Ed, I do not know you personally. You've never agreed to an interview. As a journalist, I have enjoyed your swashbuckling acquisition style as well as your cocky spirit and Southern drawl on AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T) conference calls.
But, Holy Mother Bell! What have you done now? It looks as if, in addition to selling upwards of $42 million in stock over the last year, you're ready to check out with a retirement package potentially valued north of $100 million, according to a recent proxy filing. What are you thinking? Better yet, what was your board thinking?
The more controversial elements of your pay package are detailed in Stockholder Proposal C (Item 6 on Proxy Card), a vote introduced by critical shareholders calling for the institution of "pay-for-superior-performance" (a radical notion!).
AT&T's board of directors recommended the rejection of this proposal to change compensation policies. It was defeated 56.2 percent to 43.8 percent.
But the critical shareholders, in filing supporting statements, brought up some great points on the details of your excessive pay package. According to the proxy statement, a study by The Corporate Library notes that "over the five fiscal years through 2005, CEO Edward Whitacre received $85.2 million in compensation, while total shareholder return was negative 40.3%... The Corporate Library accordingly gave AT&T's Board a 'D' for overall effectiveness."
Not a bad point they are making. The biggest bone to pick, though, is with your retirement packages. I quote from the proxy statement:
"Whitacre's golden parachute is particularly excessive, in our view, considering it has a platinum lining: annual pension payments of $5,494,000 for life, plus an $18,805,000 lump sum. Last year The Corporate Library singled out AT&T for
bestowing on Whitacre the third largest CEO pension payout among large U.S. companies.
Another good point they are making. And that's not all. According to the proxy, you also get:
Access to our corporate aircraft, up to 10 hours of usage per month
(estimated incremental monthly cost of $20,000)
Use of office facilities and support staff (we do not expect to incur
any additional incremental cost)
Home security (estimated at $6,500 annually)
Payment of applicable taxes resulting from these benefits, except for
use of the aircraft (estimated at $19,000 annually), and
During his life and that of his spouse, health and welfare benefits
equal to those which he received while employed. Included in these
benefits are those described under "Other Post-Retirement Benefits".
Under the contract, after he leaves our Company, Mr. Whitacre will provide
consulting services and advice to us for three years in exchange for an annual
fee equal to 50% of his annual salary at retirement ($1,050,000)
Club memberships (estimated at $25,000 annually) and
Payment of applicable taxes resulting from these benefits (estimated at
$15,600 annually).
That's just the retirement package. Your recent compensation and stock sales have been quite extraordinary. In just the past 12 months alone, you have sold $42 million worth of AT&T shares, according to SEC filings.
Ed, I'm looking out for you, buddy. Let me give you some counsel: The club memberships are a bad PR move. Unseemly. So's the home office. I mean, aren't they contradictory? Are you working or retired? Make up your mind.
Here's more advice: You should have sold less stock. $42 million in 12 months looks pretty bad. Given that your legacy is at stake, isn't it important that you distance yourself from the executive greed of the telecom industrial complex that brings to mind folks like Garry Winnick, Rich McGinn, Pat Russo, and yes, Joe Nacchio? (See 2001 Top Ten: Fat Cats, Global Crossing, Lucent Start Trials, GlobalX: The Burst Bubble, and Nacchio Found Guilty.)
To be fair, Joe Nacchio was accused and convicted of insider trading. You have never been involved in such a suit. I merely accuse you of stuffing your pockets at the expense of shareholders.
I have no problem with enormous pay packages if they are equated with rational economic metrics and outsized shareholder returns. Take the Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) boys. They took in billions. But they returned hundreds of billions to shareholders. Yes, they fly on an obscenely large jet, but they created the company out of thin air and the shareholder returns were extraordinary.
Your record of shareholder returns is, to say the least, less exemplary.
Look at the share price of SBC (now AT&T). Yes, it's rebounded nicely since the telecom bomb of 2001-2002. But if you look at the longer-term results during your tenure, they are dismal. In fact, the stock's the same price it was in 1997: It's gone nowhere over the last ten years. If I were a shareholder you'd have shown me no capital appreciation over the course of a decade. ZERO! In fact, with inflation factored in, shareholders probably lost money.
SBC/T share price, 1997-2007T shares (formerly SBC) have gone mostly sideways for the last 10 years.
Let's take some other metrics. AT&T's one-year return on equity is a paltry 10 percent. Not that impressive when you think about the fact that you run a quasi-monopoly with a market cap to the tune of $240 billion. To compare: Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT)'s 12-month return on equity is 30 percent. Heck, even some airlines – arguably an even more awful business – have you beat. The return on equity at Continental Airlines, according to Capital IQ , has been 100 percent over the past 12 months.
So far, your metrics aren't that impressive, especially considering you inherited a cashflow machine with access to just about as many resources as one can imagine. If I were assessing myself with these metrics, I wouldn't be all that self-satisfied – certainly not enough to expense my club memberships. My boss would kill me.
