Boston Bonus

Boston Beer hands out handsome bonuses to top execs

In a year that saw a 24 percent drop in The Boston Beer Co.’s stock price and a 71 percent fall in its net income through Sept. 29, the maker of Samuel Adams beer awarded more than $1 million in bonuses to its top executives and chairman in 2008.

Boston Beer operates a brewery in Cincinnati’s West End that produces Sam Adams beers.

The bonuses ranged from 42 percent to 83 percent of each individual’s potential total bonus for the year, the company said in a regulatory filing. The biggest award, $399,977, went to Boston Beer President and CEO Martin Roper. Roper’s bonus was $584,200 the prior year. His salary for 2008 was $666,750.

The bonus was 42 percent of Roper’s potential reward, which is determined by a handful of performance metrics, for the year, according to regulatory filings.

Treasurer and chief financial officer William Urich was awarded a $144,320 bonus in 2008, compared with the $148,630 he was awarded for 2007. His most recent reward, on top of his $360,000 in annual pay, represented 82 percent of his total potential bonus for the year.

Other bonus recipients included chairman and founder C. James Koch ($136,475, 50 percent of potential), vice president of operations Robert Hall ($124,875, 67.5 percent) and vice president of operations Thomas Lance ($129,948, 83 percent).

Boston Beer also said a handful of other executives received bonuses ranging between $66,377 and $120,350.

The company said Urich, Hall and Lance would each receive annual salary increases of more than 2 percent in fiscal 2009. Roper and Koch will not receive salary increases this year, the company said. Koch earned $273,000 in salary last year.

Comments

  1. Tlangle1 says

    …would also reward the rank and file, wouldn’t he/she? Were their bonuses all around at the great American Craft Beer company and they just weren’t reported here, or did the shop floor just get a kiss and a wave?
    Anybody know for sure?

  2. hops cynic says

    For a profitable, growing company these bonuses sound like pretty small potatoes.

  3. beerking1 says

    hops cynic wrote: For a profitable, growing company these bonuses sound like pretty small potatoes.

    Not to be the cynic here but “24 percent drop in The Boston Beer Co.’s stock price and a 71 percent fall in its net income through Sept. 29” hardly sounds like a “profitable, growing company.”

  4. wiredgourmet says

    That’s the miracle of free-market discipline: rewarding success and punishing failure. Oh, wait…

  5. hops cynic says

    Failure? I’d bet everyone on this board would like to be such a failure as BBC.

  6. DesertWort says

    hops cynic wrote: Failure? I’d bet everyone on this board would like to be such a failure as BBC.

    Just as surely as I hope I have the common sense to not give bonuses to the management at a time when the company is losing ground (as the rest of the craft packaged beer market was expanding) and America is pissed about all the (bailout) $$$ that was recently used for bonuses in underperforming companies. (get it… underperforming haha)

  7. hops cynic says

    DesertWort wrote: Just as surely as I hope I have the common sense to not give bonuses to the management at a time when the company is losing ground (as the rest of the craft packaged beer market was expanding) and America is pissed about all the (bailout) $$$ that was recently used for bonuses in underperforming companies. (get it… underperforming haha)

    But they’re not losing ground. Most recent reported results were 2008 3rd qtr.,

    ” — Depletions grew 12% for the quarter and 10% year to date.”

    Yes they’re growing, yes they’re profitable, and stock price down 24%? That’s outperforming the market.

    Net income was down, but they absorbed the cost of the product recall and the renovating and start up Allentown in 2008.

    I didn’t hear about them getting any bailout money, perhaps you can cite a reference?

    Again, everyone here should wish to be such a failure as BBC.

  8. woodman says

    For the cynics this is not a commercial for Boston Beer. But I do happen to know one of these men socially. Not unlike most of us, he works long and hard, is fully emersed, cares about what he does and allows his career to dictate his outside life. Also a bit humble, again not unlike most of us.

    I would not compare him to top execs of other “headline” problem industries of the day. I do not know how rewards may or may not have trickled down to the floor, but if it is there for my friend to have, good luck to him he has earned it. …Now that I know he has a few spare “bob”, maybe he wants to invest in me?

    I don’t mean to dampen this thread, just my thoughts one individual.
    (Although I can’t wait for my turn! At 55 maybe my kids will see the reward:))

    Cheers,
    Woodman

  9. DesertWort says

    I was not implying that BBC recieved a bailout. That was a combination of random potshot on Wall St., and the thought that people are upset at the current climate. As much as they spend on advertising it seems to me a potentially bad move. With CEO’s going in front of Congress for this type of thing, and breweries generally looked fondly upon by most people, it strikes me as a story with much ‘sensationalism’ potential. Dragging people thru the mud is the only thing moderm media is capable of, irregardless of whether they deserve it. And people want to be angry right now. Any company would make a good target as long as it is publicly traded.

    Are these people deserving of the bonus? Not for me to say. I don’t know them and I’m not paying. Yes, they did expand and absorb a third party caused recall. I will assume they deserved what they got. Very few people in this industry are overpaid, and I don’t know any of them. I was not commenting directly on their performance so much as the impression that could be pushed upon the public (see… even the good guys play dirty).

    But I am just a cynic). I am, hopefully, wrong again!

  10. WitsEnd says

    To anyone that complains about SA giving bonuses when their numbers aren’t doing well…

    admin wrote: The bonuses ranged from 42 percent to 83 percent of each individual’s potential total bonus for the year,

    Did you miss this?

    From what little I understand, bonuses aren’t typically given out ONLY when companies do well. They’re treated as a discrecionary salrary based on how well the company does. Notice that each individual had a potential bonus. This, to me, says, “if we’re doing well, this is what your salary is”

    Granted, the numbers are large compared to what most people make, but it’s still a cut in pay.