Date: November 18th, 2005 6:32 PM Author: Coiffed immigrant shitlib
how many employees does coke actually have? they just license their shit out to bottlers who actually produce it. add up all the presidents of the various bottlers, and maybe you'll get to 200.
You're an idiot. As others have mentioned, most executives make most of their compensation through stock otpions. How many times do you hear of executives do the $1 dollar a year salary or $100,000............then they walk away with $40 million in sales of company stock.
Date: November 18th, 2005 6:48 PM Author: odious love of her life
the point is that one of the most powerful CEO's in the country makes about the same in base salary + bonus as a wachtell partner and even when you consider stock options he makes double.
He's the only CEO of coke, while Wachtell has 80 or so partners.
Date: November 18th, 2005 6:54 PM Author: Coiffed immigrant shitlib
how do you define power? they are basically a nonexistent force in washington. powerful companies are commodity companies that supply your food, energy companies that supply your energy, wal-mart companies that supply your cheap shit from china, and bank "companies" that provide the capital.
Date: November 18th, 2005 6:57 PM Author: Coiffed immigrant shitlib
what's your definition of power??????????????????????
(I can't wait for you to PWN yourself - in terms of size isn't Coke basically a non-player? are they even fortune 50? i could be wrong, but i'm sure you must have the answer)
Date: November 18th, 2005 7:02 PM Author: Coiffed immigrant shitlib
AGAIN - does coke make that much money compared to most big businesses with that level of brand recognition? it has a powerful brand, i admit that. what is their fortune ranking?
Date: November 18th, 2005 7:08 PM Author: Coiffed immigrant shitlib
NO THEY ARE NOT. Fortune only ranks public companies dumbfuck. you need to add in the list of largest private companies. that pushes coke outside the top 100.
Date: November 18th, 2005 7:15 PM Author: Coiffed immigrant shitlib
sure it is. choose a better example. that's just fucking random, choosing some company which has one of the top brands in the world, to rank against some law firm. why don't you compare the CEO or partner of one of the big consulting firms to a partner at Wachtell. Then you're talking.
Date: November 18th, 2005 7:06 PM Author: Coiffed immigrant shitlib
whoopedido. that means they're a fraction of the size of even the top 20 PRIVATE companies. which means in terms of actual size they are well below top 100 (fortune lists only public companies).
Date: June 11th, 2006 11:43 AM Author: Heady Ungodly Whorehouse
They also have very lucrative defined benefit pension plans. The formula is based on years of service plus an average of the exec's highest salary years. These plans can pay executives upwards of 7 figures a year FOR LIFE after they retire. Not bad....and they don't have to contribute a dime of their own cash to the plans.
Date: November 18th, 2005 6:51 PM Author: Frisky sickened prole
He'll probably get an enormous compensation package and pension when he retires. Face it, CEOs of Fortune 50 companies make 3-20 times what highly compensated corporate law partners make.
Date: November 18th, 2005 7:11 PM Author: Coiffed immigrant shitlib
In that case you should look for TTT grads doing personal injury who rake in millions and millions on class actions. show how some cooley grad is PWNIng harvard MBAs (even so, i'm not sure what that proves? you clearly aren't much of a critical thinker).
Date: November 18th, 2005 7:02 PM Author: Frisky sickened prole
Obviously it's easier to become a partner, but the alternatives for someone climbing the corporate ladder, who fails to become a CEO, aren't that bad either. Any large corporation has a large number of corporate officers and many divisions, each witha vice president who makes decent money but probably a bit short of corporate law partner income. I think it's much easier to rise high in a big corporation than it is to to become a partner so you could make your argument the other way too.
speaking of employee numbers, did you guys know that Berkshire Hathaway, whose market value is 140 billion or so, way higher than Coke, has only about 17 employees???!!! amazing. WSJ reported this.
obviously, this does NOT include employees at the subsidiaries, like Geico, Dairy Queen, or Gen Re. i am talking about actual employees of the holding company.
Date: June 11th, 2006 9:47 AM Author: Sapphire Offensive Center
I'm relatively sure that most Wachtell partners would take an offer to be CEO of Coke in a heartbeat. The difference in overall compensation is simply too large, and to cite compensation numbers that don't include stock options and exit/retirement package is ridiculous.
Date: June 11th, 2006 3:38 PM Author: Coral ladyboy
You do realize that stock options only have value if the stock increases in value over the exercise price, right? Otherwise they have no value whatsoever. This is especially relevant for a stock like Coke that has been relatively flat in recent history--I don't think stock options mean much for a company like this, unless they were issued many, many years ago.
Date: June 12th, 2006 1:11 AM Author: Sapphire Offensive Center
Yes, I know how stock options work and they're not quite as simple as you think. It's not uncommon for companies to use discounted stock options as a vehicle for executive compensation (there's a built-in profit for the exec so long as the price doesn't fall below the discounted price). Plus some of the compensation written into the exit contracts is for outright shares.
Stock options and share grants do give an executive a positive incentive to see the share price increase, but don't think for a second that a CEO is walking away empty handed, even if the stock doesn't rise. Coke actually provides a great example, with the hiring and firing of Doug Ivester a few years ago. He was ousted barely two years into the job and walked away with around $100 million, despite the fact that Coke shares fell during his tenure.
There are certainly valid reasons why one might find being a V1 partner preferable to being a Fortune 100 CEO, but compensation simply isn't one of them.
Date: June 11th, 2006 12:11 PM Author: Bisexual flatulent black woman locus
Even if a CEO does make more, so what? Law partners generate every dollar they make. CEO's salaries are set by their friends on the board, and are often far greater than their contribution to the company.
You're comparing the salary of honest people to that of a drug kingpin.
Date: March 18th, 2007 10:57 PM Author: Motley medicated azn
How did this thread even get going? Anyone who doesn't know enough to know that a Coke CEO job is better than a Wachtell partner job shouldn't be posting (given, of course, that a WLRK partner position is amazing, but really, you can't even compare it with a Fortune 100 CEO position). Seriously. Recent Coke CEOs have become billionaires from nothing (literally...CEO Goizueta came to the U.S. as a broke immigrant and became a billionaire exclusively through Coke compensation). Other CEOs at Coke and at other big companies have similar stories. Not to mention the perks of corporate jets, company-provided security, MASSIVE bonuses (regularly totaling tens of millions of dollars), and being the head of an international corporation (as opposed to one of many partners at a firm). Someone also mentioned stock options, without realizing that restricted stock (which has value even when the stock goes down) is often a crucial component of their compensation packages. Anyway this thread is amusing but it seems that at least a lot of other people who posted are more aware of reality.
One more thing: the reason Coke isn't in Fortune's top 10 is because it is SO large and powerful (in contrast with what some above people said) that it is broken up into the normal company (KO) and the bottling company (CCE), BOTH of which are Fortune 200 companies. So yeah...do your research (and in case you were wondering, the CCE CEO also makes a shitload more than a Wachtell partner).