Yes, there were the dividends and such. But this is an incumbent telecom operator. Most of the customers were already plugged in. The dividends and cashflow were handed over by the government in the orginal breakup of AT&T. The access lines have always been there, generating nice, steady income, and you guys didn't even build them. And, as I said, they weren't even covering inflation.
What kind of risks and innovation has SBC/AT&T taken recently? It's built a watered-down fiber-to-the-curb network that's dwarfed by many fiber projects worldwide. You are now the largest telecom incumbent operator on the planet, yet you're taking fewer risks than just about anybody. Less risk, higher pay. Not a bad deal if you can get it.
Perhaps the generous compensation package is in appreciation of all the fine lobbying efforts your team has conducted in Washington to preserve the incumbent footprint and defend yourself against innovation. If that is indeed the rationale for your pay package, then you deserve it. AT&T has shown true excellence in lobbying. Your team knows how to preserve the system.
Here's what I really think of this pay package: It's a farce. It's a symbol that the pure arrogance and imperial management style of incumbent telcos is here to say. It's proof that your company is focused more on maintaining the status quo and maximizing executive pay, than on innovation and the creation of shareholder value.
Ed, I'm saddened that we will never meet so that I could ask you these important questions and have you defend your extravagant pay in person. As I said, I haven't really known you. But after reading the proxy, I feel as if I do.
Sincerely,
— R. Scott Raynovich, Editor in Chief, Light Reading
You should know better than to argue with RJ, he is a simpleton zealot with no concept of reality. My experience with Unions started when I was a child, and has extended well into my career.
You are 100% correct: the purpose of the union is to perpetuate the union.
The purpose of union management is to maintain their own entitlements, side deals and perks.
Unions purposely erect complex work rules guaranteed to destroy efficiency, and maximize the number of UNION jobs irrespective of the costs to management or the damage to shareholders
Unions are unwilling to come embrace the truth that the price of commodity labor in a global economy regresses to the mean. They are living in the past.
Unions have destroyed the "Big 3", Delphi, etc. and are bleeding the US Economy to death. Thank goodness the semiconductor industry has never been unionized
You clearly have never worked with union employees. They create jobs to have jobs created. They make sure that these are inefficient so more union jobs are created. They are loyal - to the union.
That is separate from management's problem and if you noted there was A LOT more blasting of Whitacre and his leadership. An entire article's worth.
I guess the millions of phone lines going to cable companies are figments of people's imaginations. You are so out of touch, I think YOU are in government not your sister. Very few people in the US are completely disconnecting. Cable already has 2/3rds of the broadband market and 75% of the video market. Somehow taking away phone lines is not competitive. That's funny. I thought you were just an ideologue. In fact, you are a moron.
The author is ABSOLUTELY writing from a perspective of a work ethic.
That wasn't the point. The author is saying the problem is with employees having an entitlement attitude yet the pay discrepancy between executive managements and the average worker is reaching record highs. So who is "entitlement" really benefiting?
You can't fire them, so they do as little work as they can get away with.
People who accomplish great things don't do so through fear of being fired. They set up systems where accomplishment is rewarded and reinforced. Self worth is enhanced and so is loyalty. All of this fear stuff, while it might work short term, is extremely short sighted.
The problem is that these are now in a competitive environment and the work entitlement is going to end.
I think people are entitled to a day's pay for a day's work. If that can't be created and accomplished than the system is broken.
If not by people ending it, then by the cable companies ending it. Whitacre is the exemplification of this or don't you get the idea.
This is propaganda. The transition for phone companies is to wireless. The MSOs aren't competitors anymore than the water company is.
The first point is accurate - and union employees need to know that creating union jobs to create union jobs is going to fail over time.
The second is also accurate. The people who think they have jobs for life need to realize they don't have jobs for life.
The author is ABSOLUTELY writing from a perspective of a work ethic. SBC employees are like government employees. You can't fire them, so they do as little work as they can get away with. Which is another reason to keep government out (see a road crew anytime you want evidence of this). The problem is that these are now in a competitive environment and the work entitlement is going to end. If not by people ending it, then by the cable companies ending it. Whitacre is the exemplification of this or don't you get the idea.
Can you quote the lines in the article which blames the employees?
Seven; The article is written for an audience of CEO's. Here is an example:
Let your employees know that job security, advancement and pay increases are guaranteed only by high performance and company profits.
It doesn't say
Let management know that job security, advancement and pay increases and large stock options grants are guaranteed only by high performance and company profits.
or
Let your employees know that job security, advancement and pay increases are guaranteed only by high performance and company profits. Do this by being humble, taking a modest pay, recognizing the organization is built on the backs of the many and not buy aggrandizing the individual over the results of the group.8>
Also it says:
"These people believe they are owed something because of who they are or what social group or union they belong to—not because of what they earn."
and not:
"These executives, setting the culture for the entire organization, believe they are owed something because of their title, being born into privilege, etc. and not because of what they contribute to the company they are privileged to lead. That's why they stack the compensation committees with cronies and patronize shareholders when issues of excessive executive compensation are brought up."
