I can officially say the #1 watch of C.E.O.s is Rolex...

[maxman]

When my butt-plug company ranks alongside those corporate titans, I'll wear a hublot big bang.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/flash/play/285777/

[tabularasa415]

LOL... Max, you just need to go to the Hustler store on campus for that sort of thing. Of course, I've been told you're already so advanced in your "gauging," so to speak, that maybe we should all just chip in and buy you a traffic pylon....

[lowprofile]

those guys are probably wearing reps. you should have worn a gaytona to top them all

[KB]

Personally I would have thought that Sub's and Date Just's would have been for their managers.

The CEO's would have the most expensive, therefore vintage rollies, single/double red's etc, maybe even full gold Daytona's.

But wadda I know....

Ken

[tabularasa415]

Let me fill in these answers before I forget...

Oh, let's play a fun game. Can anyone take a guess as to:

1.) What was the most frequent Rolex model I saw? Yellow Gold Day/Date

2.) What was the coolest Rolex model I saw? Solid Gold Gaytona on brown croco with Solid Gold Deployment (mind you, I'm NOT a Daytona person at all... just thought it looked damn classy for a C.E.O.)

and...

3.) What was the Rolex model I saw that I thought, "Head nod to you... wasn't expecting to see that one."

Vintage Explorer 16550 with nice patina on the dial

There were no other vintage models there. That was it. A couple solid gold subs, two tone subs, solid and two tone datejusts. Just the one Daytona, believe it or not. The giant does-not-belong-in-the-boardroom Sea Dweller. Couple SS subbies. Lots of Presidents. I think that about covers it, if memory serves.

[mbjoer]

Again the geography plays a role here.

I have noted that some guys in the US love to show off an all gold DayDate even with a gold bracelet. Here in the UK that combo is seen as pretty naff. I seriously doubt that any CEO here would wear that.

Edited October 8, 2011 by mbjoer

[wat44]

Over here, it's the stock brokers with the nice watches

[alterego]

That's a good question. Lol, Lol, Lol.

[Audace]

Over here in Singapore, it's pretty much an inverted bell curve. There are many people sporting Casios and Seikos and premier watches like Panerai, Hublot, AP, etc. Lesser people, however, wearing Tags, based on my observation. However, Tags/Omegas are quite popular amongst the young here

[djscotie]

So what is the name of your restaurant? It must be a very well established restaurant, one of which of I would like to eat in when I am next in Ohio.

[Watchmeister]

Many older industry USA CEO's do wear Rolex. They tend to be 50-65 so they first encountered watches in the 60's and 70's. When they were growing up it was the status watch. No one in the USA wore the haute horologie brands. And there is a whole generation of CEO's for whom a Gold Rolex means you have arrived. But most of those folks own only one watch. It was either a gift or bought as a simple status item. From my own observation very few foreign CEO's wear Rolex. I most often see IWC. The next most popular are AP's and after that I see a smattering of Jaeger's, Patek's, etc. Also age is critical. We all forget there was a 10-20 year stretch where a thin quartz watch was the it watch. I have to agree that most of the folks with really interesting watch collections are entrepreneurs, traders or just younger wealthy people. And on the younger tech CEO's many don't even wear a watch. They have a cellphone or blackberry.

[tabularasa415]

Well, I do understand the generation gap. I do love my Rollies, but rest assured when I'm done with grad school and climbing my way up the corporate ladder, I will do my best to change the trend by wearing vintage JLCs and Omegas. I do work at what is considered the "it" restaurant in Columbus, and if you're ever coming to town shoot me a PM and you can come and visit me. I don't really want to post the name of the restaurant up here, but I'll tell anyone who wants to know on a 1-on-1 basis.

[HauteHippie]

I'd expect to see a lot of Presidentials (I.e. gold or platinum day dates).

I'm curious about AP as well. I'd expect it to be the next most popular among this crowd.... But then the complete absence of Patek surprises me quite a bit, so who knows.

[HauteHippie]

Many older industry USA CEO's do wear Rolex. They tend to be 50-65 so they first encountered watches in the 60's and 70's. When they were growing up it was the status watch. No one in the USA wore the haute horologie brands. And there is a whole generation of CEO's for whom a Gold Rolex means you have arrived. But most of those folks own only one watch. It was either a gift or bought as a simple status item. From my own observation very few foreign CEO's wear Rolex. I most often see IWC. The next most popular are AP's and after that I see a smattering of Jaeger's, Patek's, etc. Also age is critical. We all forget there was a 10-20 year stretch where a thin quartz watch was the it watch. I have to agree that most of the folks with really interesting watch collections are entrepreneurs, traders or just younger wealthy people. And on the younger tech CEO's many don't even wear a watch. They have a cellphone or blackberry.

Really good points!

[HauteHippie]

Not sure that your epiphany ranks as very newsworthy (this has been common knowledge for decades), but I would love to know more about who attended & what, if any, new economic insights were proffered?

