Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-17-2011, 05:48 PM   #41
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 391
Meadbh, I wish I could agree with you. So far, I have found no pattern between hard work, contributions to society, and earnings. Sometimes there is a correlation, but equally often, there is a negative correlation. You are quite correct, however, that someone who is willing to do whatever will earn the most money, can earn more.
__________________

__________________
palomalou is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 04-17-2011, 06:03 PM   #42
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,382
I am amazed by all the cheerleaders for high CEO salaries and options and etc etc etc.

This is anything but a free market. Horrible CEOs who are wrecking the company get paid extremely well, as do good CEOs.

Why do so many of these characters only own stock if their corporations have provided the money to buy it?

Why are European CEOs willing to work for so much less. Do we still beleive that Americans do things better? I don't.

The salaries are suggested by salary consultants who are paid by the company that is controled by the CEO. These consultants often have a stake in getting compensation up, as do all other CEOs. The salary recommendations are approved by the board of directors who are usually pretty well controlled by the CEO. Prospective board memebers can't just show up, they have to be nominated. Being a board member is a prestigious usually well compensated job with lots of perqs, why bite the hand that feeds you, especially when CEO's handpicked consultants give you the board member a ready made excuse for approval?

Where are all the prople who feel that America is going to it's doom by not taxing "high earners" more heavily? Stop some of this at the root, not at the level of taxation which is a much less pointed focus.

Ha
__________________

__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 07:26 PM   #43
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
I am amazed by all the cheerleaders for high CEO salaries and options and etc etc etc.
+1
Quote:
This is anything but a free market. Horrible CEOs who are wrecking the company get paid extremely well, as do good CEOs.
+1
Sometimes, the good CEOs pay themselves less than the evil CEOs. An example of the former is Jim Senegal, CEO of Costco. Note that I use the term "pay themselves" because these people have a lot of direct influence on their pay, unlike the lower workers. See below.
Quote:
Why do so many of these characters only own stock if their corporations have provided the money to buy it?
Eh, it's "free money".
Quote:
Why are European CEOs willing to work for so much less. Do we still believe that Americans do things better? I don't.
The entrepreneurial CEOs in America deserve more, as they are the creators of their business. The "hired help" CEOs in established US companies, not so much.

Quote:
The salaries are suggested by salary consultants who are paid by the company that is controled by the CEO. These consultants often have a stake in getting compensation up, as do all other CEOs. The salary recommendations are approved by the board of directors who are usually pretty well controlled by the CEO. Prospective board memebers can't just show up, they have to be nominated. Being a board member is a prestigious usually well compensated job with lots of perqs, why bite the hand that feeds you, especially when CEO's handpicked consultants give you the board member a ready made excuse for approval?
+1
Quote:
Where are all the prople who feel that America is going to it's doom by not taxing "high earners" more heavily? Stop some of this at the root, not at the level of taxation which is a much less pointed focus.
Yes, it is no good if we tax them more, which simply means they will find a way to rob their stock holders even more to compensate for their taxes. High taxation also means more money goes to the gummint's instead of staying with the share holders, the proper owners of the businesses.

Sadly, there is currently no easy way to force CEO's pay to their true performance. A rising economy lifts all stocks, and most CEOs just get free ride from a better economic condition and not their acumen.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 07:45 PM   #44
Recycles dryer sheets
Beryl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 413
Well, I'll say it.

I'm bugged about my CEO's excessive pay. Before FIREing Feb 1, as a senior manager, I helped my MegaCorp's CEO off-shore IT jobs to less reliable and less competent resources in low cost countries. I released many talented US citizens to help boost our stock and fatten his pocket. Not only were there devastated employees and their families but our customers also suffered. I did everything I could to minimize the pain to both, however.

That pig of a CEO got a raise of almost 20% but allotted almost nothing to the remaining employees who had to pick up the pieces.


