Why Wall Street execs want to silence their shareholders

Last year, the Securities and Exchange Commission approved a new “say on pay” policy that allows shareholders to vote on the pay package for a company’s top executives.

You wouldn’t think that would be a particularly controversial measure. For one thing, the vote isn’t even binding; it is advisory only. And shouldn’t shareholders — the people who actually own a company — be allowed to at least voice an opinion about how their own top employees are paid? Surely that is consistent with free-enterprise market principles, right?

Republicans, however, have fought the measure tooth and nail. It was approved by the SEC by a party-line 3-2 vote, with Republican appointees to the panel trying vainly to delay, weaken or kill it. They also fought it in Congress, voting against “say on pay” in party-line votes in 2009, back when Democrats still had enough votes to pass it.

As the Chicago Tribune reported back then:

“Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), in a comment echoed by fellow Republicans, assailed the (say-on-pay) measure as “unprecedented government intervention in the free enterprise system.”

“This bill is an invitation for political meddling at its worst in the private confines of companies that are trying to work hard to create jobs,” complained Rep. Peter J. Roskam (R-Ill.)

I find those complaints hard to fathom. It is government interference to give the owners of a company a voice — a non-binding voice! — in what its executives are paid?

This week, we got a chance to see the rule in action, and also to see why Republicans continue to fight it so hard. Shareholders at Citigroup, one of the 10 largest banks in the world, voted 55-45 percent on Tuesday to object to the pay packages granted to CEO Vikram Pandit, as well as to bonus and compensation packages for other top executives. By one count, Pandit collected as much as $49 million in pay, stock options, retention bonuses and other compensation last year, even though the company’s performance has lagged.

The Citigroup investor rebellion came after the nation’s largest corporate-governance experts, Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis & Co., both recommended against approval of the pay package on grounds that it was too generous and wasn’t linked to company performance.

Glass Lewis, for example, gave the company’s executive pay plan an “F”, explaining:

“Having repaid its TARP funds in 2010, the Company was not subject to restrictions governing the structure of compensation paid to its highest-paid executives during 2011. In turn, the Company has implemented incentive plans rampant with significant issues that, in our opinion, warrant shareholder attention. It is clear to us that the Company has squandered the opportunity to form well-designed, objective incentive plans at the lifting of TARP restrictions, opting instead for often discretionary awards that may qualify as a misuse of company capital.”

In other words, the executives were paying themselves more than they were worth and more than they had earned. (When Pandit became CEO in December 2007, Citigroup was selling at a little over $300 a share. Yesterday it closed at $35.08 a share.)

It’s going to be interesting to see what happens now. According to ISS, only 2 percent of executive pay packages were rejected by shareholders last year, so the action by Citigroup investors is pretty noteworthy, suggesting it’s an egregious case. On the other hand, because the Tuesday vote was non-binding, Pandit and Citigroup’s board of directors are under no legal obligation to honor it.

In addition, pay packages for other major Wall Street firms are also coming up for shareholder review, and those companies are also probably nervous about a shareholder revolt.

All of this strikes me as a very good thing. This is not government interference in free markets; this is stockholders regaining just the slightest bit of control over their own property. And it is almost inexplicable to me that Republicans view it as a bad thing.

I say “almost inexplicable,” because blind loyalty to the top 0.001 percent is the only explanation I can offer. If you have a better one, please, let’s hear it.

– Jay Bookman

946 comments Add your comment

Keep Up the Good Fight!

April 19th, 2012
9:12 am

It is simply stupifying that there is opposition to this at any grassroots level. Corporate leaders are beginning to see a revolt by shareholders against their greed.

Maximum

April 19th, 2012
9:12 am

“Corporations are people, my friend.”

They are job creators, for sure. These are boom times for low wage child labor in the developing world, as US multinationals outsource the American Dream.
.

stands for decibels

April 19th, 2012
9:16 am

blind loyalty to the top 0.001 percent is the only explanation I can offer. If you have a better one, please, let’s hear it.

here ya go:

Money = speech

Actual speech = something else.

Thomas

April 19th, 2012
9:16 am

All shareholders should get a vote on matters such as often very egregious exec comp. Keep in mind they often can vote the loudest possible by selling the shares.

Taxpayers should be able vote on Congress pay, no?

ty webb

April 19th, 2012
9:18 am

what’s the point?…symbolism? just what we need, more nonbinding measures.

massachusetts refugee thug

April 19th, 2012
9:19 am

it’s like that old vulcan proverb – “we’re all for free market principles, except when we’re not.”

