Are investors finally waking up?

[kallend 2,182]

www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/17/citigroup-investors-give-thumbs-down-to-exec-pay/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/17/citigroup-investors-give-thumbs-down-to-exec-pay/

"Under the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law, major U.S. companies are required to allow shareholders to have a "say on pay" vote at least every three years. The votes are not binding."

Non binding means who cares? Lovely pointless element to that legislation.

And since institutions dominate the voting shares, it's really about them, not the retail investors.

[sfzombie 3]

and what did you think about the last paragraph? "representative shareholders" my ass, i bet they'll pick some who will agree with the salary increase.

http://kitswv.com

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/17/citigroup-investors-give-thumbs-down-to-exec-pay/

"Under the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law, major U.S. companies are required to allow shareholders to have a "say on pay" vote at least every three years. The votes are not binding."

Non binding means who cares? Lovely pointless element to that legislation.

And since institutions dominate the voting shares, it's really about them, not the retail investors.

It's non binding because common stock owners do not have a say in how a company is run. its not a democracy, its a public company who issues stock, not votes.

its a good thing because it shames management and the board. it very well IMO will have an impact on compensation, and it should. Shareholders should be heard. i dont agree they should be voting on day to day operations, however. who has time to go to meetings? this is a positive step for shareholders.

I don't get your institutional comments though. In my experience PM's have argued for years that compenstation is not tied enough to performance. that is why they become activist and sometimes, like John Paulson, force themselves onto boards to make changes.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It's non binding because common stock owners do not have a say in how a company is run. its not a democracy, its a public company who issues stock, not votes.

Sorry, don't buy that. What are we voting for, then? We vote for board members and a variety of other measures. But in truth, the board rarely needs to pay attention. (And then there's that move Google pulled last week...)

Quote

I don't get your institutional comments though. In my experience PM's have argued for years that compenstation is not tied enough to performance. that is why they become activist and sometimes, like John Paulson, force themselves onto boards to make changes.

when I hear a reference to investors, I think about the people putting in money, not those managing the money. Fidelity is the latter.

[weekender 0]

I get your point about voting but we will have to agree to disagree. people get the right to vote for people who then run the day to day business. voting on pay crosses the line to me. im glad there is a mechanism that cleary shows shareholder sentiment about pay. like a stated above, no one goes to a shareholder meeting so this non binding vote is a step forward

i still dont follow your institutional comments. sorry, not saying your wrong or right. your first post seemed to me you felt they have overweighted influence. i'd agree, its all based on math. more shares more influence. but that is usually good for retail holders since PM's (in my experience) sentiment is similiar to ricky retail when it comes to executive pay. that being they think its not always inline with performance. your second comment just seemed to me to be an argument on how you define an investor. not being argumentative, i just dont get your point.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante