CEO turnover is starting to stabilize, suggesting that recession-impacted companies have been through the worst of the corner-office shuffling. The number of top dogs leaving their posts by November 2009 fell almost 18% compared to the same 11 months last year, according to a report supplied to BloggingStocks by outplacement consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. Only 94 CEOs left their posts last month, a slight up-tick from October's 89, but 10% lower than the 104 recorded in November 2008.

Through the end of November, 1,122 CEOs have moved on, a decline of 17.6% year-over-year. Last year, 1,361 departures were seen by this point. If the trend continues, CEO turnover could reach its lowest level since 2004, when only 663 occurred.

The health care industry experienced the most changes, with 22 CEOs leaving their posts, bringing the total to 181 for the sector this year, topping all industries. The government and non-profit sector comes next with 148 this year, 18 in November. The financial services industry lost 116 CEOs, with only 10 happening last month.

It's still a tough time to be a CEO. In October, 89 top dogs moved on (by choice or not). Though this is 15% lower than the 105 in September and 29% off the whopping 125 CEOs who turned over a year earlier, it's still a sign that "stability" doesn't equal "recovery."

The latest study that Challenger, Gray & Christmas revealed to BloggingStocks reports that October was the eighth month this year in which CEO turnover was down year-over-year. Through the end of last month, 1,028 CEO positions changed hands -- down 18% from the 1,257 by the same point in 2008. In fact, the tally for the first 10 months of 2009 is the lowest since 2004, when the big office found only 561 new inhabitants.

The financial industry remains the toughest place for CEOs, with 19 leaving the job last month. Even though the situation has gotten easier, this industry still has the highest turnover. For the year, approximately 10% of all CEO departures (106) have been in the financial sector. "The financial industry is still incredibly volatile, as both October and September saw major announcements from leading companies including JP Morgan Chase (JPM), Bank of America (BAC) and last month's bankruptcy of CIT Group, which led to the exit of CEO Jeffrey Peek," John A. Challenger, chief executive officer of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, says.

In the rush to and sheer scope of stabilizing first the financial system, and then key institutions in the financial system, and now jump-starting the U.S. economy, is the United States in danger of not correcting one other possible operational flaw?

One wise and successful CEO told yours truly that the nation might very well be doing just that. Full disclosure: the CEO is a friend of mine.

It starts at the top

The source problem: CEOs, the CEO said. In less than a decade, for reasons which are probably complex, the United States has produced a stunning array of CEOs whose actions have been, at minimum, selfish and unethical, and even fraudulent and illegal.

Now, in the context of a post-September 11 geopolitical world, the senior management flaws would appear to be minor. But from an American standpoint, certainly from a Protestant work ethic standpoint -- the genesis of the American system -- the errors/lapses have been gargantuan.

No one would be shocked that more CEOs travel on commercial flights. Shareholders and workers don't understand why big companies should put management on nice private aircrafts while they suffer.

But in a downturn, stupidity often rules. According to The Wall Street Journal, more and more CEOs are taking public flights and companies are trying to sell company aircraft.

Flying a business jet from coast-to-coast can cost tens of thousands of dollars. What does it cost if senior management misses one critical meeting though? What is the value of time if four executives at one company, each of whom makes over a million dollars a year, spend an extra 100 hours per person in the air each year instead of doing their jobs?

Another aspect to the math of private aircraft is that selling used planes is nearly impossible. As The Journal points out, there is such a flood of these planes hitting the market that resale value has gone through the floor.

Shareholders may want to see every last dime taken out of costs as the recession deepens and share prices fall, but as the old saying goes, "cheap gets expensive." Putting CEOs on long and often delayed airline flights hurts management efficiency even if its appears to help the bottom line.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 24/7 Wall St.

Here is a roster of some of the fallen ones.

Jimmy Cayne Former CEO Bear Stearns - latest compensation $32.1 million. He led Bear Stearns for 15 years. He resigned last January. Bear Stearns was acquired by JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) for $10.00 a share. He and his wife purchased two luxury apartments at the Plaza.