Mick

April 19th, 2012
9:19 am

Nice column, didn’t know that was happening. More power to the people -right on…

Jay

April 19th, 2012
9:20 am

“Taxpayers should be able vote on Congress pay, no?”

So Thomas, you propose that we abandon the republic model and go straight to pure democracy?

F. Sinkwich

April 19th, 2012
9:20 am

“And shouldn’t shareholders — the people who actually own a company — be allowed to at least voice an opinion about how their own top employees are paid? ”

They do already, Jay. Why didn’t you point that out?

They can vote out the Board of Directors or simply sell their stock in protest.

The SEC has NO business mucking around making up stupid rules like this one.

Jay

April 19th, 2012
9:22 am

“They can vote out the Board of Directors or simply sell their stock in protest.”

That might be one reason that Citigroup stock has fallen from $300 to $35. And still the message hasn’t gotten through; still the ransacking continues.

Fly-on-the-Wall

April 19th, 2012
9:22 am

Ty, symbolism maybe but it is important symbolism. In the past share holders couldn’t even get the chance to have a voice/vote like this. At least this way the shareholders of the company can tell the management that they think the compensation plan sucks.

Fly-on-the-Wall

April 19th, 2012
9:24 am

Sinkwich – yes the government should be doing this because up until now the PEOPLE who own shares in the COMPANY couldn’t do anything about it. Now they at least have the right to vote.

Concerned Mother

April 19th, 2012
9:24 am

Off topic/subject

Warren Buffett shed light on a problem that plagues our economy: Many of the wealthiest people pay a lower tax rate than middle class families. Unfair, and even counter-productive, tax breaks for corporations and the very wealthy shortchange needed investments for women and their families.

Women have a particular stake in ensuring that those with the greatest ability to pay contribute their fair share of taxes. Taxes provide the revenues needed to protect and strengthen programs vital to women and their families at every stage of their lives, including programs to protect our health, access higher education, obtain quality child care, meet basic needs, and achieve a secure retirement. But current unfair tax preferences for the very wealthy and corporations shortchange needed investments in critical programs. This year, for example, millionaires will receive an average tax cut of $143,000 as a result of tax cuts enacted since 2001: an amount that could send 18 children to Head Start, or provide child care assistance to 24 children, or help 37 students attend college with Pell Grants, or deliver a meal a day for a year to 249 seniors, or provide 551 people with family planning services. (4)

Investments in programs that could help millions of Americans still struggling to get back on their feet have been frozen or cut in the name of deficit reduction, and deeper cuts are scheduled. While long-term deficit reduction is needed, the burden of deficit reduction so far has fallen entirely on the spending side of the budget.

The very wealthiest Americans have not been required to contribute a penny in additional revenues, even though their incomes have soared and tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthiest are a major cause of the nation’s large and growing debt.

This is flat out unfair.

Thomas

April 19th, 2012
9:25 am

So Thomas, you propose that we abandon the republic model and go straight to pure democracy

Interesting leap which is rather non sensical.

Butch Cassidy

April 19th, 2012
9:26 am

Jay – “When Pandit became CEO in December 2007, Citigroup was selling at a little over $300 a share.”

Aaand that’s why in November 2007, I cashed out virtually all my Citi stock. Pandit is an ass, and is HIGHLY overated as a CEO. However, his arrival is what prompted me to get out of the money game and leave Citi in July of 2008, and I haven’t looked back. Maybe I should send him a thank you card? :)

Fly-on-the-Wall

April 19th, 2012
9:26 am

Voting out the Board is next to impossible unless the large institutional share holders join in. My guess would be that if those large institutional holders knew that the rest of the share holders weren’t happy then they might look at the pay issue but up until now they haven’t done that because they haven’t been able to hear from the rest of us.

Brosephus™

April 19th, 2012
9:28 am

what’s the point?…symbolism? just what we need, more nonbinding measures.

Nope. I’d go with Thomas’ suggestion. If they voice their displeasure with a non-binding vote and the board still gives them the pay packages anyway, then you sell your shares. If the board does not want to listen to the shareholders, then why be one in the first place. I think that is what Republicans fear. Imagine the panic that would grip Wall Street if shareholders start dropping shares when their objections are ignored.

