Stock Options

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 29th, 2013

Economics 101

It takes a Lot of Time to Design, Develop and Bring to Market a Radical New Aircraft

The number one cost airlines have is fuel.  So anything that can reduce fuel consumption can cut an airline’s costs.  Aircraft manufacturers are aware of this.  And want to incorporate new fuel-saving technology into their aircraft.  Because that’s what airlines want.  And if you can give the airlines what they want they will buy your aircraft.  But sometimes new technology can be a little temperamental.  Everything doesn’t work as expected.  And sometimes problems that come up can take a long time to engineer through.  Like it did for the Boeing 787 Dream liner.

Boeing did everything they could think of to squeeze every last ounce of weight from the 787.  One thing they did is well known.  Thanks to a problem with it that caused the grounding of the entire 787 fleet.  The lithium-ion battery.  But that’s not the only weight-saving innovation of the 787.  They added Dual Electronic Flight Bags in the cockpit.  So pilots don’t have to bring bulky and heavy books aboard.  They went from conventional pneumatic architecture to more-electric architecture.  Eliminating the engine bleed air system and associated pneumatic system components.  Reducing weight and improving efficiency.  Which reduced fuel consumption.  They used simple trailing edge flaps.  Not slotted flaps.  Letting them use smaller flap track fairings (those canoe-shaped things underneath the trailing edge of the wings that operated the flaps).  Reducing drag.  And fuel consumption.  They used bigger engines with higher bypass ratios (the amount of air pulled into the fan disk but NOT used for combustion).  Increasing engine efficiency.  Reducing fuel consumption.  The use of composite materials decreased weight.  And the use of one-piece barrel sections eliminated additional joints, fasteners and splice plates.  Reducing weight.  And fuel consumption.

These and other innovations result in a fuel savings of 20% over similarly sized aircraft.  This is huge.  Which is why airlines are ordering this airplane.  But such a radical change in aircraft design comes with a lot of risks.  As the problem with the lithium-ion battery has shown.  And it takes a lot of time to design, develop and bring to market a new aircraft.  Especially one that is radically different from other airplanes.  So the decision to put the aircraft company on this course was a very risky decision.  And one that took a lot of guts.  Because so many things can go wrong.  Leading to cost overruns.  Which can delay promised delivery dates.  And Boeing had their share of those bringing the 787 to market.  Which they have worked through.  Will it be worth it?  As long as airlines want to save on fuel costs, yes.  And no problems arise that they can’t overcome.

Stock Options get Risk-Averse and Cautious CEOs to be Bold and Take Risks

These are big decisions.  Decisions that lead to great successes.  Or great failures.  Some so bad that they can bankrupt a company.  Someone has to be responsible for these decisions.  That one person sitting at the top of the corporation.  The CEO.  It is the CEO who has the ultimate say on the direction of the corporation.  And with this one decision all the resources of the corporation are marshaled together to take the corporation in this new direction.  Incurring great costs that will be on the books for years.  Making it hard to change course until these great investments pay off.  If they pay off.

These are the things CEOs have to deal with.  Not just at Boeing.  But throughout corporate America.  CEOs have to make these singular decisions that can have consequences for years to come.  Where it may take years to see if that one decision actually pays off.  There are few CEOs in the labor force.  So few can imagine the stress these people work under.  And in that pool of CEOs there are only a few that have the Midas touch.   Who can consistently take great risks while making all the right decisions.  Board members desperately want these CEOs.  Offering very generous compensation packages to lure them in.  And to keep them once they have them.  This crème de la crème of CEOs may make the big bucks.  But in exchange for that fat paycheck they do something few others can.  They make shareholders rich.  And they love making these owners rich.  For they love the thrill of the job.  Relishing that high-stress environment.  Where every little decision has great consequences.  Thriving under the kind of pressure that would leave most others whimpering in their beds.  Curled up in the fetal position.  In a pool of their own tears.

But not every corporation can get one of the crème de la crème.  They may have a great CEO.  But one that suffers from a major CEO character flaw.  Being averse to taking big risks.  Who instead wants to be a little more conservative.  And a little more cautious.  Shareholders don’t like overly cautious CEOs.  Because the people getting rich are doing it by breaking away from the pack.  By doing something different.  Abandoning convention.  Trying something bold.  And new.  Bringing something brand new to market that no one knows anything about.  But once they learn about it they can’t live without it.  This is what shareholders want.  Not cautious and conservative.  So to light a fire under these CEOs they came up with a new way to compensate them.  To appeal to their greed.  By letting them get rich if they can make that next great thing that sends the stock price soaring.  And the key to their greed is the stock option.