Richard Fuld Former CEO Lehman Brothers - Latest compensation $34.4 million. Subpoenaed by federal investigators to determine if he misled investors at Lehman. Executives at Barclays Capital (NYSE: BCS) bought Lehman's US assets.

Kerry Killinger Former CEO WaMu - latest compensation $4.5 million. He became CEO in 1990 and built WaMU into one of the largest US mortgage writers. He offered sub prime mortgages which led to WaMU's rapid growth. He was ousted in September when WaMU was sold to JPMorgan.

Angelo Mozilo Former CEO Countrywide - latest compensation $132 million. He helped build Countrywide into one of the country's largest lenders. A host of class action lawsuits have been filed against Countrywide, which is under investigation by the SEC. Countrywide was sold to Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) in January.

The case for a large fiscal stimulus package has received a shot in the arm, but as with so many economic developments during this decade, there's an upside and a downside.

A group of about 100 CEOs has urged President-elect Barack Obama to "quickly implement" a stimulus package of roughly $500 billion. The CEOs said the package should emphasize investment in infrastructure, including roads, bridges and other construction, as well as alternative energy projects. Their second priority: improving education.

Economist David H. Wang has extracted positive and negative threads from the CEOs' statement.

"On the one hand, the added CEO support will be welcome, I am sure, by the Obama Administration, as it builds the case for its stimulus package," Wang said.

"On the other hand, the fact that CEOs are calling for government spending, which is not a traditional CEO stance, tells you about the seriousness of our economic problem," Wang said. "The U.S. economy is in rough shape and there are few signs of improvement."

Many analysts have suggested stocks that could benefit from President Obama's policies. But would it be better to find CEOs who lead people in a manner that's similar to his approach? If you believe that the president sets the tone for the rest of the country, the answer may be yes. Under a CEO who thinks of himself as the decider, investing in companies whose CEOs who lead by command-and-control might make sense.

But Obama's approach is different -- he inspires people, surrounds himself with the best, and listens to them before forming his opinions. And rather than trying to divide the world between those who agree and oppose him, Obama tries to find the center of an issue to bring along as many people as he can. I wonder whether this more self-effacing approach to leadership comes from the Midwest where patting yourself on the back is considered poor form.

Are there any CEOs who follow this approach to leadership? I can think of one -- but there may be others. James McNerney, Boeing (NYSE: BA) CEO, seems to follow the Obama approach to leadership in many respects. While McNerney may not have Obama's eloquence (and very few do), he does have an ability to put people at ease and encourages them to debate issues and find solutions to their problems instead of waiting for him to give them the answer.

The SEC is trying to stop Wall Street players from spreading rumors that sink stocks, as I posted yesterday. The reason such rumors matter is because there are many companies that are unable to defend themselves from rumors. Bear Stearns comes to mind as an example. I think if someone tried to spread a rumor that Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS) or Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (NYSE: BRK.A) were heading for bankruptcy, the rumor would not get foo far.

But if a company lacks such a strong reputation, its CEO needs to be prepared to respond effectively to such rumors. And I really don't think it should be difficult to mount an effective defense. In my mind, the CEO should be able to provide credible answers to two questions:

• Cash flow. How large are the company's short- and medium-term liabilities and how many times do the market value of its short- and medium-term assets cover these liabilities?
• Debt default. What are the company's key loan terms and what specific assurance can the company provide that it is in compliance with these terms?

Former Citigroup (NYSE: C) Chief Executive Chuck Prince isn't going to feel the pinch of the worst real estate market in a generation that he helped create.

Prince has put his place in Greenwich, Connecticut -- a tony New York City suburb that is home to countless hedge funds and celebrities such as Tommy Hilfinger and Regis Philbin -- up for sale at the asking price of $6.15 million, according to Bloomberg News. The Tudor-style manor house was sold in 1996 for $2.27 million, according to ZIllow.com. By my calculations, that would be a profit of 170%.

Too bad that most homeowners aren't as fortunate as Mr. Prince. The National Association of Realtors is due to release its figures for December home sales later this week, and it isn't going to be pretty. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg News expect sales to have fallen 1% to 4.95 million, the fewest since records began in 1999.

