|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
In response to an accusation that I'm a Communist | by NOLAWitch | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Well put NOLA (n/t) | by FireballMatt | 2004-02-05 06:39:52 |
|
One of the problems... | by saminz | 2004-02-05 06:51:23 |
| But the latter are necessary evils, sometimes. |
by nin_man |
2004-02-05 07:13:44 |
If a company is going public, the company needs a face for the media. They need someone who can sweet talk stockholders. They also need someone who's willing to possibly have his name dragged through the mud if the company doesn't do well.
The guy who builds his own firm from the ground up isn't always the best public face for the company. He may well not have the ability to put the right spin on a report to make it sound good and promising, no matter how bleak the reality, to entice investors to buy more stock.
What worries me isn't the high price a CEO commands. For what he puts on the line, a seven-figure salary isn't that outrageous. It's that a company hands real control over to an incoming CEO, rather than leaving it in the hands of someone who knows the company and helped build it. A CEO should be seen often but never heard within the company. He should be like the Queen: a paper figurehead. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Good idea, but... | by saminz | 2004-02-05 07:21:55 |
|
Who would then have NO power to effect change | by Naruki | 2004-02-05 07:24:14 |
|
Yeah, right... | by saminz | 2004-02-05 07:28:16 |
|
Yes, precisely. | by nin_man | 2004-02-05 07:37:02 |
|
all well and good, except | by voxwoman | 2004-02-05 07:49:06 |
|
Are you ringing a Bell? (n/t) | by Slamlander | 2004-02-05 14:16:17 |
|
I think this is a silly idea | by tigermouse | 2004-02-05 07:55:49 |
|
Good gracious, no. | by nin_man | 2004-02-05 08:16:40 |
|
I know, I looked it up! | by tigermouse | 2004-02-05 08:32:05 |
|
Erm ... problem with definitions here | by Slamlander | 2004-02-05 14:13:48 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