I'm glad to be retired after 10 years of downsizing.
__________________
Retired - Class of 2011
Beryl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 08:59 PM   #45
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
The entrepreneurial CEOs in America deserve more, as they are the creators of their business. The "hired help" CEOs in established US companies, not so much.
These guys who have been idea generating, risk taking company founders are full to the gills with stock. They don't need to be rewarded twice with higher salaries. Other than Steve Jobs, Gates, and maybe a few others, founders are usually fair to middling as managers anyway and often their early departure is a good thing. As a counter example- remember what happened to Apple when John Sculley came over from Pepsi to replace Jobs?

I can think of many ways to make top management's pay more sensitive to their results, but none of these things will ever happen on a wide scale as most of the biggest robbers would be disadvantaged by it.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 09:10 PM   #46
Administrator
W2R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 38,846
Some CEO's may be paying themselves considerably more than they really earn, but it's not like I can snap my fingers and change that fact.

I think this is a good example of "Life Isn't Fair."
__________________
Already we are boldly launched upon the deep; but soon we shall be lost in its unshored, harbourless immensities.

- - H. Melville, 1851
W2R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 09:38 PM   #47
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
I am amazed by all the cheerleaders for high CEO salaries and options and etc etc etc.

This is anything but a free market. Horrible CEOs who are wrecking the company get paid extremely well, as do good CEOs.

Why do so many of these characters only own stock if their corporations have provided the money to buy it?

Why are European CEOs willing to work for so much less. Do we still beleive that Americans do things better? I don't.

The salaries are suggested by salary consultants who are paid by the company that is controled by the CEO. These consultants often have a stake in getting compensation up, as do all other CEOs. The salary recommendations are approved by the board of directors who are usually pretty well controlled by the CEO. Prospective board memebers can't just show up, they have to be nominated. Being a board member is a prestigious usually well compensated job with lots of perqs, why bite the hand that feeds you, especially when CEO's handpicked consultants give you the board member a ready made excuse for approval?

Where are all the prople who feel that America is going to it's doom by not taxing "high earners" more heavily? Stop some of this at the root, not at the level of taxation which is a much less pointed focus.

Ha



One of the things that I will point out is that the vast majority of CEOs do NOT make that much money... it is the few in the Fortune 500 (maybe a few others here and there).... so it is a small group of people


As an example... when I worked for Mega... I worked in NY for a bit... there was an SVP who was paid close to $700K in total compensation... he had maybe 15 people that reported to him (for the life of me I still can not figure out how he got there... I am just reporting the facts).... Now, this guy ran what you might consider a small consulting group... and he wanted to get a job at another firm that was not in NY... well, he found out that almost all the companies he talked to had CEOs who did not have a salary as high as him....

This is a guy who is NOT that high in Mega, but got paid like a small firm CEO...


Sure, the CEOs pay themselves etc. etc..... and most do not do a great job... but it is the system we have and it is not changing anytime soon...
__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 11:46 PM   #48
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Rambler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinanceDude
We hear stories of the obscene buyouts and such, bit really, has anyone on here BEEN a CEO of a major company? I haven't either, but I don't think its all peaches and cream........
I'm considered to be CEO of a major division of our group (around $3B revenues under my purview). I'm not the group CEO. I will testify that it is not all peaches n cream, neither at my puny level of CEOship or at my boss's. We won't go into the details too much, but I see what he goes thru, and I don't think I would be willing to accept his CEO job even for the package he makes (very low 7 figures).

Someone here asked why CEOs were sometimes paid in stock rather than having them buy their own. The answer here is simple: diversification. One element of my pay is restricted stock. But I never keep more than 3-5%. It's not that I don't believe in the company. It's simply that I cannot have my career and the bulk of my "fortune" in the same basket. One of my former CEOs told me to watch out for that. So I keep a few percent of my holdings in the company and the rest is diversified.

From my vantage point, I will say that most CEOs who make low millions and are producing good value for their companies would be in a respectable pay range, given what they have to do. When their pay goes into 9-10 figures, that is a different story.