JohnnyReb

April 19th, 2012
9:28 am

Republican opposition is not that we agree with uncontrolled executive pay. Instead, opposition is against government intervention. Keep the camel’s nose from under the tent.

Corporations have Board of Directors who are voted in annually by shareholders. The board is the place for shareholders to steer the company, not through another government regulation.

Lyman Hall

April 19th, 2012
9:29 am

No one puts a gun to CitiBank stockholders and forces them to invest.
.
Unlike the 100 million working Americans that are forced to bankroll the Federal Government Pension Nazis,

TGT

April 19th, 2012
9:31 am

So I suppose Jay is also opposed to union leaders trying to silence the voice of employees via the secret ballot, right?

JohnnyReb

April 19th, 2012
9:32 am

The bigger story is that too much of the economy now goes through about 4 or 5 major banks.

Obama’s fix has resulted in truly creating banks too big to fail.

Not only shareholders, but all citizens should be demanding the big banks be broken up so that should one fail the economy will survive without taxpayers again bailing it/them out.

stands for decibels

April 19th, 2012
9:33 am

Hi, Lyman!

I’m still waiting on those Obama stump speeches where, as you had claimed, he campaigned for the legalization of pot.

Find any yet?

Paul

April 19th, 2012
9:33 am

Jay

I think I’ll have to see if Rep Sessions is going to hold a town hall meeting near me. Mind if I use your words without attribution so he can’t go off with an answer about the liberal media?

(His Dallas-area district is home to a number of corporate headquarters. Small wonder he bows to them).

Thomas

You might want to learn about the differences between a republic and a ‘pure democracy’ before posting anything else on the subject -

Jay

April 19th, 2012
9:35 am

“Not only shareholders, but all citizens should be demanding the big banks be broken up so that should one fail the economy will survive without taxpayers again bailing it/them out.

I agree, JohnnyReb. That’s the approach that many Democrats wanted to take, but the Republicans threw a hissy fit and refused to allow it.

Fly-on-the-Wall

April 19th, 2012
9:36 am

Government intervention – my foot! Geez, the government allows people to VOTE and the cons complain. I don’t call that intervention I call it fixing a problem that needed to be fixed.

Jay

April 19th, 2012
9:36 am

So I suppose Jay is also opposed to union leaders trying to silence the voice of employees via the secret ballot, right?

TGT, if you’re asking whether I’m opposed to the card-check system as opposed to secret balloting, yes I am and have said so on this blog.

kayaker 71

April 19th, 2012
9:37 am

Bookman,

You fail to mention that Pandit was paid at the rate of only $1/yr as salary for two years prior to this vote. If you figure the 15M spread out over 5 yrs, 5m/yr is not bad compensation. As you say, the shareholders vote is only advisory. The Board has no obligation to follow it.

stands for decibels

April 19th, 2012
9:37 am

yes I am and have said so on this blog.

and I give Jay crap for it every. single. time.

right Jay?

carlosgvv

April 19th, 2012
9:38 am

Republicans do not oppose this because of any blind loyalty. I can assure you they clearly know where all their election and re-election funding comes from and will defend the financial greed of their corporate masters any way and every way they can. They make no effort at all to hide this. And yet, millions and millons of Americans still slavishly defend these bought and paid for politicians. That, I admit, is totally beyond my comprehension.

Paul

April 19th, 2012
9:38 am

silly stands for decibels

Sources? Cites? That’s not the point. You’re just supposed to type whatever gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling and gets you the most attention, then you move on and do it again!

mm

April 19th, 2012
9:38 am

“The SEC has NO business mucking around making up stupid rules like this one.”

No suprise there. If Jay said the sky was blue, we’d see some truly stupid arguments from the right.

ty webb

April 19th, 2012
9:39 am

Fly-on-the wall,
the shareholders already get a vote(the board of directors), if the Board isn’t serving them well, then they can change it…or drop their shares.

HDB

April 19th, 2012
9:39 am

JohnnyReb

April 19th, 2012
9:32 am
The bigger story is that too much of the economy now goes through about 4 or 5 major banks.

Obama’s fix has resulted in truly creating banks too big to fail.”

“Too big to fail” was done under the auspices of Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and Timothy Geitner during the BUSH Adminstration! You need to check out Andrew Ross Sorkin’s book/movie “Too Big to Fail” to know the facts!!

Joseph

April 19th, 2012
9:40 am

Still beating the class warfare drum Jay… That dog is tired….