The message from the American CEO in terms of economic insight is well documented: Get government out of our way. It's too expensive and risky to hire workers in the current tax and regulatory environment, and therefore the demand for American labor continues to diminish and the desire to start up new business on American soil is at an all time low. So, for example, I could create millions of jobs literally overnight by doing one simple thing: abolishing minimum wage laws. But now, how do you get the politicians to go along for the ride, well that's where the beef really is.

[PeteM]

The market's a bit tight right now, but whatever you do, do NOT pull your product!

LOL !! Now that made me laugh.... Brilliant mate

[JoeyB]

The message from the American CEO in terms of economic insight is well documented: Get government out of our way. It's too expensive and risky to hire workers in the current tax and regulatory environment, and therefore the demand for American labor continues to diminish and the desire to start up new business on American soil is at an all time low. So, for example, I could create millions of jobs literally overnight by doing one simple thing: abolishing minimum wage laws. But now, how do you get the politicians to go along for the ride, well that's where the beef really is.

The tax rates were cut in 2001 and we de-regulated business, but no increase in jobs happened, in fact it led to a crash. We had record low unemployment in the `90s with higher taxes, regulations that had been in place since the early 1930s, and a budget surplus that was designated to pay off our entire National Debt by 2006. I think that by taxing the wealthy more it makes them hungry to replace that money, and in turn do more business. That means employing more, manufacturing more, selling more. The wealthy are the ones who know how to make money, they've proved that. Let them do what they do best, and what they have done every time their tax rates were higher.

[wat44]

US desperately needs a higher tax intake - I would recommend a broad based sales tax and a little adjustment to the top end for civil harmony

[HauteHippie]

The tax rates were cut in 2001 and we de-regulated business, but no increase in jobs happened, in fact it led to a crash. We had record low unemployment in the `90s with higher taxes, regulations that had been in place since the early 1930s, and a budget surplus that was designated to pay off our entire National Debt by 2006. I think that by taxing the wealthy more it makes them hungry to replace that money, and in turn do more business. That means employing more, manufacturing more, selling more. The wealthy are the ones who know how to make money, they've proved that. Let them do what they do best, and what they have done every time their tax rates were higher.

No, what caused the dotcom crash was the artificial dotcom boom itself, a result of monetary recklessness in the 1990s which led to all sorts of imbalances. The budget surplus was a myth as one can note that the total national debt increased every year during the 90's. The Clinton administration created the illusion of a surplus by touting the decreased public debt while conveniently not mentioning that the money being borrowed from Social Security was ever-increasing along with the total national debt itself. They *almost* created a real surplus in 2000, but not quite. They came $18B short as I recall.

What we have to do is assume that before long we'll have to return to a sane, logical, and sound monetary system. Under such a system, the inflation-driven booms such as those of the 1990's and 2000's that created unsustainable bubbles in the stock market and the housing market respectively, and along with them distortions throughout the economy, would no longer be possible. And then simple economics can play out. In an environment where money isn't printed at will and created out of thin air, government regulations that make hiring more difficult, risky, and costly serve to reduce demand for labor in the aggregate, i.e. create higher unemployment. And taxing the "rich" (a.k.a. the job creators, as our current crop of presidential hopefuls correctly identify them) does create a greater hunger - but unfortunately it's a hunger to leave the high tax, high regulatory climates for those more favorable, and in the process of doing so taking their jobs with them.

The US desperately needs a cutback in spending, and major tax reform. Elimination of corporate taxes, elimination of minimum wage laws and public sector unions, large cuts in personal income taxes, and the institution of a national sales tax would be excellent starts. We need to be taxing people not when they accumulate wealth, but when they spend it. We need to encourage productivity, and tax consumption. And then, of course, we must live within our means.

[JoeyB]

No, what caused the dotcom crash was the artificial dotcom boom itself, a result of monetary recklessness in the 1990s which led to all sorts of imbalances. The budget surplus was a myth as one can note that the total national debt increased every year during the 90's. The Clinton administration created the illusion of a surplus by touting the decreased public debt while conveniently not mentioning that the money being borrowed from Social Security was ever-increasing along with the total national debt itself. They *almost* created a real surplus in 2000, but not quite. They came $18B short as I recall.

What we have to do is assume that before long we'll have to return to a sane, logical, and sound monetary system. Under such a system, the inflation-driven booms such as those of the 1990's and 2000's that created unsustainable bubbles in the stock market and the housing market respectively, and along with them distortions throughout the economy, would no longer be possible. And then simple economics can play out. In an environment where money isn't printed at will and created out of thin air, government regulations that make hiring more difficult, risky, and costly serve to reduce demand for labor in the aggregate, i.e. create higher unemployment. And taxing the "rich" (a.k.a. the job creators, as our current crop of presidential hopefuls correctly identify them) does create a greater hunger - but unfortunately it's a hunger to leave the high tax, high regulatory climates for those more favorable, and in the process of doing so taking their jobs with them.

The US desperately needs a cutback in spending, and major tax reform. Elimination of corporate taxes, elimination of minimum wage laws and public sector unions, large cuts in personal income taxes, and the institution of a national sales tax would be excellent starts. We need to be taxing people not when they accumulate wealth, but when they spend it. We need to encourage productivity, and tax consumption. And then, of course, we must live within our means.

