As CEOs cash in, investors yawn

[flashl]

Movement to give shareholders a say on pay stalls

Where's the outrage?

CEOs just keep raking in the dough, even when mistakes by some of the nation's best-paid executives have cut the value of shareholders' investments by billions of dollars.

A year ago, investors seemed to be gaining ground against excessive CEO pay, as several "say-on-pay" proposals garnered strong support from shareholders. Compensation critics expected the momentum to continue this year after 2007 featured several "poster child" examples, they said, of an executive-compensation system run amok.

...

Shareholders at Merrill Lynch, for example, registered less support for a say-on-pay resolution this spring than they did last year, even though former chief executive Stan O'Neal left the company in October with compensation that, at the time, was worth $161 million. Shares of Merrill Lynch plummeted from about $93 at the beginning of 2007 to about $54 by the end as the securities firm reeled from a massive write-down related to losses on subprime mortgages.

...

Many companies now distribute proxy statements and ballots to investors online, unless a shareholder specifically requests a printed copy. Some, including Ferlauto, believe that has led to a decline in voting by individual investors, who might be more inclined to seek a say on pay.

...

Another possible factor: Shareholders are expressing anger about compensation practices by voting against the re-election of board members, rather than supporting say-on-pay, said Carol Bowie of RiskMetrics Group, which tracks shareholder proposals. In a report earlier this month, RiskMetrics said three compensation committee members at Citigroup received opposition from shareholders of more than 25 percent — a much bigger "no vote" than is typical.

Twin Cities

[izquierdista]

1. Readers here yawn too

Glad to be the first one to recommend and post a comment. This is THE most important thing that people who rail about the power of big corporations can do. To make corporations accountable means to bring the CEO and his cronies back to earth. This is a peculiarly American phenomenon, as in Europe and Japan there are still social prohibitions against the leaders using the corporation as their own private piggy bank to plunder as they see fit.

[Warpy]

2. Bull. Shit.

Most shareholders out here in workaday land, myself included, do want a say in executive compensation packages. Every million that goes to an overfed upper management cadre is money out of our pockets. Every platinum parachute represents executives who have shafted us two ways: by screwing up the companies we're invested in and by robbing them on the way out the door.

The fact is that we are never consulted. We're allowed to vote for boards of directors as a group, but never individually. We're allowed to approve or disapprove accounting firms. We're never allowed to voice approval or disapproval of executive pay packages.

[Fredda Weinberg]

4. I'm in the middle of a corporate formation. Sorry, you are correct

By the time your money comes in, multiple layers of investments create a cadre that feeds itself. I'll find a way to avoid it this time, but I can only control what goes on around me.

[Warpy]

5. Yep, I know what is and what is not on my proxy votes.

All I can do is keep voting against the boards of directors.

Most people do tend to toss the proxy votes since they don't cover anything really earthshaking.

I'll bet if they did cover executive compensation, a lot more people would pay attention to them.

[Selatius]

6. They don't listen to small investors. Maybe if you owned 5 percent or more, they would listen.

Otherwise, you're the one getting screwed over just as well as any consumer or front-line employee.

[Festivito]

3. Could be: RepubliCONs cash in, Voters yawn.

Instead of proxy statements you must request, voters must request the right to vote then register, possibly be removed from roles and rejected when arriving to vote, have their provisional ballots go uncounted, and finally have their votes changed by a computer hack.

All this leads to executives that think they can do anything and get huge paybacks from the people/businesses(either directly or indirectly through a father's businesses) who pay for the executives to run for office in the first place.

[leftofthedial]

7. you mean those at the top in a capitalist system are corrupt, greedy and ruthless?

while those at the bottom are apathetic victims?




Yawn.