Butch Cassidy

April 19th, 2012
9:40 am

JohnnyReb – “Obama’s fix has resulted in truly creating banks too big to fail.”

Except that it was Bush in October 2008 who signed TARP in order to right the financial ship. At that time, Banks that were already considered too big to fail became even bigger due to the infusion of cash from TARP.

Facts are your friend, don’t fear them.

Paul

April 19th, 2012
9:40 am

kayaker 71

And why was he paid a dollar a year? Because he was donating the rest to charity? Because he was voluntarily setting himself up as a beacon of restraint for other companies?

Or was it because his performance dictated something else?

mm

April 19th, 2012
9:42 am

” If you figure the 15M spread out over 5 yrs, 5m/yr is not bad compensation”

What a stretch. Obviously, you know that is not what really happened. But truth to a con is like antibiotics to a germ.

mm

April 19th, 2012
9:42 am

We need to win the war on cons.

ByteMe - Political thug for sale

April 19th, 2012
9:43 am

For those of you who haven’t been on the inside of this, here’s how the executive compensation game is played rigged:

The board of directors — men and women brought on board often by other directors — forms an executive compensation committee. The committee then hires an executive compensation consultant, who is paid by the company and is kept around only at the discretion of the board of directors (the same people whose pay they are consulting on). The executive compensation consultant usually works for a large firm that does other HR consulting that they’d love to do at that company, so there’s a bit of a conflict of interest going on.

The compensation executive devises a plan for compensation: the compensation of the executives is tied to the average of executive pay at the 5-10 largest similar firms. That’s so that the plan is “competitive” with those other firms who might not be competing to hire these incompetent buffoons, but that’s not considered.

The board loves this plan, of course, so they implement it. Now this firm is paying its executives in the top 5 or 10 (because the average would be in the middle of that), so the lowest of the top 5 or 10 drops out of the list for the moment… until the next time their compensation comes up for review and then they’ll do the same thing.

This is how executive compensation keeps going up at the highest levels even if it’s not tied to performance or pretty much anything other than a competition between the largest firms to see who can pay their executives the most.

If you are a shareholder and this is what is happening at a company you own, vote out every member of the compensation committee until they change the game.

Paul

April 19th, 2012
9:43 am

Butch Cassidy 9:40

Please don’t do that. JohnnyReb was already gasping from finding out Jay agreed with his plan, as did Congressional Democrats, but Republicans blocked it.

I fear your post may have pushed him over the edge with a heart attack!

JohnnyReb – you okay?!!?

stands for decibels

April 19th, 2012
9:44 am

You’re just supposed to type whatever gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling

Or one could admit one was w-r-o-n-g… so guys like me stop bugging one about one’s wrongidity.

barking frog

April 19th, 2012
9:44 am

Government sponsored
robber barons still going
strong.

TGT

April 19th, 2012
9:44 am

Good for you Jay! Just making sure you were being consistant. (I don’t read your every post.)

Jay

April 19th, 2012
9:46 am

You fail to mention that Pandit was paid at the rate of only $1/yr as salary for two years prior to this vote.

And you, kayaker, fail to point out that Citigroup bought out Pandit’s hedge fund company for $800 million and then shut that company down because it was losing them money. It wrote off that $800 million as a loss.

Pandit, however, made out like a bandit. In 2011 alone, Citi paid Pandit $80 million as part of that deal.

So his altruistic little $1 salary is more than a little misleading, don’t you think?,

TGT

April 19th, 2012
9:46 am

Excuse me, consistent.

stevie ray...clowns to the left, jokers to the right..here I am...

April 19th, 2012
9:47 am

Jay,

One of the most popular rights shareholders practice (more than they probably should) is Directors and Officers suits….these come in two forms..first and most prevelant is derivative actions related to drop in stock…a boon for lawyers as very expensive to litigate. The other less popular is actions against D&O’s for mismanagement and not acting in best interest of shareholders….this can be very powerful tool against indiotic rogue C-suite folks who need liability coverage for these exposures and won’t get same with such selfish actions…

Jefferson

April 19th, 2012
9:48 am

Regulate public companies pay and make dividends a priority with profits, private owned companies should do as they wish as long as it is legal.

