1. savingblackberry's Avatar
    Blackberry should claw back the illgotten monies paid to Jim, Mike, Thorsten, Frank and that gang. That was stealing, those severance payments were absolutely unethical.
    gg22 likes this.
    10-29-14 03:03 PM
  2. hoonigan99's Avatar
    Agreed this should be elsewhere.

    Unfortunately, the corporate culture is such that executives will still receive incredible compensation even if they severely fail the company.

    BB for Life
    10-29-14 06:01 PM
  3. conite's Avatar
    They all signed contracts in good faith. What grounds does the company have to go back to them now?

    Z30STA100-5/10.3.1.938
    app_Developer likes this.
    10-29-14 06:07 PM
  4. savingblackberry's Avatar
    Conite, the problem there is evil in this world is because of people like you.. you are not evil, but you tolerate evil acts like the one Blackberry and the Ex-CEOs and their cronies committed. There was no contract that Mike and Jim were to be paid $7 million. They are so greedy, they have hundreds of millions (and they truly earned that) but that $7 million was stealing. Thorsten would have signed the deal without any severance. The board and management are the same, that ios why capitalism (because its crony capitalism) will die... sooner or later.
    10-30-14 04:12 PM
  5. savingblackberry's Avatar
    This is about BBRY stock. It belongs here.
    This isn't really news or a rumor, prob belongs in armchair CEO or other forum...
    10-30-14 04:13 PM
  6. savingblackberry's Avatar
    So why not the same for technical people, the engineers who know the secrets? The whole corporate culture is corrupt, including that at Blackberry.

    I think it comes back to the terms of their contracts. You usually see big performance incentives at startups or young companies. At more mature companies, the execs put together the board presentations suggesting their comp and assessing their performance, then the board's Compensation committee reviews and awards as sees sit.

    In general, my opinion is boards do a pretty awful job of correctly awarding compensation. Clawbacks are rare, and golden parachutes and big severance packages ensure the exec keeps their mouth shut when they leave, both against secrets, non-competition clauses, and bad press.
    10-30-14 04:14 PM
  7. exiledcanadian's Avatar
    So why not the same for technical people, the engineers who know the secrets? The whole corporate culture is corrupt, including that at Blackberry.
    All employees with technical knowledge certainly have to sign non-disclosure and no-compete agreements. As far as golden parachutes, if they are offered to you to entice you to take the job, why would you refuse? None of the departing CEOs did anything illegal or consciously counter-productive to the company, even if the enterprise tanked under their leadership. Outside forces had more impact on BlackBerry's downfall than the leadership of the company. Other smartphone makers had superior product development and marketing/sales departments.

    Research In Motion failed to see the realities of the shifting consumer market several years ago.They ignored the Ws and Ts in their SWOT analysis and got burned as a result.
    10-30-14 04:26 PM
  8. savingblackberry's Avatar
    I cannot believe that you said what you said? Every sentence in your post is devoid of any reasoning and logic. So it is not Blackberry management who screwed the company? Mike with his arrogance, Jim with his complete disregard of his duties, Thorsten with his incompetence. And they all walked away with millions in severance pay. That is okay with you? It reall pains me to see average folks like you defend the corporate fraud and incompetence. There is a reason why 1% get richer.. its the 99% of you who facilitate that. In a just world Thorsten should be getting his food from the soup kitchen.

    All employees with technical knowledge certainly have to sign non-disclosure and no-compete agreements. As far as golden parachutes, if they are offered to you to entice you to take the job, why would you refuse? None of the departing CEOs did anything illegal or consciously counter-productive to the company, even if the enterprise tanked under their leadership. Outside forces had more impact on BlackBerry's downfall than the leadership of the company. Other smartphone makers had superior product development and marketing/sales departments.

