In virtual town-hall meeting It was mentioned executives’ pay cut, and the answer was that they took pay cuts because the stock price went down?
6 replies (most recent on top)
Flat out, Christmann doesn’t deserve to be Chief of anything. He could give two sh–s whether the company thrives or dies. He is not a leader. He is scared of making tough calls. Get him out. NEXT.
Executives took a pay cut because of stock depreciation – about 50%. Please excuse me, I have to pause...I'm starting to tear up. How will they be able to survive? Alright, I'm back; I regained my exposure. Let's put things in perspective. JC got a three million dollar salary (not affected by the stock price) and about 11 million dollars in stock. Say, for instance, the stock drops 50%, which it did. He is still getting almost 9 million dollars in compensation (salary plus stock), which, in my humble opinion, is way, way more than deserved. Especially since he's getting paid over 90+ times the average employee's salary. Especially since the current state of affairs was due to his brilliant leadership – I'm not talking about the impact of the pandemic or low stock price – I'm talking about the Delaware Basin disaster, where a whole office had to be closed and most everyone was laid off. Especially since other Apache offices suffered huge layoffs as a result. Especially since those laid off are probably sc-apping to get by. But what happens if Apache's returns to about $35/share? The answer: His compensation for that year returns to the original $15 some odd million dollars. So the "pay cut" he supposedly had is no longer a pay cut. Does he return the money back to the company because he took that "pay cut" previously? Do you really think he cares what happens to the company since he is still racking in nine million dollars (after, of course, his "pay cut") this year? I could retire on that, but why would I (if I were him), since I would be receiving an outrageous yearly compensation regardless of whether I destroyed the company or not. What amazes me the most is that he has never shown any empathy. He stood in front of use saying how excited he was that we were transforming into a better company.
Like most, I think the management of the company is rotten to the core.
But, JC is not board chair, allowing an executive to chair the board ended with the last guy due to the obvious governance and consolidation of power issues it caused, especially given the dementia that manifested towards the end of his tenure.
The board is silent because JC is the Chairman of the board. He runs the show and has enormous influence on his compensation, who gets elected, and the future of the company. Its a disgrace and they need to all be removed. He basically has his hands in the cookie jar and will keep raking in cash until bankruptcy. After that, he will make out like a fat cat (pardon the pun).
Where is the Board? Why are they so silent and ineffective?
Exactly-There were no pay cuts, the total compensation was reduced due to the depreciation in stock price. I don't know how these losers sleep at night. CEO's and executives at many other companies have voluntarily reduced compensation because of the lack of performance. You would think the CEO of a company deemed the biggest loser of the decade would follow suit. Don't even get me started on Altus. These criminals shoved the IPO of Altus Midstream down management's throat to extort funding at $10/share. Less than 2 years later the unfortunate employees that helped fund it, were out 95% of their initial investment. Altus went from $10.00 share to $0.56. You can bet you a– that they figured out ways to limit their liability. I hope that Kayne Anderson shareholders file a class-action lawsuit against them for the gross mishandling of the Altus spinoff. What goes around, comes around. Let's hope these guys get theirs in the end.