A quote from the article: "Just $1 million invested in a dynasty trust, and earning 12 percent a year, would swell to $1.9 billion in 85 years". So my question is how do I find a investment vehicle that gives me 12% return compounded year after year?
I don't know, seems pretty reasonable, Costco revenue is 105B. Walmart has >4x revenue, and 19m*4=76m, more than Walmart. Based on your comparison, Walmart is paying their executives fairly.
About as reasonable as getting 9 women to make a baby in 1 month. This would only be true if those 6 executives were doing 4x the work of the executies at Costco. Conservatively, they might be doing 1.5x or even 2x the work. But I doubt they are putting in 160 hours a week.
Brad Pitt doesn't make a movie 10x faster either, and he certainly doesn't do 10x the work. But he's paid 10x what many other actors are paid.
Is it reasonable? There's a lot of money to be made by the studio that can prove it's not by making consistent blockbusters without stars. But nobody has figured out how to do that yet, so Pitt keeps getting paid. Outcomes are what matter, not hard work.
EDIT: I realized there is a studio that makes consistent blockbusters without stars: Pixar. In a way, they're like the movie studio equivalent of Costco, since they figured out a way to make hit movies with far, far fewer (but much higher paid) laborers. But like Costco vs. Walmart, Pixar can't make all the movies that the other studios can make, so they'll likely always have to settle for a small chunk of total box office receipts.
Executive compensation in America is totally fucked up.
But it's not at all the case that the executives are "stealing pay" from the guy working on the floor or whatever other crazy rhetoric people are saying now.
If the CEO is stealing money from anyone, it's the shareholders, and for a whole bunch of reasons (good and bad) they have been unable to get a cap on that.
I don't track what you search beyond looking it up in the Bloom filter. How could any site not transmit the domain for lookup? Frankly, I don't understand this comment.
He may have meant, if you quit after first year, you get 30% of the bonus, quit after second year, you get 30%+50% = 80%. If you are going to quit, you will probably quit after second year. So for most people who are quitting, MS would not have to hand out the last 20%.
This is a really great comparison. I would love to write an article on this someday comparing the Eastern/Asian media websites along with Western/American media.
I am not sure what kind of companies are the "slog it out" type. Which company can be profitable (I assume) and not grow much in 2 decades? If they are just cash cows, why can't the VC/entrepreneurs figure out how to reinvest it in other sectors?
They definitely exist but I think they just aren't the companies you hear about in the tech press. Remember, you don't have to be wildly profitable to be self-sustaining. You can slog it out being barely profitable or just breaking even (more or less).
I'm in the photography space and I know of companies who raised rounds years ago (2006-09). They are still around but it's clear they won't be a huge win for the investors.
I don't think he means necessarily that they're cash cows.
It sounds like he means that they're profitable enough to keep surviving and growing somewhat but not to the point where someone wants to acquire the business.
Due the emotional investment in the business the entrepreneur slogs it out hoping they'll stumble upon something that will give them the growth curve they need to get the acquisition / IPO / other exit opportunity.
I found this to be adequate for my needs for now: tabhq.com. It basically syncs your chrome tabs with the web, and access the tabs anywhere by going on the site.
No from one bar to the next for the previous years, the gap is 1 year (ie, Q4 2010, Q4 2011 -> 1 year), but from the second last bar to the last bar, the gap is 1 quarter (Q4 2011, Q1 2012 -> 1 quarter)