    Research In Motion failed to see the realities of the shifting consumer market several years ago.They ignored the Ws and Ts in their SWOT analysis and got burned as a result.
    gg22 likes this.
    10-31-14 08:52 AM
  9. savingblackberry's Avatar
    Remember how Mike and Jim came on the call and said $35 share price was unacceptable? They insisted that BBRY will make $4 EPS. Canadian government is so stupid, they gave Jim a job. Mike with his donations can buy fame and prestige. Thorsten is probably skiing in Europe. Boulben got a job with another telco. My heart bleeds for future of humanity and free market capitalism.
    I sincerely thought Canada and Canadians were more honest than Wall Street but greed and corruption is all pervasive, and Blackberry and canada are no different that those greedy American CEOs and corporations... except that US companies are smarter and are winners.
    10-31-14 08:56 AM
  10. hoonigan99's Avatar
    Remember how Mike and Jim came on the call and said $35 share price was unacceptable? They insisted that BBRY will make $4 EPS. Canadian government is so stupid, they gave Jim a job. Mike with his donations can buy fame and prestige. Thorsten is probably skiing in Europe. Boulben got a job with another telco. My heart bleeds for future of humanity and free market capitalism.
    I sincerely thought Canada and Canadians were more honest than Wall Street but greed and corruption is all pervasive, and Blackberry and canada are no different that those greedy American CEOs and corporations... except that US companies are smarter and are winners.
    The problem isn't necessarily that Canada wants to operate this way, the reality is if you want to compete globally you have to do so in all areas, including executive compensation. How would BlackBerry, in a failing position, be able to attract a high quality CEO to try and lead it's turnaround if the proposed compensation package didn't guarantee CEO level pay and compensation. If the company still fails under their leadership their reputation is sure to suffer, and if they are used to earning $250k-$1M a year and suddenly, since the company failed they only make $100k how are they going to support themselves. It's easy for the rest of us in the 99% to say that's ridiculous, but the fact is if you have/make a lot of money, you also spend a lot of money and own expensive assets that still need to paid off.

    I don't agree with the insane amount of pay, or the golden parachute's either, but there is certain realities we must accept. No CEO would take a position in a failing company and risk everything, including be able to pay their mortgage and other liabilities. When the chance of success (and getting paid) is very slim. That's almost akin to dealing drugs: you can come take this job and if your good (and don't get caught) you will make $1M, but if things don't work out for you you'll end up back at square one because your going to jail, oh and your reputation is shot so don't bother trying to get back in the game.

    BB for Life
    10-31-14 10:40 AM
  11. exiledcanadian's Avatar
    I cannot believe that you said what you said? Every sentence in your post is devoid of any reasoning and logic. So it is not Blackberry management who screwed the company?
    I underlined the word "consciously" because they didn't deliberately try to screw up the company as you seem to claim. Were they poor managers of the enterprise? Absolutely. They either did not respond to changing consumer preferences or simply ignored it. Like it or not, the introduction of the iPhone changed the landscape. Their response was mediocre at best and too late when they finally did something about it. But did they consciously try to scuttle the firm? Of course not.

    As far as "corporate fraud", give me a break and stop drinking the mass media kool-aid. There are far more honest business people out there than fraudulent ones but stories about illegal behavior get better ratings than corporate ethics and responsibility. Same goes for that 1/99% crap. Most people in that position worked very long hours for many years to get to that level. In other words, they EARNED it and many of them are philanthropic and support charities. Visit the Giving Pledge site to see how "corrupt, greedy and evil" the one percent is: The Giving Pledge :: Pledger Profiles Finally, I think you will find that most of the "99%" do not agree with those who claim to speak for them during their "occupy" demonstrations. I certainly don't.

    Bottom line about the topic of this thread is this: BlackBerry could never get back the monies from those former CEO because a) it would be a breach of contract, b) they could never prove that any of them CONSCIOUSLY and WILLFULLY tried to destroy the company to enrich themselves, and finally c) no one would ever want to work at that company since BB would have a reputation of "clawback" for under performance. In other words, your strategy would lead to more incompetence at the company since no one would want to work for them.
    anon1727506 and Laura Knotek like this.
    10-31-14 11:12 AM
  12. Thunderbuck's Avatar
    In a sense, these guys DID get a clawback (particularly Lazaridis and Balsillie), when you consider how much value their stock holdings lost.