Stock Options provide a Powerful Incentive to bring Great New Things to Market

The CEO that creates the next big thing everyone will want to buy will send sales revenue soaring.  And with great sales revenue comes great profits.  Increasing the value of the company.  Which, in turn, makes the stock price soar.  This is what shareholders want.  A soaring stock price.  So to encourage the CEO to give them what they want they tie the CEO’s interest to their interests.  By giving the CEO stock options.  Making the sky the limit.  For the more the CEO increases the stock price the greater the CEO’s compensation.  Thus encouraging the CEO to try something bold and new.

A stock option is a right to buy a share of stock at a fixed price in the future.  Say the current stock price is $70/share.  The board of directors gives the CEO the option to buy, say, 500,000 shares of stock at $80/share up until some date in the future.  Creating a strong incentive for the CEO to raise the stock price.  The greater the CEO raises the price above $80 the greater his or her compensation.   Let’s say the CEO was bold and took a great risk.  And it pays off.  Sending the stock price soaring to $110/share.  When the CEO exercises those options he or she will buy 500,000 shares of stock from the company at $80/share.  The company gets $40 million in new capital to help finance further growth.  And the CEO will sell those 500,000 shares at the current market price of $110/share.  Pocketing $15 million.  And the shareholders, of course, get what they want.  A higher stock price.  Everyone wins.

Now let’s say that nothing spectacular happens.  And the stock price only rises to $75/share.  Because it’s below the ‘strike price’ the CEO will let these options expire.  The CEO profits nothing from these options.  But doesn’t lose anything either.  But what happens when the stock price falls because of that bold, new direction?  Causing the corporation to lose value.  As well as the shareholders.  But the CEO?  Again, the CEO will let those options expire.  And will lose no money.  Which is one of the benefits of stock options.  It got those risk-averse and cautious CEOs to take those big risks that got shareholders rich.  As there is no downside risk for the CEO.  Which is both good and bad.  On the one hand it encourages risk taking.  But on the other it encourages risk-taking.  Some CEOs will take excessive risks as they have nothing to lose.  Some will even cook the books to boost the stock price so they can exercise those options.  So it’s not a perfect system.  But they do provide a powerful incentive to bring great new things to market.  Which is what shareholders want.  And will take great risks themselves to get it.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

For Proof that President Obama’s Economic Policies are bad just look at Singapore

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 30th, 2013

Week in Review

Singapore is one of the Four Asian Tigers.  The economy boomed in Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore because of their business-friendly environments.  Free markets.  And free trade.  Which is why the Four Asian Tigers had some of the strongest economies in the world.  Because the government did not interfere with market forces.  Like they are doing more and more in the United States.  And if we compare the two economies we can see which system is better (see More than half of employees in Singapore planning to leave jobs: Survey by Cheng Jingjie posted 3/28/2013 on Breaking News Singapore).

More than one in two employees in Singapore are planning to leave their jobs within the next two years because of unsatisfactory compensation.

This isn’t a problem they’re having in the United States.  Americans may be unhappy in their jobs and dissatisfied with their compensation.  But all they do is complain.  They’re not leaving their jobs.  Because unlike in Singapore there are no other jobs to go to.  Because President Obama, unlike in Singapore, is trying to fix the economy with government spending.  And new regulations.  Making the current recovery the worst recovery since that following the Great Depression.  While Singapore’s economy hums along the United States have seen people disappear from the labor force since 2008.  Which is why no one is threatening to leave their jobs.  No.  In the United States their biggest concern is getting laid off.  No matter how unhappy or how poorly paid they are.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

FT132: “To settle CEO pay once and for all we should peg it to the pay of athletes, the Hollywood elite, musicians and authors.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 24th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

Sports Stars only Work Part Time yet they Earn almost as Much as CEOs

It’s open season on rich CEOs.  From the Occupy Wall Street movement to the Obama Campaign attacks on Republican candidate Mitt Romney.  CEOs are too rich.  They don’t pay enough in taxes.  And they hate children.  Because they oppose higher tax rates on their income.  Which can only mean one thing.  They hate children.  At least if you listen to those on the Left.