Rightwing Troll

April 19th, 2012
9:48 am

If Jay or Obama said “the sky is blue”… the tards would be jumping up and down insisting it was purple…

Rightwing Troll

April 19th, 2012
9:50 am

But, but… job creators… marxist kenyan… socialist…. Obama wants to take your guns…

Talking Head

April 19th, 2012
9:52 am

I wouldn’t categorize this as government interference into a private buisness just yet, although this action by the SEC is heading in that direction. Obviously as Jay pointed out this is just an ‘advisory’ vote and has no binding action. However this should give the C-suite of a company a heads up on how they are perceived by the rest of the company. Ultimately the C-suite executives will decide what they should get paid, and the board of directors will either approve or disapprove their requests.

If the SEC tries to mandate a vote to determine executive pay, then I will have a problem because government will then be infringing on a private buisness.

In other news

April 19th, 2012
9:52 am

Jay has never owned and operated a business

Jay has never dealt with a payroll

Jay does not have any money in the stock market

Jay continues to make up diversions and excuses for the dog eating president

Butch Cassidy

April 19th, 2012
9:53 am

Strange, I don’t recall any Right Wing howling in 1984 (when Reagen was President) when the government stepped in and broke up the Bell system.

stevie ray...clowns to the left, jokers to the right..here I am...

April 19th, 2012
9:53 am

TROLL,

If you are going to be master of the obvious, you may want to also suggest the same goes for the “tards” on the left saying black when “tards” on right say white….

Soothsayer

April 19th, 2012
9:54 am

Well, Jay, $49,000,000.00 doesn’t go as far as it used to!

In other news

April 19th, 2012
9:55 am

I don’t recall Jay being upset at Wall Street donors who gave money to Obama. I don’t recall Jay being upset that BP gave more money to Obama than any other candidate.

Selective outrage is Jay’s middle name. Well that, and Jay “I suck on tv when a mangirl interviews me Bookman.”

Paul

April 19th, 2012
9:56 am

Butch Cassidy

It’s like Rightwing Troll said – Reagan wasn’t a marxist socialist Kenyan Muslim who wanted to take away guns -

Generation$crewed

April 19th, 2012
9:57 am

What is the big deal?

Its a non-binding vote. Hell we as citizens have been taking non-binding votes for a while in the form of polls. It seems the people have spoken over and over again that as a group we hate how congress works(look at the polls favorability ratings).

But with bad poll after bad poll have we seen congress change? NO

So I guess my question is other than political partisan blogs and political fundraisers what is the actual point of having these votes? Since it is non-binding and all kinda like a poll

Brosephus™

April 19th, 2012
9:57 am

Talking Head

Might wanna check with others here on the Right. Some have already thrown the government interference flag…

Butch Cassidy

April 19th, 2012
9:57 am

Talking Head – “If the SEC tries to mandate a vote to determine executive pay, then I will have a problem because government will then be infringing on a private buisness.”

First, Mom and Pops and LLC’s are “private businesses”. Anything involving shareholders are public entities and should be regulated.

Second. Have you recoverd yet from the break up of AT&T under Reagan?

Joe the Prophet

April 19th, 2012
9:58 am

My old party, the Republicans, should go back and read Matthew 7, all of it…particularly 16:end…..Then they should read Mark 11: 15-19…….

Guidance for this year’s election is there for us ALL to witness…!!!! Just ask Boehner…!!!!!

barking frog

April 19th, 2012
10:00 am

Corporations are created
by government charter.
When disputes arise they
are settled in government
courts. When they get in
trouble they seek
government bankruptcy
protection or government
loans. What is private about
this enterprise?

Doggone/GA

April 19th, 2012
10:00 am

“Some have already thrown the government interference flag…”

And this is a classic example of: “government steps in when the private sector fails to step up”

kayaker 71

April 19th, 2012
10:03 am

Bookman, 9:46,

Pandit’s hedge fund is a separate issue. We are talking about CEO compensation and shareholder votes, nothing else. Pandit took a $1/yr salary for two years as a pledge to the Board and the shareholders that he would reject compensation until the company gained profitability. When the company showed five straight quarters of profitability, his compensation package was raised considerably. Pandit joined Citigroup in Dec 2007. If you spread out that compensation package of 15M, that’s only 3M and change/yr as salary. The decision to buy Pandit’s hedge fund, however, was not a condition of hire. Citigroup stated at the time that it was investing in the venture because it saw a significant alternative to traditional investing. BTW, your old liberal buddy, Robert Rubin was a Citi board member a the time and was the ramrod behind the purchase.

JohnnyReb

April 19th, 2012
10:03 am

JohnnyReb is alive and well, thank you. I have to puntucate my blogging with work.

