Quote Originally Posted by NoX View Post
I strongly believe that a CEO compensation should be significantly linked to the company financial performance, and the way I see it, 5yrs after his appointment at AMD, Ruiz has led the company in a financial situation worst than it was when he came in.
That’s hard to tolerate especially considering that in the meanwhile the company successfully launched in 2003 the Athlon 64, which generated big revenues for years and allowed considerable market share gains. Ruiz deserves little recognition for that because he stepped in when the project was already proceeding. He decided to provide his contribution when instead of consolidating AMD financial sheets once and for all, or getting ready for the competition by filling the R&D pipeline with new products, blew all the cash on the ATI acquisition. The timing of his decision couldn’t have been worst, because while AMD was busy dealing with the ATI turmoil, Intel started firing back with strong products on all the fronts. IMO these are all very poor management choices that don't justify at all the millions he’s getting in bonuses ($28mil in 5yrs) and stock options (+$50mil) I am confident that in the same 5yrs a more pragmatic CEO would have produced more than 4% of total return on stock performance, and now AMD could have been in a much more comfortable situation.
Indeed. How is it that Hector makes $16.1M:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2007...mpensation.htm

While Otellini only makes $6.18M?

http://iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/2...mpensation.php

Hector has buried AMD in debt, to the point where it's very survival is in question, but sees no problem with paying himself more than 2x what the guy running his much larger and much more successful competitor does.