Could this be contributing to the cost of pharmaceuticals?
Pfizer's McKinnell to Get $180M Package
By ELLEN SIMON
AP Business Writer
NEW YORK - Pfizer Inc.'s former chief executive, Henry A. McKinnell, who was
forced into an early retirement in part because of investor anger about his
rich retirement benefits, will get every penny of it and more, a new
regulatory filing shows.
McKinnell's package, which the company disclosed in a filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission Thursday, totals more than $180 million.
It includes an estimated $82.3 million in pension benefits, $77.9 million in
deferred compensation, and cash and stock totaling more than $20.7 million.
The total value could grow to almost $200 million if McKinnell gets a $18.3
million stock award, but that is contingent on the future performance of the
stock of the world's largest drugmaker.
The company said McKinnell's departure "contractually obligated" it under
his employment agreement to provide McKinnell with certain severance
payments and benefits.
The deferred pension sum includes $67 million of his own money from prior
compensation he chose to set aside, the company said in the filing.
Beyond that, Pfizer will pay a lump sum severance of $11.9 million and will
fully vest stock grants worth $5.8 million, according to the filing. He also
will receive $2.2 million for 2005 bonus payments, $305,644 for unused
vacation time and $576,573 for benefits he would have received had he stayed
at the drugmaker.
The package also provides him with an annual pension of $6.6 million until
he dies. Pfizer estimated the pension's lump-sum value to be $82.3 million.
McKinnell vacated the CEO spot in July, 19 months before he was scheduled to
step down, under pressure from investors angered about his retirement
package and a drop of as much as 40 percent in the company's stock price
during his five years in charge.
For some investors, already angry over the stock's slide, McKinnell's
retirement package was a flash point. At Pfizer's April annual meeting in
Lincoln, Neb., a plane flew overhead trailing a banner that said, "Give it
back, Hank!" Two proxy advisory companies had called for removal of board
members and the AFL-CIO led a protest against the retirement package. The
board members were re-elected, however.
McKinnell earned $5.97 million in salary and bonus in 2005. When the
company's proxy was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in
March, his total compensation for the year was valued at $15.88 million,
including salary, bonus, stock options, stock grants and benefits. The value
of options and stock varies with the share price.
McKinnell's perquisites in 2005 included $8,500 in financial counseling,
$65,120 for use of a car and driver and $43,855 for personal use of company
aircraft, according to the proxy.
New Chief Executive Jeffrey B. Kindler also became chairman Tuesday,
replacing McKinnell, who was not slated to leave until February.
Pfizer declined to make McKinnell available Thursday, and a spokesman
emphasized the differences between McKinnell's pay package and Kindler's.
Kindler has no contract, has a much lower annual salary than McKinnell and
has more pay tied to the stock's performance, according to spokesman Paul
Fitzhenry.
Those differences may not be enough to quench shareholder's anger.
"It's a very big package and I'm sure it's going to raise investor concerns,
however, it's contractual," said Charles Elson, chair of the Weinberg Center
for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. "The question is not
that they've paid it, but why, initially, such a contract was entered into."
The company, which has pledged to cut $4 billion in costs by 2008, is
expected to undergo a radical shake up. Pfizer said in late November that it
would look for even deeper cuts. Then it suddenly halted development of
cholesterol drug torcetrapib because of safety concerns. The company had
spent $800 million developing torcetrapib and hoped it would be a
blockbuster.
Pfizer shares fell 14 cents to $26.07 Thursday on the New York Stock
Exchange.
Alan Meyer - 25 Dec 2006 20:02 GMT
> Could this be contributing to the cost of pharmaceuticals?
>
> Pfizer's McKinnell to Get $180M Package
It's pretty obscene isn't it. It's hard to see how this is in
the interests of the company's shareholders, not to mention
us poor slobs who use their pharmaceuticals.
Alan
Tom Cular - 25 Dec 2006 21:10 GMT
It really is obcene; the money blown on direct consumer advertising and
"missionary" sales staff to visit doctor offices with offers of freebies,
golf outings and whatever else they can come up with to sell their products;
as well as golden parachutes for people of his ilk surely contribute to the
cost of drugs in the U.S.
The U.S. is one of two countries that allow direct consumer advertising of
prescription drugs, i.e. , ask your Dr. if @)#*&%$ is right for you.
I recently had a conversation with a retired facilities maintenance employee
from Merk, he defended Merk's pricing of drugs as if he had intimate
knowledge of their accounting procedures; this smells as though the
corporate mindset is to have all of their folks believe that they are
working on a shoestring due to R&D expenses.
Tom
>> Could this be contributing to the cost of pharmaceuticals?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Alan
Steve Jordan - 25 Dec 2006 21:22 GMT
On Christmas Day, Tom Cular wrote, in pertinent part:
> I recently had a conversation with a retired facilities maintenance employee
> from Merk (sic), he defended Merk's pricing of drugs as if he had intimate
> knowledge of their accounting procedures; this smells as though the
> corporate mindset is to have all of their folks believe that they are
> working on a shoestring due to R&D expenses.
Agreed, based upon what a sales executive for Pfizer told me.
To some extent, he may have had a point, as a lot of money is indeed
spent on development of meds that don't make it to market. That money
must come from somewhere. I understand that the socialized medicine
countries forbid the pharma companies to recover their development costs
when pricing meds. Perhaps this places an unfair burden upon thee and me
in the USofA.
Regards,
Steve J
“To be good is noble, but to show others how to be good is nobler — and
no trouble.”
—Mark Twain
I.P. Freely - 25 Dec 2006 21:55 GMT
>> Could this be contributing to the cost of pharmaceuticals?
>>
>> Pfizer's McKinnell to Get $180M Package
>
> It's pretty obscene isn't it. It's hard to see how this is in
> the interests of the company's shareholders
Some CEOs make billions for their companies and shareholders, easily
justifying their huge bonuses. Bill Gates has probably contributed
quadrillions to the world's collective economy, so his near-trillion is
a trifle. A CEO's primary, essentially sole, job is to raise stock
prices. If s/he does it well, why shouldn't s/he get a slice of the pie
s/he baked, and why should s/he leave another great corporate pie to
switch companies and come bake OUR pie?
It's a case-by-case issue. Just as it's strictly OUR measly ticket bucks
that make entertainers (including jocks) worth hundreds of millions,
consumer demand triggered by advertisements and by doctors pushing pills
for kickbacks bolsters drug prices and CEO rewards; if that bothers us,
we got to vote with our FEET, not our LIPS, or at least buy insurance
and ignore drug prices.
I.P.