose any of us having a say in how much KO makes.
    This company was his brainchild. Everything you see around you is
    essentially "his". Including the terminal you type into, and the
    pleasant environment that allows you to do things like use "notes".
    
    Oh, sure, we all have our gripes, but thats just a part of life.
    
    Im also (IMO) not sure it is appropriate to discuss the salary
    of any employee of Digital, (or so I have been told repeatedly).
    Im sure you wouldnt want KO to arbitrarily decide YOU were making too
    much, would you???  ;^) Or to discuss YOUR salary in a notes
    conference?
    
    
    Rick (not speaking as a moderator, just another guy with an opinion)
    
    
    

re: < Note 813.7 by REGENT::LEVINE >
    
>>    It is silly to propose any of us having a say in how much KO makes.

Please reference the note which suggested this?

>>    Oh, sure, we all have our gripes, but thats just a part of life.

..and this?
    
>>    Im also (IMO) not sure it is appropriate to discuss the salary
>>    of any employee of Digital, (or so I have been told repeatedly).

We are discussing public information as published in Forbes Magazine.

You seem to have misunderstood the intention of this topic.  Perhaps you
should go back and re-read the notes.

Bob

    Re .7:
    
    > Im also (IMO) not sure it is appropriate to discuss the salary
    > of any employee of Digital, (or so I have been told repeatedly).
    
    I've also asked the source of that alleged policy repeatedly, and I've
    never got an answer.  If I hear it one more time without support, it
    might drive me to print my salary on a T-shirt.
    
    
    				-- edp 

        Senior corporate officers are different; their salaries are a
        matter of public record in most corporations. 
        
        As for policy, it's really more social practice, especially in the
        U.S.  In any case, no one can prevent you from disclosing your
        salary (although in some cases you might upset your manager),
        but your salary is (a small part) of your "Personal" information,
        and there are laws (and policies and procedures) about maintaining
        confidentiality about such information.  You can go read the
        VTX infobase for yourself.
        
        Tom

    re .8
    
    #	"Please reference the note which suggested this?"
     
    I was referring to .5, in which the author suggested that it might
    be appropriate to cap KO's salary as-is, and further suggested that
    he did not know what KO had done to deserve this salary. 
    
    the author of .8 also suggested that I had misread the intent of
    this note and its replies. This is what I thought I was reading.
    Please do not hesitate to correct me if you find any errors:
    
    I believe the basenote was posted as an FYI re:KO. I believe most
    of the replies were in approval of this salary. I believe that the
    one I referred to above was not in line with the intent of the
    basenote, and that making a statement about whether a given employee
    deserves his current salary, or deserves a raise next year, is
    inappropriate in general.
    
    IMO:
    KO deserves whatever he wants. Period. He MADE this place exist.
    You cant put a price on that.
    
    
    Rick
    
                       
    
    
                              
    

re: .11 (Rick)

ok...(blush) ... I went back and re-read .5, and I conceed that your 
interpretation is valid... I read it another way, specifically, that
KO deserves whatever he gets, and no one deserves more...

Only .5's author knows for sure what HE meant...  8^)

Bob

    It is a pity that BusinessWeek did not interview randomly selected
    employees of all the companies whose executives are highly paid.
    Betcha Ken would have been one of the VERY VERY few who had great
    unanimous approval and kudos from his own employees, as reflected 
    in previous replies.
    
    ......... Suchindran

    
    Officers of public companys salarys are required by law to be 
    PUBLIC information.  The copmany reports this imformation on the
    SEC 10K and similar public documents.  
    
    Only the highest paid seem to show up on the form.  
    
    Jon
    

    Ken made quite a bit more than his weight in gold last year!
    250 lbs (approximately) X 16 oz/lb  X  $450/oz (approximately)
    = $1,800,000.

	As far as his salary goes, I have just two comments:
    
    		1.  It's really none of my business to comment on whether
    			he "deserves" that much or not.
    		2.  ..but if it WAS my business, I'd say that he deserves
    			every penny and more.
    
    Also, regarding the comments about "deserving" to be paid that much,
    I believe that in a free, capitalist society (such as the USA),
    _everyone_ is entitled (and "deserves") to make as much money as
    they want to and are able to.
    
    -Monty-

        re .15
        
        Just goes to show that he is worth his weight in gold...
        
        q
        

.12�ok...(blush) ... I went back and re-read .5, and I conceed that your 
.12�interpretation is valid... I read it another way, specifically, that
.12�KO deserves whatever he gets, and no one deserves more...

    You have nothing to blush about.I meant .5 exactly as you interpreted
    it...KO deserves every penny.

    
    RE .15 
    
    >  Ken made quite a bit more than his weight in gold last year!
    >  250 lbs (approximately) X 16 oz/lb  X  $450/oz (approximately)
    >  = $1,800,000.
    
    Sorry, but I cant help myself.
    
    Are there 16 ounces to a pound when you are talking gold prices?
    Seems like I remember 12.  Troy ounces maybe?
    
    --------------
    As for KO's salary - fine.  What worries me is that sometimes he
    begins to sound a little like GOD when referred to by his employees.
    
    --------------
    Would I like KO determining my salary?  Are you kidding, I sure
    thought he did.  
    

    re: .18
    
>    Are there 16 ounces to a pound when you are talking gold prices?
>    Seems like I remember 12.  Troy ounces maybe?
    
    I thought of that as well.  Then I re-read the claim.  Ken is worth
    HIS weight in gold.  HIS weight would be in 16 oz. pounds.  I think
    I remember something about the ounces being equal, but the pounds
    are not.  Thus, the gold would have to weigh as many ounces as Ken,
    not pounds.  Anyone with an Almanac care to clarify this one?
    
    I keep remembering a picture of a sultan sitting on one side of the
    scale and a pile of gold balancing him on the other side.  Maybe
    we should just do this with Ken for his wages?  8^}
    
    -- Russ (tongue in cheek -- and foot in mouth)

I believe there are 12 Troy oz in a pound.  So if the calculations are
based in pounds, they would be correct, but if they are based in ounces,
then they are not, because an ounce of gold weighs more than an ounce
of Ken.   8^)

    The calculation included a 16 ounce/pound conversion factor, 
    and used the price of gold/ounce.
    
    Wendy

End to ounces rathole:

Regular ounces are refered to as 'avoridupois'.

  1 'regular' (avoridupois) ounce = 437.5 grains = 28.349 grams
  16 'regular' (avoridupois) ounces = 1 'regular' (avoridupois) pound.

Gold ounces are 'troy' ounces

  1 'troy' ounce = 480 grains = 31.103 grams
  12 'troy' ounces = 1 'troy' pound

Therefore, estimate your favorite CEO's weight in 'regular' ounces,
then multiply by 1.0971 and you will know how many 'troy' ounces that
your CEO weighs. Then find the current gold price to determine the CEO's
"weight worth in gold".

    Yup,  Troy ounces for gold;  avoirdupois (literally: to have weight)
    for people.
    
    Also, I was way off on my estimate of gold's value these days. 
    It's just under $400/oz. this week.
    
    Anyway... y'all get my point.
    
    -Monty-