So how well paid are they?  Well, they are paid well.  But not as well as some well-paid rich people.  Especially those typically associated with the Left.  High earning sports stars.  High earning Hollywood elites.  High earning superstars in music.  And high earning authors.  There are some conservatives in these fields.  But it’s hard to know who they are.  Because they tend to hide their politics to avoid undue attention on themselves.  Whereas liberals can be as outspoken and as critical of conservatives as they wish and never bring any undue scrutiny on their incredible high earnings.  Why?  It is the great unspoken rule in being filthy rich.  If you are an outspoken liberal you can be as filthy rich as you want and you will never hear an unkind word about your obscene wealth.  So let’s look at some filthy rich people.  Let’s look at the top 10 annual earners in the following sectors (see links above for source information):

Of the sectors shown CEOs are only richer than sports stars.  But not by much.  Which says a lot about the earnings of sports stars.  For sports are seasonal.  They have off-seasons.  And yet they make almost as much as CEOs.  Who work year round.  But other than the part-time sports stars the filthy rich CEOs are less filthy rich than the Hollywood elites, superstars in music and authors.

No One says that Musicians Earn too Much even though they Earn More than CEOs who Earn too Much

The median household income at the end of 2011 was $ 51,413.  Some may say this is rich.  If you’re making minimum wage perhaps it is rich.  But it’s a long way from those noted above.  Interestingly many of these people will say CEOs earn too much.  Some may even say these sports megastars earn too much.  But not many.  Few if any will criticize Hollywood elites, superstars in music and authors.  Even though they live a far better life than they could ever imagine.  Why?  Because these rich people say they care for the little guy.  And support Democrat candidates for office.  Which, of course, takes the spotlight off of their obscene wealth.  And they can insulate their lives from the policies of Democrats.  Which tend to be anti-business.  Including high taxes.  A complicated tax code.  And high regulatory compliance costs.  So CEOs tend to support Republican candidates.  Who tend to fight the anti-business policies of Democrats.  Because they hurt the businesses they’re responsible for.  Which, of course, makes them look greedy.  And like they hate children.

So how do these filthy rich people compare to the median household income?  Like this:

The sports megastars are the pauper of the group.  They only earn 780 times the median household income.  Musicians are the filthiest of the rich coming in at 1,701 times the median household income.  Meaning the average income of the top ten superstars in music equal the median income of 1,701 households added together.  Another 687 households more than the average income of the top ten CEOs.  Yet people say CEOs earn too much.  But no one says that musicians earn too much.  Even though they earn more than those who earn too much.

If CEOs are Overpaid then so Must Everyone who is Paid More than Them

People tend to pick on CEOs.  Because they are highly compensated.  Not as highly as musicians, the Hollywood elite or authors.  But highly.  They get those high compensations for a reason, though.  A few bad decisions at the top can ruin a successful business.  Whereas the CEO who consistently makes good decisions will make a business grow.  Creating wealth.  And jobs.  At the CEO’s business.  And all the businesses that feed into it.  Thanks to the stages of production.  So a good CEO can create a lot of economic activity.  Wealth.  And jobs.  Not to mention a whole lot of tax revenue.  Which fund all those Democrat programs.  Including the ones for children.

The other filthy rich create jobs, too.  And wealth.  But nowhere near what a good CEO can create.  For few of them are singularly responsible for building their industries.  Unlike a John D. Rockefeller.  An Andrew Carnegie.  A George Westinghouse.  Or a Steve Jobs.  These people changed the world.  And put hundreds of millions of people to work through the years.  Compared to the limited economic activity a pop star creates.  A movie star.  An author.  Or an athlete.

So a CEO creates more wealth and jobs for others than most filthy rich people.  And they create more tax revenue at all levels of government than most filthy rich people.  So one would think they would deserve higher compensation for all the good they do.  But no.  At least according to those on the Left.  So what would be fair?  Call them musicians?  Movie stars?  Authors?  If so then we could even pay them more.  For no one complains about their high compensation.  Or should we cut their pay?  As well as musicians, movie stars and authors?  And sports stars?  Pay them all less.  For if CEOs are overpaid then so must everyone who is paid more than them.  Of course that probably wouldn’t go over well with the athletes, the Hollywood elite, the musicians and the authors.  So perhaps to settle the CEO pay issue once and for all we should peg it to a weighted average of the pay of athletes, the Hollywood Elite, musicians and authors.  So the amount of compensation just doesn’t matter anymore.  Because they will be as filthy rich as the people the Left has no problem with being filthy rich.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,