Cohen is already rich rich, his GameStop compensation doesn’t really matter much. The eBay acquisition could be a strategy to juice his compensation but I think it is much more likely he does believe that he can achieve his stated aims, which will financially benefit him much more in the long term.
> Cohen is already rich rich, his GameStop compensation doesn’t really matter much
I think this argument is much stronger in the opposite direction: if his motivations were not focused on accumulating wealth, he’d be retired or running some kind of charity once he was that far past the point where he had to work. The fact that he’s not suggests that he derives his self-identity from wealth and the guys who do that are rarely satisfied at mid-tier rich.
He wants to be the next Warren Buffett, I believe this is a stated goal, or at least he’s been very clear that this is his inspiration. He wants GameStop to become the next Berkshire.
It’s not always wealth accumulation as driver. It’s often just chasing deals and fixing companies that is fulfilling for some people. But, it’s also the thrill of the hunt and he’s effectively a big game hunter looking for a huge trophy.
Few CEO’s in the US are rewarded for longterm thinking when there are unsustainable quarterly gains to be made. GameStop also has a strange history, especially the last decade, that no one could possibly describe as “cautious” or “planning longterm.”
I also can’t name a single CEO who had the mentality of “I’m rich enough to make personal/financial sacrifices for the good of the company.” That’s simply not how things work. I’m sure an example exists but it would clearly be an exception to the rule.
Yes and it was 1) incredibly notable, 2) 13 years ago, 3) in another country, and 4) following one of their worst performing products ever. Iwata's (maybe voluntary) temporary pay cut was big news because of how exceptional it was.
As of a few months ago yes he does not take a salary anymore and he has actual skin in the game that could pay off in the tens of billions.
Taking $0 is unusual but not unheard of (Musk I think does this too) and it’s very common for CEO’s to make $1mill (or even less) and have like…80%+ of their compensation tied to performance metrics/stock options. There are a lot of caveats to saying “he takes no salary.”
It sounds nice on paper but he isn’t really doing something revolutionary here. He also has rather ambitious numbers to hit if what I’m reading is accurate, so it makes sense he’s taking massive swings like this. We’ll see if it happens, let alone pays off.
I'm not sure the fact that somebody is already rich rich would make them less likely to perform ethically dubious practices to juice their own compensation. In fact I'd say the opposite is more likely.
