Not that I am saying that it was the case, but hypothetically:
If you are grossly negligent or even fraudulent in your behaviour, do you think you are entitled to shares?
Supposedly, C-level positions are highly-rewarded because they are high-risk. Ignoring the political background, if any company had the same development, I would find it only natural that it has repercussions on the CEO, and I wouldn't consider losing all shares completely out of order.
Superficially, I think that if someone owns shares in a company, those are private property. However, there are schemes where it's not a share in the traditional sense of the word (like trade on the open stock market), but a private stock. I was part of a scheme at my previous employer (not the US) where I could buy 'certificates', a bit like stock but it was not publicly traded, it did not give you any voting rights, the price would be set once a year (based on annual results), and it would be bought back (at the last known rate) after your employment. It paid dividends though, and the value appreciated greatly over the span of a few years.
Re: pensions, where I live, pensions and pension funds are completely different entities from the company you work for. You own your pension, your employer pays contributions to it. Since it's not part of your employer, if you get sacked you don't lose your pension. I think that's how it should be tbh.
I don't think they are as high-risk as you suggest. Many c-level positions have golden parachutes so even when executives to terrible jobs, they still get well compensated.
No. But if someone already earned years on their pension, or earned their shares, they should keep them. If they didn't do what was needed to earn them, they don't get them.
It's the removal of something I do not understand ("X fired, loses pension" is what I see a lot).
I don't think it's possible to strip a person of their shares outside of court.
I think this person hadn't vested the shares yet, or didn't qualify for exercising their options, etc. There surely is a very detailed contract, it's not something that could be done ad hoc.
Comments
I don't think it is American specific at all.
Not that I am saying that it was the case, but hypothetically: If you are grossly negligent or even fraudulent in your behaviour, do you think you are entitled to shares?
Supposedly, C-level positions are highly-rewarded because they are high-risk. Ignoring the political background, if any company had the same development, I would find it only natural that it has repercussions on the CEO, and I wouldn't consider losing all shares completely out of order.
How high would you say the renumeration of Stephen Elop of Nokia fame is appropriate? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Elop#Bonus_controversy)
But quite possibly, I am there in a minority position.
It really depends on circumstance.
Superficially, I think that if someone owns shares in a company, those are private property. However, there are schemes where it's not a share in the traditional sense of the word (like trade on the open stock market), but a private stock. I was part of a scheme at my previous employer (not the US) where I could buy 'certificates', a bit like stock but it was not publicly traded, it did not give you any voting rights, the price would be set once a year (based on annual results), and it would be bought back (at the last known rate) after your employment. It paid dividends though, and the value appreciated greatly over the span of a few years.
Re: pensions, where I live, pensions and pension funds are completely different entities from the company you work for. You own your pension, your employer pays contributions to it. Since it's not part of your employer, if you get sacked you don't lose your pension. I think that's how it should be tbh.
I don't think they are as high-risk as you suggest. Many c-level positions have golden parachutes so even when executives to terrible jobs, they still get well compensated.
No. But if someone already earned years on their pension, or earned their shares, they should keep them. If they didn't do what was needed to earn them, they don't get them.
It's the removal of something I do not understand ("X fired, loses pension" is what I see a lot).
I don't think it's possible to strip a person of their shares outside of court.
I think this person hadn't vested the shares yet, or didn't qualify for exercising their options, etc. There surely is a very detailed contract, it's not something that could be done ad hoc.