You mean pay for performance. I’m cool with someone making big time dollars if they did something to earn it.

I don’t think you insulted anyone, only misapplied the rant label.

As far as Mr. Leclairs compensation, I don’t see a big problem with anything I have heard, but I am surprised he would get a golden parachute. If he really had been at Ford for 32 years, was there really a big market for him that justified a big golden parachute? I thought the justification for parachutes was to get someone to take a risk by coming over to a NEW company. By providing a parachute, you take away the fear of someone coming to a new position and it not working out as planned.

OTOH, if he got the same money as a retirement benefit, I really wouldn’t care. I suspect though, there are lots of other retirement benefits, too, though.

It’s just a product of the transparency in CEO pay. Now everyone near CEO wants what everyone, in every other industry and situation, gets. What we ought to demand is more pay transparency for all positions. I am thinking if it worked for them, it would work for the rest.

As such, I believe the context of golden parachute is certainly where I”m having the issue

These guys may have been promised these benefits by a willing BOD in good times but surely they can write in exceptions, like total collapse of the stock price, that negate multi million dollar payouts. That is real pay for performance. If they don’t get their shit together on this the gov’ment is going to start dictating what execs make and that is not good. Political hacks should not be deciding on CSPAN what a CEO somewhere should make. It might draw attention to what some of them are making and why.

How can I get a gig as a board member of some failing company that has millions tucked away. As long as the final check clears it looks very lucrative.

He gets between $4.1 and $5.0 million upon his retirement according to their 2008 proxy (p. 65).

I didn’t see a rant here, or really, any unjustified knocks on Leclair. Your title starts with Chief, you company is tanking, you take your licks.

I also think that if he spent 32 years at Ford, it’s probably good they get someone with wider experience to be the chief given the circumstances. When an entire industry is going south, you want to look for folks who change the game. It’s when an industry is booming that you reward success and longevity. Strangely, it seems to me that companies often do the opposite.

None of what you say changes the basic thrust of my rant: Leclair is leaving the sinking ship before he loses his payoff and benefits. Before his stock options are completely worthless.

Despite your rant, Leclair was one of the best CFOs in the industry. Frankly, he works with what he is handed. But, it was under his reign as CFO that Ford began removing excess and streamlining their drastically bloated systems of production/engineering/etc instead of just pinching-pennies. The focus on cost of quality was also a big issue under his tenure, and that helped Bill Ford’s initial case for drastic quality improvements that have occurred in the last 5 years (whether people on this site admit it or not). It’s difficult to blame him for the poor decisions of marketing or product engineerng. He works within the confines of what he’s given – but I think he’s done great things within those confines.

I am particularly impressed with his ability to manage Ford’s cash flow and debt servicing. Ford would be in much bigger problems (probably as bad as GM – maybe bankrupt already) if not for his efforts to keep the balance sheet tight. Yes, he has done great things for the balance sheet, including the 2006 financing, managing debt-equity swaps, managing bond sales, managing cash and controlling Ford Credit debt in light of its junk rating. Despite the weak profit results during 2007, Leclair oversaw a $9B improvement in net equity of the company – not through goodwill tricks like GM, but servicing debt and managing Ford Credit’s assets and risk. That’s managing your assets and liabilities properly. That doesn’t erase the fact that this market will elminate all of that $9B, but none of that is within his control at the moment. All he can do is minimize the impact of the markets, and we’ll find out in Q3 how well he’s done.

This doesn’t answer the question of what will happen to Ford in this market where people are scared to death of everything with any risk, where every action seems to be emotional. I am almost positive now that it will doom GM. And whether or not this is a sign of things to come for Ford, the fact remains that with his hand he had to play, Leclair has done a good job for Ford – much better than his counterparts at many companies in the industry – and may be looked back as one of the men who kept Ford out of bankruptcy.