This author is writing from a position of privilege and not from one of the work ethic that built this country. He is expecting companies to care for him via their productivity and profits. He needs to sweat a bit and put some calluses on his hands in my opinion. Waveform has, now it's his turn.
Can you quote the lines in the article which blames the employees?
I have read it again and am missing this verbage.
What I have seen is:
Ed, I'm looking out for you, buddy. Let me give you some counsel: The club memberships are a bad PR move. Unseemly. So's the home office. I mean, aren't they contradictory? Are you working or retired? Make up your mind.
Your record of shareholder returns is, to say the least, less exemplary.
Perhaps the generous compensation package is in appreciation of all the fine lobbying efforts your team has conducted in Washington to preserve the incumbent footprint and defend yourself against innovation.
Here's what I really think of this pay package: It's a farce. It's a symbol that the pure arrogance and imperial management style of incumbent telcos is here to say. It's proof that your company is focused more on maintaining the status quo and maximizing executive pay, than on innovation and the creation of shareholder value.
I have to agree that the one section of that article seems to place a lot of blame on the employees. And the author does seem to overweigh the purpose of an organization in only existing to enrich shareholders.
However, in his defense, I must say that I have worked in many organizations where employees were extremely guilty of this (i.e., culture of entitlement) – the employees and their managers and dept heads. I mean, the managers and dept heads must take responsibility for setting the culture or simply allowing it to happen, right?
And if I get to participate in massive stock grants like the big boys are all getting, then I might be more inclined to sway over to the philosophy of companies only existing to enrich shareholders. But if I am required to work 9 to 15 days straight with no overtime, can’t make my monthly bills, watch my car get repo’d, get stacks of bills in the mail every time I use supposed health benefits, have to move all over the country every time another telecom company goes under or is bought or merged, watch my wife get laid off from her employer of 10 years because she is out on maternity leave a week or two too long due to complications…do I really need to go on?
Guess I am just a whiner.
But you know, I keep up the faith. I am a veteran. Then I started in this industry pulling 80 to over 100 hours per week for years. I did time with all the big carriers, and many names that are no longer around. But I have no 401K. I have no savings. I have no car. I now have no house either. But I don’t think any of my former or future employers owes me anything other than a chance to survive, and possibly even a chance get ahead - in exchange for an honest days work. Yet I can remember several years (not too long ago) where there were absolutely no telecom jobs available. But I do consider myself lucky. I remember reading articles about former telecom people that told their stories, “First I lost my job, then I lost my jet ski, then I lost my boat, then I lost my car, then I lost my house…then I lost my wife.”
Hey! I still have my wife! ...honey? Are you still there?
waveform; Sorry to hear about your job loss. I've never worked for AT&T so I don't have any inside knowledge on the cutulre there.
I was wondering your opinion on the following article and if you thought it applied to AT&T?
Personally, I think the author wrote a biased article. CEO's such as Whitacre taking so much money exemplify a culture of entitlement yet the writer scapegoats employees. I also believe the author overweights the purpose of an orgnization in that it only exists to enrich shareholders.
I do wonder though if service providers can do better with respect to employees, shareholders, and the country at large and, if so, what AT&T specifically could do to improve such that promises to employees and retirees were backed by a strong and viable organization?
The culture of entitlement is a “you owe me” attitude, one where people believe that society, a company, or government owes them something and they do not have to earn or deliver value for what they receive. These people believe they are owed something because of who they are or what social group or union they belong to—not because of what they earn.
People who feel entitled take for granted what they have and keep asking for more, and the more they get the more they expect. They focus more on what they are owed than what they contribute. In a culture of entitlement, peer pressure to perform is replaced by peer pressure to conform to the lowest common denominator; looking good is more important than doing the right thing.
People need to realize that a company in a capitalist economy exists to enrich the shareholders. Companies do not exist simply to employ people. Companies employ people because it is necessary to reach the goal of enriching the shareholders.
Perhaps a better question would be to compare the differences in retirement benefits of the other AT&T folks to Ed's. Most AT&T employees have seen their benefits eliminated. Yes, I am saying they will get nothing.
I myself am a former AT&T employee, but I was laid off years ago. Of course they will only hire me as a contractor now. So I can’t build any time with the company. I also don’t get paid holidays, PTO, sick days, healthcare, 401K or anything else. Thanks Ed.
While Ed’s counting his cash, the wife and I will be trying to figure out which bills get paid this month and which ones will have to wait…
The blogs and comments are the opinions only of the writers and do not reflect the views of Light Reading. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
To save this item to your list of favorite Light Reading content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.