Very interesting comment, Fuskie. And the comparison to sports players has always been interesting to me. In a sense, they possess objective talents while I would argue those in creative fields, such as Iger, possess subjective talents and that these talents, even if they are high in an individual, are replicated in a plethora of alternative human resources in any given population. Objectively, a sports team seems to make more money if it is winning. To win, physically talented people must be employed. A movie, or a park ride, however, doesn't win or lose necessarily...it might be a loss leader for some other part of the company, it might generate an acceptable ROI over time, etc. I don't know if a scene got cut because of Iger's compensation, probably didn't, but I do know if we paid him $2 million in total compensation (and I mean total, down to all the perks, or what would be left if I were in charge) there would be money left over to fund some extra bets. But I think this is an interesting exercise for shareholders who are happy with Iger's compensation, looking at it relative to others who are in his same field but arguably manage less complex entities. If they don't think more money is needed to get Disney's stock price higher, what would the effect of less money be? And the situation is more complex because checking some charts I think some of the other stocks have done better (but double-check me on that, especially in terms of dividends).
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Rat