Interesting article!

I would have no problem with Mr. Hall getting his bonus since it is based upon the performance of the division. It was profitable with him at the helm so he should get the cash. My problem is with the CEO and other executives OF Citigroup getting bonuses when, with the exception of a few divisions, the company not only did not perform but needed a bailout just to stay solvent. That is what drives people nuts. So it is real simple, if you produce and are succesful you should get the reward but the measure of success should not be getting someone else to bail your A$$ out of the mess you created.

Too many companies are measuring success by stock performance, has it retained it's share value, which can be manipulted if a company has enough cash. Stock performance and share value alone are only part of a company's success, what about market share, sales and repeat sales (same customer comes in and buys more product). GM kept the value of the stock up by buying back its stock while losing market share to Toyota and sales plummeted. Not one member of the Board of Directors asked why they were losing market share and sales or how the CEO and senior executives where going to change that. In fact prior to going to Washington and asking for help, which led to his resignation at the instance of the Govenment, the GM Board of Directors had stated they were pleased with how the company was doing and in the direction the CEO and the executive management team where taking the company.