I trully don’t know who is to blame for allowing a concentration of big banks – if Jay says Repbulicans opposed a break up, I believe him. I don’t recall every stating Republicans are always correct.

I do know the majority of recovery has been under Obama. And, in my opinion the concentration of banks is a more serious problem than executive pay, credit card rules, or whatever Dodd-Frank may have or will do.

Recon 0311 2533

April 19th, 2012
10:04 am

Meanwhile new unemployment filings disappoint expectations. The fell from 388,000 to 366,000 but only a sleight drop. They were expected to drop by over 10,000. 45% of the unemployed have remained so for over six months. Not a good outlook for new job creation.

In other news

April 19th, 2012
10:04 am

If I had a dog it would look like the one Obama ate.

USinUK - ex-pat thug

April 19th, 2012
10:04 am

“Still beating the class warfare drum Jay… That dog is tired….”

bollocks.

he’s beating the DEMOCRACY drum …

no wonder you’re tone-deaf to it

In other news

April 19th, 2012
10:06 am

“That dog is tired….”

Did he eat the tired dog?

Paul

April 19th, 2012
10:06 am

JohnnyReb

You’re not only well, you’re thriving!

JohnnyReb

April 19th, 2012
10:06 am

BTW – the feds don’t have to dictate specifics of a bank breakup. All they need to do is insist it ocuurs with an outcome that spreads risk over a wider base.

Ayn Rant

April 19th, 2012
10:07 am

Of course, shareholders should have a say in selecting and compensating the CEO and Board members. Eliminating proxy votes by company executives would also be a useful step.

The overpaid, underperforming CEOs of Big Business are financial manipulators, not entrepreneurs, industrialist, or inventors. Their outrageous compensation and benefits are a form of asset-stripping of American business: the funds could be put to better use for research and development of new products and services.

Scandalously, exorbitant CEO compensation and benefits are subsidized by the taxpayers, as tax-deductible business expenses.

Let’s tax the scoundrels fairly by bringing back the 70% top tax bracket that was in effect during the periods of greatest economic growth in our history!

mm

April 19th, 2012
10:07 am

The game is definitely rigged. Most of the board members are CEO’s for other companies.

EJ Moosa

April 19th, 2012
10:08 am

Meanwhile, unemployment numbers are rising, and instead of addressing the anemic recovery of Obama, you want to address an issue that the shareholders have addressed on their own.

At least we will have change we can believe in come November.

Your guy has already lost the election. You better start figuring out ways to minimize your losses in the Houes and the Senate.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article9563-obamas-goose-is-cooked.html

Adam

April 19th, 2012
10:08 am

Did anyone yell wealth envy yet? Or did that one die once Mitt used it ineffectively?

stevie ray...clowns to the left, jokers to the right..here I am...

April 19th, 2012
10:08 am

JOE PROPHET,

The bible…REALLY?

Brosephus™

April 19th, 2012
10:08 am

And this is a classic example of: “government steps in when the private sector fails to step up”

You and I both know that. I find it quite amusing AND predictable that the private sector cheerleaders never acknowledge their “team’s” failure that causes the government intervention. :)

In other news

April 19th, 2012
10:09 am

“Meanwhile, unemployment numbers are rising”

But Jay said it was getting better. It must be true because Jay says so.

USinUK - ex-pat thug

April 19th, 2012
10:09 am

oh, and by the way …

HI PEEPS!!!

Jay

April 19th, 2012
10:09 am

“Pandit’s hedge fund is a separate issue. We are talking about CEO compensation and shareholder votes, nothing else.

Wrong. Personally, I’d be more than willing to take a $1 annual salary if you also agreed to pay $800 million for my money-losing hedge-fund operation.

For one thing, the $1 would be taxed as earned income while my share of that $800 million would be a capital gain and taxed much lower.

SWEEEETTT!

Paul

April 19th, 2012
10:09 am

USinUK

HI! Was just thinking about sending you a Google mail to say, ‘come home, oh lost one…. we miss your wit and your recipes!”

getakife

April 19th, 2012
10:09 am

It disrupts their precious pay.

Those poor billionaires.

JohnnyReb

April 19th, 2012
10:09 am

Executive pay has a way of correcting itself. The correction often occurs after the fact, but it does occur. Look no further than our own Delta Air Lines. Back when Mullin was in control, the bonus rules for executives were changed to break the tie to results – that resulted in executives receiving bonuses while the company went into the toilet. Where is Mullin and his minons now?

kayaker 71

April 19th, 2012
10:10 am

In other news, 10:04,

Best post of the day.

