COMMENT:
To begin with,I will clear up the idears of the two sides on the debate.The proposer,s rubuttal remarks on defending primarily,and then figure out the unreasonable points in the opposition,s arguments.First of all,he concludes the claims Ms Minow holds and reiterates the point that the income of CEOs are decreased and actually related with companies, performance.The fact is that the lion,s share CEOs received of their pay in stock which has been kept as shares in companies proportional matches the wealth they lose in the finacial crisis.Secondly,he demonstrates that his argument is authoritative and credible which is oposite of Ms Minow,s position.Then he points out several limitation in her arguments and indicates the real causes of finacial crisis.
Consistent with Mr Kaplan,s debate,Ms Minow rebut specificially.Her arguments also devided into two parts.She emphasized again that the subsides of government bouncing back the companies illuminates again that the incomes of CEOs is not related with their performance.The reason is that government could not prevent the behavior of shareing bonous and the companies make excuse of it such as keeping the emplyees from leaving.Meanwhile,the funds of Treasury Department has no detailed control on executive compensation obligations.This is an other opportunity for companies to take the agency costs as bonous which has been called risk management.In a wold,the theoretical pay is further from the realised pay.According to Mr Kaplan,s debate, Ms Minow also figures out some defect in his argument.One is the invalid talking point about the net worth,the other is that the high pay with the relavant of CEOs is obscure that they are not set by boards as CEOs.At last she point out seven deadly sins found in executive compensation plans.
Take no consideration of the real truth about the debate,only focusing on the rebuttal remarks of the two sides,it is more intense and hard to decide who win.Compared with their debate before, Mr Kaplan incread the part of disputoin,and thanks to this,we have seen a more exciting debate on the opposition,s arguments that Ms Minow holds.It seems that Ms Minow,s rebuttle remarks is more clear and targeted to some extent in this term.Whatever we really want is a fair and equitable economic market not the same as Ms Minow depicts.
好词好句:
Mr Kaplan argues that the most powerful criticism of executive pay-that bosses get upside and no downside-is simply false.
there are plenty of devices such as golden parachutes that cannot possibly be justified by performance.
He suggests that extreme pay differentials can damage companies by attracting the wrong sort of bosses and demotivating the rank and file.
We need to focus more on the overall picture, around the world as well as in the United States, rather than on a few attention-grabbing anecdotes.
Ironically, neither do her two anecdotes.
These CEOs' financial reversals were part of a robust system of pay-for-performance widely used by most U.S. companies. lost a large fraction of their wealth and, in many cases, their jobs.
It is irresponsible to claim that CEOs do not bear any downside risk.
all without having any detailedinformation about the scope of AIG's very substantial, and verycontroversial, executive compensation obligations.
confirms Yermack's analysis and also clearly refutes Ms Minow's conclusion.
First, we disagree on the calculations thatsupport the conclusion that CEO play has been declining. Our figures,based not on theoretical pay but on realised pay, are as follows.
Been propped by 一直支撑
Reiterate the point 反复地强调观点
Plenty of devices很多策略
Attention-grabbing anecdote引人注目的轶事
Take account of考虑
The lion,s share最大份额
In direct contradiction to与。。。相反
Have been much better off已经好得多
Diamentrically opposed to直接地反对。。。
Consistent with this与之相一致的。。
Bounce back卷土重来
Inspector general监察长
Clamp down on施压于 |