R
__________________
Find Joy in the Journey...
Rambler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2011, 01:09 AM   #49
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler View Post
Someone here asked why CEOs were sometimes paid in stock rather than having them buy their own. The answer here is simple: diversification. One element of my pay is restricted stock. But I never keep more than 3-5%. It's not that I don't believe in the company. It's simply that I cannot have my career and the bulk of my "fortune" in the same basket. One of my former CEOs told me to watch out for that. So I keep a few percent of my holdings in the company and the rest is diversified.
R
I understand your point, but as an investor I find it unconvincing when applied to a CEO who controls his company. If he cannot keep a large portion of his net worth in the company that he controls, I don't want to keep any of mine in it. (Except in the case of some high ROE blue chips where management is rarely entrepreneurial.) Indexers are in a very different position. They figure they will be buying jewels and garbage, but none of it in large enough portions to hurt them.

I need to avoid the garbage, so I want a CEO who will not just make good money if things work (options) but will be meaningfully hurt if they don't go well (large fully paid stock positions).

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2011, 01:42 AM   #50
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Rambler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha
I understand your point, but as an investor I find it unconvincing when applied to a CEO who controls his company. If he cannot keep a large portion of his net worth in the company that he controls, I don't want to keep any of mine in it. (Except in the case of some high ROE blue chips where management is rarely entrepreneurial.) Indexers are in a very different position. They figure they will be buying jewels and garbage, but none of it in large enough portions to hurt them.

I need to avoid the garbage, so I want a CEO who will not just make good money if things work (options) but will be meaningfully hurt if they don't go well (large fully paid stock positions).

Ha
Yeah, I understand that point and it's a good one. In our company, we have one major shareholder (an individual, not the CEO) with around 30-35% of the shares. The rest is pretty free float. He is quite fickle, and the guys in the CEO level and CEO-1 level can be and have been fired simply because the major shareholder no longer likes him/her, regardless of the value they have brought and still bring to the organization. So this is really where I'm coming from.

R
__________________
Find Joy in the Journey...
Rambler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2011, 06:09 AM   #51
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Hua Hin, Thailand
Posts: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animorph View Post
However there have certainly been plenty of examples of complete rip-offs. Kind of like some NFL first round draft picks!
By what possible definition is that a rip-off? The team conducts a medical exam, measures his performance in things like the 40 yard dash and has scores of hours of video of his past performance to review. The team makes an offer based on what they expect the drafted player will do in the NFL. Then they pay him according to contract, regardless of his performance.

How does this differ from hiring a CEO? The BOD interviews, looks at past performance, talks to others who have inside info on how he leads a company. Wouldn't surprise me if they asked for a full physical exam, including peeing in a cup, but don't know about that. Once the BOD finishes their evaluation they make an offer. If the CEO drives the company into the red, was it a rip-off? Nope. It was bad judgment or bad luck by the board. And the CEO gets paid according to his contract.

The original question if one was bugged by CEO pay. No, I'm not. That's because I completed the government program that was designed to end class envy by teaching the common people to tolerate those who are smarter, more motivated, better learners, consistently able to see where an industry will be in three years, more adept in the politics of organizations, and better able to do strategic and tactical planning based on incomplete information when the company's very existence is on the line all while sacrificing anything resembling a normal family life. Can't we all just get along?
__________________
ItDontMeanAThing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2011, 11:06 AM   #52
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItDontMeanAThing View Post
How does this differ from hiring a CEO? The BOD interviews, looks at past performance, talks to others who have inside info on how he leads a company. Wouldn't surprise me if they asked for a full physical exam, including peeing in a cup, but don't know about that. Once the BOD finishes their evaluation they make an offer. If the CEO drives the company into the red, was it a rip-off? Nope. It was bad judgment or bad luck by the board. And the CEO gets paid according to his contract.
In theory, that's how it is supposed to work, yes.

Quote:
The original question if one was bugged by CEO pay. No, I'm not. That's because I completed the government program that was designed to end class envy by teaching the common people to tolerate those who are smarter, more motivated, better learners, consistently able to see where an industry will be in three years, more adept in the politics of organizations, and better able to do strategic and tactical planning based on incomplete information when the company's very existence is on the line all while sacrificing anything resembling a normal family life. Can't we all just get along?
It is not class envy!

