Sunbeam Case

800 Words Apr 11th, 2013 4 Pages
1. Consider Dunlap’s statement on page 3 of the case: “Stakeholders! Every time I hear the word, I ask how much did they pay for their stake? There is only one constituency I am concerned about and that is the shareholder primacy? Do you agree or disagree with Dunlap’s view of shareholder primacy? Explain
Generally most reasonable people in a market driven economy would agree that companies are in business to generate economic profitability. Also many people would agree that companies and organizations have certain social responsibilities to the communities in which they make their profit. I believe that profitability and social responsibility can and should be combined in an ideal world. Dunlap’s perspective clearly advocates the point
…show more content…
Dunlap’s salary was just over $500k and he took no bonus. But he received a substantial stock option and award package. The restricted stock award component was to vest in two years, meaning that Dunlap’s compensation would be closely linked to the company’s stock performance for that time. Although the short term profits benefited shareholders, no incentives to create a long term, profitable company existed. Sunbeam’s performance-based incentives brought greater motivation to Dunlap to increase the firm’s stock value by any means necessary. He created remarkable shareholder value, in part by cutting half the company's 12,000 workers and closing many plants. Generally speaking, the first compensation package was excessive, but it linked the CEO’s and stockholders’ goals. It was not well designed, but it was congruent with Sunbeam’s business model of maximizing shareholder profits, but it drove an unhealthy behavior. 3. Was the second compensation package offered to Dunlap well-structured? Was it excessive? Was it necessary?
The second compensation package was not well designed nor did it help define what the corporate strategy would be. For a second time the compensation package focused on maximizing shareholder’s wealth and didn’t take into consideration the stakeholder’s position at all. Dunlap’s package was deeply weighted in company options ($3.75M). In fact it was weighted heavier than before. The stock grants were