Butch Cassidy

April 19th, 2012
10:10 am

JohnnyReb – “I trully don’t know who is to blame for allowing a concentration of big banks”

I’ll be happy to to tell you. It was Paulsen, Geithner, Bernake, and to a large extent the Bush Administration. During the meltdown, Lehman Brothers was allowed to collapse, as well as Bear Sterns. Merrill Lynch was acquired by Bank of America as was CountryWide. The larger banks had to absorb the smaller ones to ensure that the assets remained in tact so that they could continue lending. TARP was created in order to achieve this goal. Thus, where there used to be 16 to 20 banks, we were left with a much smaller number that were now even bigger in size and assets. Hence, thanks to the Bush Administration and TARP, we ended up with TOO BIG TO FAIL.

Hope that helps, and doesn’t in anyway diminish your blind loyalty to the Republican party.

USinUK - ex-pat thug

April 19th, 2012
10:10 am

“I find it quite amusing AND predictable that the private sector cheerleaders never acknowledge their “team’s” failure that causes the government intervention”

but … but … but … the market will ALWAYS right itself … right ??? ummm … hello … ?? anyone???

Paul

April 19th, 2012
10:11 am

(USinUK – on this blog, it’s “hi perps” not “hi peeps”… or maybe pervs…. that works, too….)

Doggone/GA

April 19th, 2012
10:11 am

“I find it quite amusing AND predictable that the private sector cheerleaders never acknowledge their “team’s” failure that causes the government intervention”

Yep!

Brosephus™

April 19th, 2012
10:12 am

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm…. red headed ex-pat thug ;)

ragnar danneskjold

April 19th, 2012
10:13 am

Not sure why government should have any role in setting internal policies at companies, but I like the idea of voters voting on pay packages for the politicians.

MiltonMan

April 19th, 2012
10:13 am

Nice try Jay but it isn’t going to happen. The money elite are often time majority shareholders in the company they run. Also, do you have a say on how much the POTUS and elected officials are paid???

USinUK - ex-pat thug

April 19th, 2012
10:13 am

Brocephus … red-headed ex-pat thug … in glasses :-)

Hi Paul!!!! I kinda like pervs … it fits with my USinner attitude …

Brosephus™

April 19th, 2012
10:13 am

The fell from 388,000 to 366,000 but only a sleight drop. They were expected to drop by over 10,000.

Did you miss some numbers somewhere??

388,000 – 366,000 = 22,000 > 10,000

ragnar danneskjold

April 19th, 2012
10:14 am

And for the bureaucrats. Why should any government employee not a SEAL have a salary greater than $100,000?

Butch Cassidy

April 19th, 2012
10:14 am

MIltonMan – “Also, do you have a say on how much the POTUS and elected officials are paid???”

Of course not. where did you get the idea that the United States was a publicly traded for profit entity?

Paul

April 19th, 2012
10:14 am

“Mmmmmmmmmmmmm…. red headed ex-pat thug ;)

See, USinUK? I told you ‘pervs’ works, too!

oh…. HI Borsephus!

JohnnyReb

April 19th, 2012
10:15 am

Thanks Butch for the explanation on the bank consolidation.

I’m not as blind as it may appear, it’s just that the other side has more objectionable ideas than does the Right.

If Bush, et al created the concentration, why didn’t Obama and company fix it before he lost complete control via the mid-terms?

USinUK - ex-pat thug

April 19th, 2012
10:15 am

“Also, do you have a say on how much the POTUS and elected officials are paid???”

hrm.

living in a country = being a part owner of a business

some people seem to have missed a few days in civics class …

kayaker 71

April 19th, 2012
10:15 am

Bookman, 10:09,

Sort of like Franklin Raines, who I am not sure I have heard you mention. Cooked the books before he took off with 190M of Fannie money. No liberal outrage, no media condemnation to speak of (except Fox News). Sort of like Bozo. Can’t criticize him. We might be called names. And Fannie is still in the tank.

MiltonMan

April 19th, 2012
10:15 am

“…he’s beating the DEMOCRACY drum …”

Which the US clearly is not.

Mick

April 19th, 2012
10:16 am

usinuk

Where have you been? Been missing your tart responses…