The former Wall Street hot-shot, though, doesn't need to concern himself with the needs of ordinary folks anymore. He was pushed out the door at Citigroup with a retirement package worth about $60 million. "By retiring rather than being fired, he preserved the right to keep about 743,640 Citigroup shares with a market value of about $26.7 million, compensation consultant Brian Foley based in White Plains, New York, said at the time," Bloomberg notes.

Prince's realtor told Bloomberg that the Greenwich house, which includes an entrance hall with barrel-vaulted ceilings, an exercise room with a sauna and shower and a dining room that sits 12, "no longer meets his needs." Prince also has a place on New York's Park Avenue.

It must be nice to be able to live your life not having to face the consequences of your actions.

2007 has been a wild year in the markets and there are many CEOs who aren't making the grade. 24/7 Wall St. has issued a brief list of some recognized CEOs in technology whose shareholders would likely be rewarded if the CEO was axed or stepped down, and who have a great shot at getting the ax in 2008. Most of these CEOs have a recent history of disappointment, and calling a CEO out can't be just over stock prices. Here's the full list, with a brief sentence and a link to the full explanations for each:

• John Thompson of Symantec (NASDAQ: SYMC): This was a tough one, because I like him personally as a CEO and thought the diversification strategy was not as far out as Wall Street did. But Wall Street talks, here's the full piece on it.
• Hector Ruiz of Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE: AMD): This was simple, and we think even though he wants to stay that he won't be allowed to. Intel Corp. (NASDAQ:INTC) isn't just winning, it's running away with the processor prize. Here's the full data why he's toast, even if he won't admit it.

This post was part of AOL Money & Finance's Best & Worst of 2007. Voting has now closed and, in a close race, readers have chosen Chuck Prince as the best CEO departure of the year. Let us know in the comments if you are pleased with this result.

When looking back at 2007, there were some larger-than-life CEO departures that semi-rocked the business world and brought some investors to the realization of over-the-top compensation yet again. Let's look at a few and then you can decide the winner. Sound good?

First up comes Bill Ford, Jr., from the automotive industry. Under Ford's leadership, Ford Motor Co. (NYSE: F) lost its way in terms of correctly forecasting what kind of vehicles customers actually wanted, in addition to becoming horribly leveraged. As soon as gas prices began shooting up, Ford Motor started spiraling down. Long-time Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA) executive Alan Mulally was brought in to replace Ford as the automaker's CEO just in the nick of time. Ford Motor's expected profitability date with Ford now gone: 2009.

How about Bob Nardelli, formerly CEO of Home Depot Inc. (NYSE: HD)? Nardelli made global headlines by making tens of millions while leading Home Depot shares to the basement and apparently making all kinds of bad decisions that finally led to his ouster this year. On top of that, his severance package made a Brad Pitt paycheck seem like pennies, and Home Depot shareholders paid for it. Did Home Depot stakeholders get a voice in this corporate travesty? A small one, perhaps.

Hygenie.com lists the Top 10 Dirty Businessmen -- corporate executives whose conduct has, for one reason or another, raised serious questions about their personal hygiene. Here's the list:

• Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) CEO Steve Ballmer -- Check out the picture of him sweating: Yuck!
• Russian billionaire Boris Berezovsky -- Face itcher!
• Virgin Group Chairman Richard Branson -- Streaker!
  

The Wall Street Journal takes a look (subscription required) at a tough question involving corporate governance: Does the chaos that can ensue when a CEO is dumped (to say nothing of the big severance packages) often make it better to keep a marginal executive? As the cliche goes, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.

While we can debate about whether boards are too slow or too quick to ditch wayward executives, there's no question that they've gotten a lot more proactive in recent years. To learn about the causes of this trend, and for analysis of what effect it will have on the long-term profitability of corporate America, check out Revolt in the Boardroom.

Given the supine role that boards have generally played throughout history, it's tempting to see any shift toward a greater willingness to fire people as a good thing. But at some point, trigger-happiness could make executives too short-sighted and stock-price oriented (sagging stock prices generally attract the ire of activist hedge funds).

But I would argue that we are a long, long way from that point. There are still many, many more incompetent executives who should be fired than great executives who were unjustly given the ax.