There have been plenty of articles and books describing how many CEOs of financial companies had absolutely no ideas of what the CDOs and CDSs really meant. All they knew was that it brought lots of profits (while it lasted of course), so that they could claim credits and made lots of money on their stock options.

Of course the public at large had to get along. How many billions have we spent to bail them out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler
From my vantage point, I will say that most CEOs who make low millions and are producing good value for their companies would be in a respectable pay range, given what they have to do. When their pay goes into 9-10 figures, that is a different story.
Thank you for the post!
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2011, 11:47 AM   #53
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
RockyMtn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Scottsdale
Posts: 1,230
I wasn't bugged about it when I was a CEO. Now I am outraged!!!!
__________________
RockyMtn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2011, 01:01 PM   #54
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Mulligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockyMtn
I wasn't bugged about it when I was a CEO. Now I am outraged!!!!
Maybe, I am the oddball, but that is a great quote!
__________________
Mulligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2011, 03:04 PM   #55
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler View Post
I'm considered to be CEO of a major division of our group (around $3B revenues under my purview). I'm not the group CEO. I will testify that it is not all peaches n cream, neither at my puny level of CEOship or at my boss's. We won't go into the details too much, but I see what he goes thru, and I don't think I would be willing to accept his CEO job even for the package he makes (very low 7 figures).

Someone here asked why CEOs were sometimes paid in stock rather than having them buy their own. The answer here is simple: diversification. One element of my pay is restricted stock. But I never keep more than 3-5%. It's not that I don't believe in the company. It's simply that I cannot have my career and the bulk of my "fortune" in the same basket. One of my former CEOs told me to watch out for that. So I keep a few percent of my holdings in the company and the rest is diversified.

From my vantage point, I will say that most CEOs who make low millions and are producing good value for their companies would be in a respectable pay range, given what they have to do. When their pay goes into 9-10 figures, that is a different story.

R

I would say that your position is not the same as a CEO... yours is more of a title change... you could be called President of your division just as easily and is probably more correct... you had a boss that was not the BOD... you had a boss who had input into your compensation, including how many shares you received in grants or options... not the BOD.. (I am sure the BOD voted on your distribution, but only in a general way..... no discussion... heck, my 50 or so shares were voted on by the BOD along with 10s of thousands of other people's shares)...

IMO, there is only one CEO of a company... everbody else reports to him in one way or another... his boss is the BOD, nobody else... the BOD determines salary and options/grants...
__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2011, 04:39 PM   #56
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Rambler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud

I would say that your position is not the same as a CEO... yours is more of a title change... you could be called President of your division just as easily and is probably more correct... you had a boss that was not the BOD... you had a boss who had input into your compensation, including how many shares you received in grants or options... not the BOD.. (I am sure the BOD voted on your distribution, but only in a general way..... no discussion... heck, my 50 or so shares were voted on by the BOD along with 10s of thousands of other people's shares)...

IMO, there is only one CEO of a company... everbody else reports to him in one way or another... his boss is the BOD, nobody else... the BOD determines salary and options/grants...
Fair enough on the CEO vs President comment. I'm ok with either, but sometimes the CEO title does open doors that need to be opened, and I'm allowed to use it. As you assess, my CEO boss does have input into my pay. But I know from personal experience that our Board is very involved in compensation matters at the CEO-1 level (me), including salary, STI and LTI, plus other T&Cs and conditions. My comp is irrelevant anyway. I was just trying to get across the point that CEOs have more bull pucky to deal with than yo can shake a stick at. I see my CEO and what he does, and while I don't say "no amount of money would get me to do...", I do say that I wouldnt want to do what he has to do to earn the extra. But, some people it does not bother. I prefer having a life, though meager, outside of work.

R
__________________
Find Joy in the Journey...
Rambler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2011, 05:08 PM   #57
Moderator
MBAustin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beryl View Post
Well, I'll say it.