    And severance is severance. If you're leaving the company, you get it (aside from REALLY extraordinary circumstances like embezzlement). Also, there's a big difference between making some bad calls and being completely incompetent.
    anon1727506 and theRock1975 like this.
    10-31-14 11:21 AM
  13. Thunderbuck's Avatar
    Stock losing value isn't a clawback in the sense of employee compensation (though it is a term for a market pullback, unrelated to employee pay). It sucks, but it's not the definition of a clawback when referred to in the form of employee compensation, which is:
    "Money or benefits that are distributed and then taken back as a result of special circumstances."

    Severance isn't and shouldn't be guaranteed. Sometimes it's in executives contracts, but it's often negotiated when the board forces managment out. It benefits the loser (leaving exec) and hurts the long-term holder (shareholders).
    You seem to be missing the idea of severance packages. First off, I'll agree that they look excessive, but EVERYTHING looks excessive at that level. But they're negotiated in with the initial contract because they're really intended to be part of the attraction for a prospective hire, and they shouldn't be altered unless there's an extremely good reason to do so. And, no, just because the company fares poorly under a given executive doesn't mean that's grounds for altering a severance agreement. An executive either has to have behaved criminally (embezzlement or fraud), or shown to have performed really badly.

    Even in the case of Heins, it could be said that he was actually a pretty competent leader and manager in the company, but didn't have the product and marketing smarts required to halt a slide that was already well underway when he took the CEO's chair. Heins was in pretty much a no-win situation in many ways and he did a lot to make the best of it.
    10-31-14 06:11 PM
  14. Thunderbuck's Avatar
    I don't actually disagree with you, for the most part, but I don't know if it's fair to pick on BlackBerry for an issue that really relates to executive compensation everywhere.

    The way to effect a clawback would be through shareholder action, and that could wind up costing the company more than any recovered severance.
    11-01-14 04:25 PM
  15. savingblackberry's Avatar
    Thunderbuck is not very tuned it to how businesses work. He will always support the mannagement who steal money. Probably he is a mid-level manager who got to keep his job, even if by sucking up.
    Stock losing value isn't a clawback in the sense of employee compensation (though it is a term for a market pullback, unrelated to employee pay). It sucks, but it's not the definition of a clawback when referred to in the form of employee compensation, which is:
    "Money or benefits that are distributed and then taken back as a result of special circumstances."

    Severance isn't and shouldn't be guaranteed. Sometimes it's in executives contracts, but it's often negotiated when the board forces managment out. It benefits the loser (leaving exec) and hurts the long-term holder (shareholders).
    11-03-14 03:30 PM
  16. savingblackberry's Avatar
    It is people like you who foster and encourage a culture of corruption in our economy. A Mafia guy can say the same: I have big expenses so it is okay for me to do what i do.

    The problem isn't necessarily that Canada wants to operate this way, the reality is if you want to compete globally you have to do so in all areas, including executive compensation. How would BlackBerry, in a failing position, be able to attract a high quality CEO to try and lead it's turnaround if the proposed compensation package didn't guarantee CEO level pay and compensation. If the company still fails under their leadership their reputation is sure to suffer, and if they are used to earning $250k-$1M a year and suddenly, since the company failed they only make $100k how are they going to support themselves. It's easy for the rest of us in the 99% to say that's ridiculous, but the fact is if you have/make a lot of money, you also spend a lot of money and own expensive assets that still need to paid off.

    I don't agree with the insane amount of pay, or the golden parachute's either, but there is certain realities we must accept. No CEO would take a position in a failing company and risk everything, including be able to pay their mortgage and other liabilities. When the chance of success (and getting paid) is very slim. That's almost akin to dealing drugs: you can come take this job and if your good (and don't get caught) you will make $1M, but if things don't work out for you you'll end up back at square one because your going to jail, oh and your reputation is shot so don't bother trying to get back in the game.

