Charlie made less than $300,000 in salary last year

[Chris Blount]

Charlie Ergen presides over a giant $5.7 billion company that added 1 million satellite-TV subscribers last year and saw its stock rocket nearly 50 percent.

For the average executive, those accomplishments would be enough to command a million-dollar raise and lasso a fat bonus for a new wing on the house.

But Ergen, chairman and CEO of EchoStar, made less than $300,000 in salary last year and wasn't given a bonus, earning him an A+ in pay compared with performance in Forbes magazine's executive compensation ratings for 2003.

Yet Ergen is by no means underpaid.

Colorado's richest man, with a net worth of $9.1 billion, makes his money in another way: He owns 50 percent of EchoStar. That translates to 240.5 million shares. So if EchoStar stock rises $4, Ergen's personal worth increases by almost $1 billion.

Last year alone, EchoStar shares rose $10 - so Ergen certainly got his due.

Compensation experts say this type of executive pay structure is rare but not unheard of in the business world.

More (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/business/article/0,1299,DRMN_4_2869801,00.html)

[RAD]

The way E* has been going the last 8 or 9 months Charlie should be happy he still has a job.

[juan ellitinez]

The way E* has been going the last 8 or 9 months Charlie should be happy he still has a job.
I didnt know they were losing customers or market share? I thought they actually turned profitable(unlike d*)!!!! :nono2: :nono2:

[RAD]

I didnt know they were losing customers or market share? I thought they actually turned profitable(unlike d*)!!!! :nono2: :nono2:

But look what's happened at E* during the past 6 to 8 months:

- Superdish for HD was a Superbust
- No new product for retailers to see during the 2004 holiday season, except for a late arriving 811
- Hardware/software quality problems and missing features on the newest receivers
- The 921 Dishwire/firewall mess
- Two senior people leaving their positions
- Viacom turnoff for a couple of days
- Loss for the 1st quarter of $42.9 million
- Wall street reduces the target price for Echostar stock

If I remember on the previous quarters confrence call Charlie even said that he takes the blame for what was happening at E* that quarter.

[Cyclone]

Yeah, Even though E* might have screwed up a bunch of things at the micro level (odd STB problems and Superdish 105 fiasco), the truth is that they have been adding customers like crazy and are still getting nice fat monthly payments from millions of customers.

Charlie is pulling it in big time. He will likely keep things in good shape, until E* reaches market staturation (most people who are going to become DBS customers, have become customers). At that point growth will slow consdierably and Charlie will sell out at that time, or merge.

Either that or he's just too cheap to pay himself.

[Geronimo]

I didnt know they were losing customers or market share? I thought they actually turned profitable(unlike d*)!!!! :nono2: :nono2:


I don't see a single post alleging that they have lost subs or market share. What are you referring to?

[MattS]

I can gaurentee when E* reaches 10 million customers. There is a big fat check waiting for the board and charlie.

[Capmeister]

I fail to see how it's anyone's business what he makes, except the shareholders.

[dmjung]

It doesn't matter what the stock price did if he didn't sell any stock...I haven't looked to see if he had sold any last year.

<<<Loss for the 1st quarter of $42.9 million>>>

I thought this was due to paying off some debt early and if you backed out the early debt retirement, they made roughly the same profit as the comparative period last year.

--David

[juan ellitinez]

I don't see a single post alleging that they have lost subs or market share. What are you referring to?Those would be legitimate reasons to fire charlie..the reasons on this board arent..it was a responcse to a call for mr ergens outster

[Mike D-CO5]

Don't you imagine in areas that have yet to receive their own locals that Dish can attract new subs when they add their locals? It looks to me that they will have at least have an option of either cable or satellite to get all their locals and cable channels. I think it is to soon to say that they have added all the new customers they are going to add till they finish the rest of the 100 cities left to receive their locals. In most cities where they add locals they start adding subs that they wouldn't have added prior to the addition of the locals.:)

[James Long]

Those would be legitimate reasons to fire charlie..the reasons on this board arent..it was a responcse to a call for mr ergens outster
Kinda hard to fire an owner, but this is the Internet ... you can dream! :lol:

JL

[BobMurdoch]

I don't see a single post alleging that they have lost subs or market share. What are you referring to?

Actually, as one of this boards accused E* pom pom wavers, I will concede that D* has been adding more subscribers than E* has for the last 9 months. A lot of this has to do with E*'s equipment shortages (especially HD), plus lots of negative media attention for the Viacom and Turner disputes.

Churn level actually were NOT that bad, but it probably kept some new customers away. A lot of E*'s growth has been in the sticks as their main strategy has been to add gads of local channels in rural America. They are running out or markets to add though, so they will need a new strategy soon. Not to mention Congreased, er Congress getting their panties in a bunch over the 2nd dish "solution".

My dream scenario (i'm still not holding my breath)...

1. E* buys V* and announces switchover of the satellite to E* subscribers. Free equipment upgrades given to existing V* subscribers

2. YES added in NY/NJ/CT

3. The 811s and 921s start shipping in large quantities

4. E* announces a huge Sirius eisting customer upgrade deal to try and lure in new subscribers.....

5. NFL Network

6. More HD!

7. Distant digital Broadcast networks.....

[Earl Zuberbelt]

Charlie Ergen presides over a giant $5.7 billion company that added 1 million satellite-TV subscribers last year and saw its stock rocket nearly 50 percent.

For the average executive, those accomplishments would be enough to command a million-dollar raise and lasso a fat bonus for a new wing on the house.

But Ergen, chairman and CEO of EchoStar, made less than $300,000 in salary last year and wasn't given a bonus, earning him an A+ in pay compared with performance in Forbes magazine's executive compensation ratings for 2003.

Yet Ergen is by no means underpaid.