You are mistaken. There was no "dotcom crash", it's bigger than ever. And it is fact that Clinton left a budget surplus that was to pay down the National Debt by 2006. Bush gave that surplus away when he had his first recession. Then Bush's de-regulations brought about the Enron scandal, the loss of people's pensions plans, the mishandling of the mission in Afghanistan and the complete waste of brave soldiers and $billions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The "job creators" have created no jobs with the tax cuts Bush gave them. To ignore that fact is absurd. REGULATIONS would limit any who wish to move to "climates more favorable" than supporting their own Nation.

The LAST thing we need do is to cut spending, the wealthy are not spending but instead hoarding their money. That's what fuels a recession into a depression.

It is absurd to cut spending when the wealthy are sitting on their money.

It is ridiculous to cut jobs when unemployment is high.

It is insane to cut taxes when we have funding shortfalls brought about by the very ones who want to cut everything.

A national sales tax is completely unfair to the poor.

All you list would enable the conservative Republicans to finish the job they began under Bush, and bring us into complete collapse, a depression.

But this isn't the place to discuss such things. You might want to keep your political posts to another section.

[wat44]

what % of US GDP is govt spendng?

[HauteHippie]

You are mistaken. There was no "dotcom crash", it's bigger than ever.

What does that statement even mean?

And it is fact that Clinton left a budget surplus that was to pay down the National Debt by 2006. Bush gave that surplus away when he had his first recession.

Right, and yet the national debt increased every year during the 1990's despite these "surpluses"!

http://www.treasuryd...debt_histo4.htm

Hint: the debt can't increase during a year with a real surplus.

Then Bush's de-regulations brought about the Enron scandal, the loss of people's pensions plans,

Not so. Enron's actions, known as fraud, were still illegal and the SEC simply failed to review their filings year after year. It was only a private hedge fund manager who exposed them.

the mishandling of the mission in Afghanistan and the complete waste of brave soldiers and $billions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why did you go there? I thought you didn't want to get political.

The "job creators" have created no jobs with the tax cuts Bush gave them. To ignore that fact is absurd. REGULATIONS would limit any who wish to move to "climates more favorable" than supporting their own Nation.

Really? America would force the "rich" to stay in America? Wow, I thought he was nuts, but maybe Ron Paul actually had a point when he claimed that building a wall between America and Mexico might some day serve to keep Americans in!!

The LAST thing we need do is to cut spending, the wealthy are not spending but instead hoarding their money. That's what fuels a recession into a depression.

It is absurd to cut spending when the wealthy are sitting on their money.

It is ridiculous to cut jobs when unemployment is high.

It is insane to cut taxes when we have funding shortfalls brought about by the very ones who want to cut everything.

A national sales tax is completely unfair to the poor.

All you list would enable the conservative Republicans to finish the job they began under Bush, and bring us into complete collapse, a depression.

But this isn't the place to discuss such things. You might want to keep your political posts to another section.

Unfortunately the recession is necessary. Sometimes the medicine tastes bad, but you have to swallow it. We need less borrowing and spending, more savings. We need to liquidate all the malinvestments that have been made over the last 10 years, and start to reallocate resources as we build capital. It takes time, it's called a recession or depression depending on duration, it's the result of living beyond our means for far too long, and it's the only cure. And all the attempts by all the politicians on both sides of the aisle to attempt to avoid it are simply further distorting market forces and are only going to make the eventual depression that much worse.

[JoeyB]

Quote

the mishandling of the mission in Afghanistan and the complete waste of brave soldiers and $billions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why did you go there? I thought you didn't want to get political.

That is a military assessment, not a political one.

You hijacked this thread in your reply #40 with your politics. I don't think that is appropriate, and should be taken elsewhere.

I completely disagree with your position and your conclusion. I prefer factual history instead.

[HauteHippie]

Post #40 wasn't a hijack, it was a reply to a previous post and a relaying of conversations with CEOs that have been playing out on financial networks and in print for months. Politics had nothing to do with it. One such example: http://video.foxbusi...olding-us-back/

You can disagree all you want and confuse correlation and causation, but you can't refer to fiction as fact.

[blue_sphere]

Joey... gonna have to go with chief here...

You should look up clinton and the removal of the Glass-Steagall Act. It was original put in place by Roosevelt to prevent another recession caused by bank collapse and their ability to issue credit. Clinton SINGLE HANDEDLY CAUSED THE DEPRESSION WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW. http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message463398/pg1

There is a really cool discussion between a few economists on Repgeek if you want to really get into a fight. Obama has done NOTHING except support big banks. He even hired numerous members onto his staff. HIS CABINET IS THE PEOPLE HE IS SUPPOSED TO BE "Fighting the good fight" against! http://www.chartingstocks.net/2008/11/obama-cabinet-picks-a-whos-who-of-establishment-insiders/

Its all [censored] man. Don't listen to what your liberal teachers tell you in college because they are all part of the problem too.

If Obama is to really "change" things. He needs to reinstate the act.

I really never was that political until Obama. I hate the man. The one thing I can thank him for though is that he has done such a terrible job that it caused me to rise up and start getting involved.