    BB for Life
    11-03-14 03:32 PM
  17. savingblackberry's Avatar
    This is why capitalism will ultimately fail.. and we will have oligarchs rule our so-called democracies. Rich get richer, even if incompetent.
    Heins would have taken the job without any severance but no one wants to deal honestly and in a fair manner.

    I hold each company responsible who makes these poor severage decisions. You gotta start pointing the finger at somecompany, and since this is Crackberry I'll start there. But if we need other names, here's a few:
    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...iz-EXITweb.jpg

    Also, Robert D. Marcus took over as chief executive of Time Warner Cable less than two months before Comcast scooped up the company for $45 billion. Now, if the deal closes, he’s set to receive nearly $80 million in severance payment, amounting to more than $1 million a day for the six weeks he ran the company before agreeing to sell. That too is outrageous. (source)



    You're probably right, an activist shareholder is going to have to push for this, as the blackberry board has shown a lack of backbone in this particular area.
    11-03-14 03:35 PM
  18. hoonigan99's Avatar
    It is people like you who foster and encourage a culture of corruption in our economy. A Mafia guy can say the same: I have big expenses so it is okay for me to do what i do.
    Actually, I am quite the opposite.

    I do not support this level of compensation, quite frankly I don't believe anyone needs to be earning more than $1M a year, even $500K is more than enough.

    I am simply illustrating that in the corporate culture that we currently live with, you cannot expect someone who worked tirelessly over the last 30yrs to earn their way into that pay scale, to be like "yeah, if this failing company still fails under my leadership I'll take only $50k and walk away"

    It's not realistic to expect someone to do that, as much as the rest of us who earn that, or less, think that they should. The corporate culture needs to be changed, and I am a huge advocate for that, but a failing Canadian company cannot be the one to set the example, this change needs to happen in big successful companies first. If you think Chen would have taken the position knowing that if he failed to turn things around he would basically get no compensation (proportionately) you would be sadly mistaken.

    BB for Life
    11-03-14 04:59 PM
  19. hoonigan99's Avatar
    you'd be surprised, a lot of the great turnaround guys don't require a big guaranteed payday, and will in a heartbeat swap it for a payday contingent on their actually performing
    I would not doubt that, but fact remains that they will receive 6 figures regardless of the success, which in itself is still a large amount.
    The point is that BBRY was in no position to seek a gambler-like CEO and it's proposed compensation when hiring Heins and Chen had to reflect that, or the company would have likely been broken up and disappeared before we even saw BB10 come to life.

    BB for Life
    11-04-14 01:33 PM
  20. hoonigan99's Avatar
    Heins was a gambler, and a pathetic gamble for the company to take too. I don't think you'll find much Wall Street or Main Street support if you look back in the archives for Hein's hiring. It was just a desperation move by a board who felt they had few choices.

    Also, Heins did try to break the company up and failed - no bidders.

    On the comp argument I don't have the "right" answer. But let me ask this: what is the right and fair comp for a CEO? Why? How do you determine that? What's fair comp for the #2, the #10, the #100, the #1000 behind the CEO?
    Yes Heins wasn't a top choice, but it's all they could attract at the time, with a large compensation package, and people here are suggesting it should have been an even smaller package, good logic? We wouldn't have even made it this far because they wouldn't have had anyone.

    On the note of executive compensation, it is a difficult thing to evaluate with many factors. IMO nobody anywhere should be getting over 500k/annually, which is a start. Then you have to consider stock options and the like which set performance expectations, but this can have problems with managers striving for only short term gains to maximize compensation.

    It's a complicated area that is beyond the comprehension of most 99%ers who complain about it. I'm not saying all of us less fortunate are stupid, I'm just saying if you want to demand something you need to understand the full issue and it's complexities.

    Personally I'd like to see a shift that limits upper management compensation, and allocates more retained earnings to company wide bonuses rather than executive bonuses. Even for a company with 10,000 employees, that $2M in executive bonuses could give them each $200. While it doesn't sound like much, that $200 means a lot to the bottom employees who only make 30-50k a year and would prove to the employees (and public) that the company is dedicated to all of its employees.

    BB for Life
    11-04-14 06:31 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD