Author
|
Topic: Nortel pays for (non)performance
|
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44
|
posted 29 February 2008 06:20 PM
quote: Despite unsteady performance, a new round of layoffs and a plunge in its share price, Nortel Networks Corp (NT.TO: Quote, Profile, Research)(NT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) raised the total compensation of chief executive Mike Zafirovski by about $1.8 million in 2007, regulatory filings show.Zafirovski, who has been steering the Toronto-based telecom equipment maker through a painful turnaround, saw his total pay rise to $10.1 million from $8.3 million in 2006, according to filings the company made with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission this week.
http://www.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUSN2924189920080229?rpc=92 A billion-dollar loss, stock down over 70%, and they pay this guy more. I hate to think what they'd pay if they were doing well.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
sanizadeh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14787
|
posted 02 March 2008 12:14 PM
A nationalized equipment manufacturer is a really bad idea. It might make sense for a utility service provider, but equipment maker?! How does that benefit the society?Nortel demise is a result of market realities, that the company simply cannot compete any longer with Chinese companies like Huawei. It is time for a merger. BTW, Mike Z. came with lots of telecom experience. He headed Motorola's cell phone division before joining Nortel.
From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 02 March 2008 12:40 PM
Actually Canada became a leader in international telecommunications when it was a regulated industry with heavy investement, joint private/public ventures, and even wholey crown owned corporations.It is only since deregulation in the 80's that the industry got into trouble here. I think today's "realities" are realities, so in the immediate sense, Sanzadeh may be right, but when considered in the long haul, one really has to look at the long historical view when considering the long view future. [ 02 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 02 March 2008 01:32 PM
Well, the history of BCE one of the primary investors in Nortel, at its inception is indeed a murky one, and achieved is position in the market laregly because of government regulation, giving it the a monoploy, and then various subsidies, and support over the history of company. To much detail to go into.But in this specific case, in fact BCE also bought Teleglobe Canada, which was a successful an profitable crown corporation. This company has essentially been destroyed over the last 20 years, and now has a head office in Hamilton Bermuda, and from what I can tell does nothing. Teleglobe quote: In 2000 Teleglobe Inc. was acquired by Bell Canada Enterprises, or BCE, which had already owned 23%. In 2002, BCE terminated its relationship with Teleglobe. BCE is now defending several litigations arising out of its abandonment of the Teleglobe business.
So it would seem as part of the process of merging the telecomminications industry under BCE, they restrucutred the company creating Nortel, from Northern Electric, a company they owned prior to deregulation, so while technically speaking Nortel may not have ever been a crown corporation, but achieved its market dominance, partly because its parent company bought the competition from the government, which was then stripped down and destroyed. This is the way it seems to me. [ 02 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|