Re: Character advancement in games (was Re: Alien RPG cancelled, Obsidian in trouble)


"CoinSpin" <coin^spam^spin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gorc5n$pqh$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Zaghadka wrote:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:48:53 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,
CoinSpin
wrote:

What ever happened to management making normal salaries, and only
getting bonuses and additional compensations when the company grew and
profited from their endeavors?

I think the question is: "Whatever happened to board oversight?" Someone
offered that money. Are you saying he shouldn't have taken it?

LOL. This is tongue-in-cheek, of course.


Heh, but so true... You gotta wonder what kind of old fossilized idiots
are in that board, that dole out that kind of coin to the captain who is
riding their ship to the bottom of the sea...

Oftentimes the 'old fossilized idiots' are appointed to the board of
directors by self-same 'captain' whose salary they are then called-upon to
regulate...

The average stockholders of that company should demand some board
members' heads on poles, to be mounted in front of the headquarters as a
warning to others.

And so long at the corporation in question was paying yearly or quarterly
dividend checks, the 'average stockholders' were happy to keep saying
'gimmegimmegimme' and NOT to question to much how the 'profits' were being
generated. And the higher the return - the more money from investors flowed
into the company - even if it was run by a pirate captain and his crew of
fossilized idiots...

Its only after the ship has run aground and is listing hard to port do the
'average stockholders' start screaming "WHAT! How did WE get on the water?
For that matter - what the *** am I doing a BOAT?"

<shrug>

Investors were unwilling to accept 'safe, reasonable' returns on their
investment - instead they demanded outrageous returns that then led to
dangerous and unsafe business practices. A banker friend of mine bemoaned
the whole state of affairs by saying that people wouldn't keep their money
in 'safe' saving accounts but instead demanded that they get returns on
their money equal or higher to what the stock-market was offering. Yet the
same people also demanded that their investments at this high rates of
return were just as 'safe' as a saving account with no real rate-of-return
(and almost zero-risk). Which led to all sorts of horse*** going-on like
the sub-prime mortage debacle...


I did find it rather amusing about most of the CEO's compensation being
stock options, though... The more I thought about it, the more it seemed
like a "reap what you sow" kind of situation.

Exactly - the whole idea behind the issuing of stock-options is to tie a
ceo's compensation directly to the stock's performance. Which is good in
theory - but lead to corporations doing unsafe / stupid things just to
drive-up the stock price and statisfy the investor's unreasonable
expectations of a high-rate of return. No matter what the overall economic
situation was.

<shrug>

The Bernie Matoff (sic) 'ponzie-investment' scheme is a perfect case in
point. People knew - without a doubt - that his returns were too high and
too regular. No matter what the market was, he was generating a flat,
perfect rate of return without exception - no ups and no downs. Yet nobody
who was a Matoff client complained about it - they were just too happy to
accept their unreal profits and unreal growth because they wanted to believe
in the 'magic'. And some people staked their entire live savings on it -
and now are suffering the consequences of igonoring the most basic invesment
advice of all - diverstify.

To quote the great American philosopher 'Pogo': "We have met the enemy...
and he is us."

--
MJB

Mr. Tin's Miniature Painting Workshop:
http://web.newsguy.com/Mrtinsworkshop/


.

Loading