I'm bugged about my CEO's excessive pay. Before FIREing Feb 1, as a senior manager, I helped my MegaCorp's CEO off-shore IT jobs to less reliable and less competent resources in low cost countries. I released many talented US citizens to help boost our stock and fatten his pocket. Not only were there devastated employees and their families but our customers also suffered. I did everything I could to minimize the pain to both, however.

That pig of a CEO got a raise of almost 20% but allotted almost nothing to the remaining employees who had to pick up the pieces.


I'm glad to be retired after 10 years of downsizing.
+1
Been there, done that, no more.
__________________
"One of the funny things about the stock market is that every time one person buys, another sells, and both think they are astute." William Feather
----------------------------------
ER'd Oct. 2010 at 53. Life is good.
MBAustin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2011, 05:40 PM   #58
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler View Post
Fair enough on the CEO vs President comment. I'm ok with either, but sometimes the CEO title does open doors that need to be opened, and I'm allowed to use it. As you assess, my CEO boss does have input into my pay. But I know from personal experience that our Board is very involved in compensation matters at the CEO-1 level (me), including salary, STI and LTI, plus other T&Cs and conditions. My comp is irrelevant anyway. I was just trying to get across the point that CEOs have more bull pucky to deal with than yo can shake a stick at. I see my CEO and what he does, and while I don't say "no amount of money would get me to do...", I do say that I wouldnt want to do what he has to do to earn the extra. But, some people it does not bother. I prefer having a life, though meager, outside of work.

R

Since you are higher than most people in the pecking order... I hear what you say.... and think it carries more weight....


I remember reading an article on the high pay of a CEO... and it was along the same line that you are saying... that most people that are at your level look at it and would say "I am happy where I am if I am only going to get a 10% raise to do all that".... IOW, to get more people motivated to take on that position... you have to pay a lot more...


Also, most people don't calculate the 'down' time of some of the CEOs.... if you run a company into the ground you might not get another offer for a few years... so you have to cash in while you can.... kind of like a sports star who has a short career....
__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2011, 09:17 PM   #59
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
Since you are higher than most people in the pecking order... I hear what you say.... and think it carries more weight....


I remember reading an article on the high pay of a CEO... and it was along the same line that you are saying... that most people that are at your level look at it and would say "I am happy where I am if I am only going to get a 10% raise to do all that".... IOW, to get more people motivated to take on that position... you have to pay a lot more...


Also, most people don't calculate the 'down' time of some of the CEOs.... if you run a company into the ground you might not get another offer for a few years... so you have to cash in while you can.... kind of like a sports star who has a short career....
These guys are like baseball managers. No matter how awful they are, they have 9 lives.
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2011, 08:19 AM   #60
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Tadpole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,169
I just got an announcement of a Chevron meeting. For my proxy, they recommend that I vote in favor of all Board proposals and against all Stockholder proposals. I haven't read any of the proposals yet but, embedded in the titles for the Board (titles sound reasonable) is their proposal for executive officer compensation determination. Embedded in the stockholder proposals (titles sound anti-profit with some seeming silly) is a stockholder proposal for executive compensation.

Now let's be honest. I might agree with what I consider anti-profit and silly if I was a disinterested party. But I admit seeing these "silly" things does make me more leery of a stockholder's idea for setting compensation. If the stockholder's making the proposals aren't smart enough to factor in business considerations, why would I think they would factor in the need for good business executives?

Tis a dilemma since we all call for a say but I imagine that it is usually some nutty fringe that actually comes up with stockholder proposals.
__________________

__________________
Tadpole is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What would you do - pay off student loan or pay down mortgage? bank5 FIRE and Money 27 07-27-2009 06:30 PM
Pay $15K upfront to pre-pay 20+ years of oil heat bills??? farmerEd Other topics 16 02-14-2008 07:46 AM
Confession of a CEO Spanky Young Dreamers 3 11-09-2007 11:01 PM
LBYM CEO style Scrooge Other topics 65 08-22-2006 09:51 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:34 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.