HP’s Mark Hurd made $24.2 million in fiscal 2009

hp_logo_lg_hp_blue Last year, our most popular post by far was “HP’s Mark Hurd made $42.5 million in fiscal 2008.” The post has drawn a whopping 254 comments, with more still coming in.

So given the interest, it seems only right to post an update with Hurd’s last salary numbers for fiscal year 2009: $24.2 million. A story in the Mercury News this week covered the basics:

“The filing showed that Hurd, 53, got a salary of $1.3 million, down from his $1.5 million salary the year before.

His base pay was cut 20 percent in 2009 as part of companywide pay cuts announced in February. But Hurd recouped the difference with his $1.2 million bonus, which HP said included the amount its executives’ pay was reduced under the pay-cut plan. At the time of the cuts, Hurd said that all employees might wind up making up the difference in the form of bonuses if the company performed well.

Hurd received a $5.3 million bonus the year before.

HP, which is based in Palo Alto, said some executives’ bonuses were hampered by the fact the company’s revenue in all business units were below internal targets for bonuses set in January 2009, “at a time when the full extent of the economic downturn that had begun in the fall of 2008 was not known.”

Now, the story says that was down 29 percent from the before. Still was he worth it? Let us know what you think.


Tags: , ,


Share this Post

  • David

    Here is the REAL problem: CEO’s, top managements and Board members , top share holders (who are mostly CEO’s and top managements of other companies) are in a club where they decide/influence each other salaries/BONUSES. Their excuse for big bonuses is for performance/profits of the company (which is logical!) BUUTTTT if the performance/profits of the company is down..then huh…they either get less bonus or leave + GOLDEN parachute (ten of millions dollars)!

    They have a contract where they always win whether their performance is good or bad!!!

    Proposed solution:
    IF CO. doing well they get the bonus, but if the company is doing bad they have to pay penalty accordingly!.

    HP stock goes up 10%, CEO makes 10 millions of bonus (on top of base of 1 million) THEN next year if stock goes down 8%, CEO has to pay back 8 millions in bonus (still with the base of 1 million base pay).

    The problem still is: How do you get “the club” to agree on the above simple/fair compensation?……….Can some one help me out?!. …..

  • Please Read

    Please Stop, please listen.
    “As much as you think you know, none of you actually understand what it’s like to be in his situation. “
    And what situation is it exactly which requires a man to make up to 2000 times what his lowest paid workers make? What exactly entitles him to that level of pay and benefits? Do you truly believe that one man, whom I might add can’t even live by the rules we’re all expected to follow inside the company, has earned that much reward? I wholeheartedly believe that you pay your best performers more than someone who performs to a lesser degree, however, I do not believe that merely by right of position does anyone earn rewards to this degree while simultaneously removing employees that are generating income for the company. I suppose an argument could be made to support it, if your definition of performance is how much of the company’s money can you stick in one man’s pocket. By that measure he has far exceeded the abilities and performance of any other single employee. ( Yes I called him an employee, that’s what he was)

    “Yes, it wasn’t fair what he did to his workers, but companies must make sacrifices.”
    Companies must indeed make sacrifices when times are rough for the business. I think you’ll find it a tough sell convincing the tens of thousands who lost their gainful employment while the company brought in billions in profit, all the while the CEO was pursuing a private relationship at the companies expense since 2007, and pocketing 10s of millions in rewards. If a company is truly needs to make a sacrifice, many CEO’s will reduce their pay to 1 dollar a year, and focus on repairing the issue, rather than only repeating their one and only strategy.. cut heads.
    “As mad as you all are, none of you will ever fully understand what fully triggered his decisions.”
    I’m afraid that at this point, it seems fairly obvious that the one and only motivation in every decision was to increase his personal wealth no matter what the cost to the company or to the employees. Any spin applied to this is just that … spin.
    “ He doesn’t decide what he gets paid, the government does.”
    Entirely incorrect. The US Government does not set executive compensation levels. Since HP is incorporated in the US state of Delaware, I have to assume you’re implying that there is a federal or state regulation involved. I can assure you that this is not the case. While there are limits to how much compensation executives may receive to remain in specific tax brackets, or receive certain benefits, or in the case of certain industries ( financial institutions for one), the only limiting factor in Hurd’s employment contract in regards to total rewards is how and when he can redeem options or stock rewards.
    “ He has made HP better, as much as you don’t want to admit it. “
    Please educate us how he has made HP a better company. It’s quite obvious now that the prime product of the reign of terror has been to instill in every employee a hatred for those who sit at the board’s meeting table.
    “Salaries are being reduced, but eventually they will get better, I hope.”
    I’d prefer to be paid a competitive wage for the work I do, rather than hope it gets better. I don’t believe that’s an unfair expectation. In fact, if salary reductions were the effective tool that they have been promoted to be, then why wasn’t Hurd’s salary AND options reduced by the cuts? If you want a prime example of how completely unfair the salary cuts were, consider this. With the alignment of job codes between the legacy EDS personnel office and the HP system, it was discovered that there were many employees well above the median and subsequently their salaries were downward adjusted. But what happened to the thousand whose salaries were below the median, not due to underperformance, but due to the restrictive pay and rewards policies. As of this writing, to my knowledge that has never been addressed.
    “I know I will never personally understand any of your situations, and I am very sorry if I offended anyone.”
    You didn’t until the next sentence to be honest. I find it offensively dishonest, or perhaps naïve.
    “ I just don’t think that its fair to bring him down, when none of you comprehend the decisions he had to make, or the consequences that came. Good luck to everyone.”
    Considering you are completely unaware of any of the other poster’s educational or experience level, or even their past experiences in the business world, I find it difficult to believe this statement. Should you have said this in all sincerity, I’d suggest you study the situation anew. And good luck to you.