Colorado's richest man, with a net worth of $9.1 billion, makes his money in another way: He owns 50 percent of EchoStar. That translates to 240.5 million shares. So if EchoStar stock rises $4, Ergen's personal worth increases by almost $1 billion.

Last year alone, EchoStar shares rose $10 - so Ergen certainly got his due.

Compensation experts say this type of executive pay structure is rare but not unheard of in the business world.

More (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/business/article/0,1299,DRMN_4_2869801,00.html)

If you read the financials, he's always had a very low base salary. Charlie's wealth, is based on the value of his company and as a result, all the stock he owns.

If the company does good, so does Charlie and his team. I read this past weekend the value of the company's stock was up over 450 percent over the past five years.

Ya'll can say want you want, but there are few companies out there with that kind of performance.

More companies need to be run this way, lots of CEO's out there making tons of money while the company loses tons of money.

Good for you Charlie, you've earned it.

-Earl
Yankee born Southern bred and appreciating people who earn their keep.

[garypen]

Stock price is not indiciative of a company's long-term strength or health. It is based on short-term financial success, often only valid on paper. Just look at a company's stock price when they annouince a huge layoff. The stock price usually goes up! Any cost-cutting measure will also have the same result. But, huge layoffs and other blind cost-cutting often leads to a drop in quality of products and services, which have long term effects on a companies growth and continued success.
As more an more of these new subs experience the terrible hardware, clueless customer service, horrible local PQ, etc, they will not be sticking around for long. And, the word of mouth will slow down future new sub growth.
Ironically, many of Chuck's cost-cutting efforts, come back to bite him on the ass. The entire new line of receivers, and the superdish fiasco, have undoubtedly increased CS costs, reduced new sub growth, and caused defection of once-loyal subs (not to mention subs with no brand loyalty, who just want stuff that works at a decent price.)
As a shareholder for 5 years, I might be happy. As a customer during virtually that same time, I'm not.

[Tom D]

Stock price is not indiciative of a company's long-term strength or health. It is based on short-term financial success, often only valid on paper. Just look at a company's stock price when they annouince a huge layoff. The stock price usually goes up! Any cost-cutting measure will also have the same result. But, huge layoffs and other blind cost-cutting often leads to a drop in quality of products and services, which have long term effects on a companies growth and continued success.
As more an more of these new subs experience the terrible hardware, clueless customer service, horrible local PQ, etc, they will not be sticking around for long. And, the word of mouth will slow down future new sub growth.
Ironically, many of Chuck's cost-cutting efforts, come back to bite him on the ass. The entire new line of receivers, and the superdish fiasco, have undoubtedly increased CS costs, reduced new sub growth, and caused defection of once-loyal subs (not to mention subs with no brand loyalty, who just want stuff that works at a decent price.)
As a shareholder for 5 years, I might be happy. As a customer during virtually that same time, I'm not.

I think you may be a little mistaken on the stock price. Yes, layoffs and cost cutting may affect a stock price, but the largest factor is investor confidence in the company. Layoffs and cost cutting can raise the stock price if they give the investor more confidence in the future health of the company.

As to E* problems, I really doubt that the vast majority of their subscribers know or care. As a 5 year sub, I've maybe called them 3 or 4 times, never really had a bad experience. I also have an 811 and, while I am frutstrated at times, I'm willing to wait it out as my other receivers (501, 510, and 301) have been great.

Personally, I think Charlie runs a pretty good company for the most part. Given what he started with, he's done pretty well for himself, and I definitely don't begrudge his success.

[Tuanies]

I'm sure hes doing a great job as he hasnt had to sell out to anyone like DTV....

[Van]

Would be nice if he would start sharing the wealth a bit with his employee's again, we lost commisions as well as performance insentives for a slight increase in hourly pay 2 years ago when they started pushing 3 and 4 room installations. The result was having to pay his installer base less for doing theyr jobs but backfired in the sudden and drastic drop in additional equipment sales and a drop in customer service.

[Tornado25]

Would be nice if he would start sharing the wealth a bit with his employee's again, we lost commisions as well as performance insentives for a slight increase in hourly pay 2 years ago when they started pushing 3 and 4 room installations. The result was having to pay his installer base less for doing theyr jobs but backfired in the sudden and drastic drop in additional equipment sales and a drop in customer service.
Share what wealth, exactly? He makes an astonishingly low salary (and no bonus to top it off), so how would you suggest he "share" with the employees? The company had a net loss last quarter, so it isn't going to be from company cash...

Kinda hard to fire an owner, but this is the Internet ... you can dream!

Huh? The board could certainly decide to fire Charlie and bring on a new CEO. I'm sure, since the board has a sizeable number of in-company directors, it would never happen. However, Charlie's stock ownership (unless structured very, very well) does not automatically give him immunity. So, I'm not sure what you mean. Think about this: If/when he resigns, does he not still own 50% (or whatever) of the stock? Of course.

[Cheyenne]

Ahh... but what was his "bonus" this year?

[RAD]

Ahh... but what was his "bonus" this year?

He had an 921 last year as his bonus :D

[Mike Richardson]

Steve Jobs is still paid $1 a year I think for being CEO of Apple. But he owns a ton of stock and gets other bonuses.

[Tornado25]

Ahh... but what was his "bonus" this year?

? I'm not trying to be dense, but if you were being sarcastic (thus, the quote marks), I missed it. The release clearly states he received no bonus. Direct compensation from E* was 300K period. Charlie's "bonus", if any, is an increase in the stock price. He owns most of the stock, so good on him if it goes up and just as well deserved if it goes down. It's as good a pay for performance plan as one could ask for.

[DarrellP]

As bad as my locals look, Charlie should be paying me to watch them. I'll be getting my new DVD recorder this week, so it will be bye-bye Dish locals.