Executive Pay limitation!

@Setanta,

Quote:

You're very snotty today. As a matter of fact, i am a believer in the separation of the government from the private sector. I oppose the notion that government should be able to interfere in decisions which are properly those of a corporate board, which is elected by and responsible to shareholders.

I didn't realize a part of Obama's order was that the companies HAD TO ACCEPT the bailout money.

Damn, I wish he had allowed them to choose whether to take it or not...then they would be able to pay their executives all the money they want.

And this problem wouldn't exist.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Smart ass . . . i've already replied to that. I have not said that shareholders can vote directly on compensation, and i have pointed out that shareholders elect corporate boards, who do have the power of the purse.

Without the ability to vote directly on compensation, is it fair to say that shareholders have a say in it?

It is extremely difficult for a diverse group of shareholders to devise an effective strategy for directing the shareholders to limit pay. There is little communication between these diverse groups and in many cases the shareholders themselves have little interest in doing so; this holds back the ability of those who are interested to make a meaningful difference.

What power do the shareholders have, if the corporate board gives out lavish pay to executives? Can they remove or replace the board? How can they ensure the new one will not do the same?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

The common shareholder really has little power against the large institutional shareholders.

Yet, in theory, the shareholders can vote out the Board and vote in new members and wait until next years annual meeting to do it again.

1 Reply

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

The common shareholder really has little power against the large institutional shareholders.

Yet, in theory, the shareholders can vote out the Board and vote in new members and wait until next years annual meeting to do it again.

Correct; but those institutional shareholders don't vote to limit exec pay, ever, b/c they don't want their own exec pay limited. It's the old boy network in action.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Yes, you are correct. Wall Street works quite differently today than 40 years ago, prior to the institutional investors basically taking over control.

I have no issue with Obama's idea and I believe excess compensation being paid in stock is a great idea as it puts the executive in an equity position that has to include performance.

I just do not know if he can actually pull this off.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Correct; but those institutional shareholders don't vote to limit exec pay, ever, b/c they don't want their own exec pay limited. It's the old boy network in action.

Executives! Heck, I don't want my pay limited!

Who does? You?

2 Replies

@BigTexN,

BigTexN wrote:

Quote:
Correct; but those institutional shareholders don't vote to limit exec pay, ever, b/c they don't want their own exec pay limited. It's the old boy network in action.

Executives! Heck, I don't want my pay limited!

Who does? You?

I don't mind if the upper end of my pay is limited. Hell, the upper end of my pay is limited.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

There was absolutely no basis for your idiotic sarcasm in the paragraph of mine which you quoted in your post. That's lame even by your already low, low standards, Frankie. You seem to have failed to acknowledge that i also said i don't think government has any business giving money to private joint stock companies.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I don't mind if the upper end of my pay is limited. Hell, the upper end of my pay is limited.

In America, the only limit to your pay is whats between your ears.

0 Replies

@BigTexN,

BigTexN wrote:

Executives! Heck, I don't want my pay limited!

Yes I can see that you choose limited intelligence instead.

Carry on, Tex...

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

There was absolutely no basis for your idiotic sarcasm in the paragraph of mine which you quoted in your post.

Actually there was!

Quote:

That's lame even by your already low, low standards, Frankie.

I'm sure everyone who has dealt with you over the years is laughing at that comment, Set. Sorta like Rush Limbaugh poking someone for being fat.

Quote:

You seem to have failed to acknowledge that i also said i don't think government has any business giving money to private joint stock companies

And why should I acknowledge that???

My comment went to the thrust of your comment:

Quote:

I oppose the notion that government should be able to interfere in decisions which are properly those of a corporate board, which is elected by and responsible to shareholders.

And in fact, I did include the comment “As a matter of fact, i am a believer in the separation of the government from the private sector.”

So get off all that childish indignation.

You walked into one...and you are pissed that I'm the one who picked up on it.

Try to act like a man. You should be able to pull it off.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

That's rich, Frankie, coming from a childish creep such as you. It is the kind of playground rhetoric which we can expect from you, though. I was not indulging any indignation, i was just pointing out how you managed to avoid the truth in your rush to continue a personal vendetta.

Leaving aside your penchant for slinging puerile insults, in my post #3561523 . . .

I wrote:

I simply cannot agree either that money should just be handed over to private corporations, nor that the government has any place in making decisions which are properly the right of the shareholders.

This is my original statement in which i expressed my take on this situation. I'm not surprised that you would rather not deal with that directly.

2 Replies

@kickycan,

Quote:

Yes I can see that you choose limited intelligence instead.

Carry on, Tex...

Ahh, your cheap shots rather than intelligent disagreement speaks volumes...

Carry on, kickycan...

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

That's rich, Frankie, coming from a childish creep such as you. It is the kind of playground rhetoric which we can expect from you, though. I was not indulging any indignation, i was just pointing out how you managed to avoid the truth in your rush to continue a personal vendetta.

I don't do vendetta's, Set. You do...and apparently are doing one now. In any case, I've seen you do them dozens of times. In fact, everybody in A2K has seen you do them dozens of times.

Me...I'm a forgive and forget kinda guy.

I love ya, Buddy.

Quote:

"I simply cannot agree either that money should just be handed over to private corporations, nor that the government has any place in making decisions which are properly the right of the shareholders."

This is my original statement in which i expressed my take on this situation. I'm not surprised that you would rather not deal with that directly.

Yeah I know. I repeat...too bad Obama included that provision that if the government offers a corporation a bail out with those provisions attached...the corporations are obliged to accept the deal.

If he hadn't done that...Setanta wouldn't have to be making this idiotic defense of the indefensible.

See...I'm on your side, Set.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I don't do vendetta's, Set. You do...and apparently are doing one now.

Jesus . . . your disconnect from reality is astounding. I had made no remarks to you or about you when you chose to make your snide post. That hardly qualifies as me enacting a vendetta against you, or anyone else here.

Quote:

Me...I'm a forgive and forget kinda guy.

Yeah, right . . . here, pull the other leg.

Quote:

I love ya, Buddy.

Liar.

As for the rest of your hateful drivel, it doesn't merit a response.

1 Reply

@BigTexN,

Your argument boils down to this: The rich greedy pricks who caused a lot of this crisis should keep being allowed to screw over the rest of us, because otherwise we won't be able to get more rich greedy pricks just like them.

Sorry, but all that is is dogma with not a whit of thought behind it. Next you'll be telling us all that all we need to fix the economy is another tax cut.

1 Reply

@kickycan,

My argument boils down to this: NO ONE...not even you kickycan...should be told that your income will be capped...especially capped below current prevailing wages.

5 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

As for the rest of your hateful drivel, it doesn't merit a response.

Yeah, but you are compulsive about this nonsense...so I know I can count on ya, Buddy.

I do love ya, no matter what you think!

0 Replies

@BigTexN,

Hear, hear!

http://www.athenswater.com/images/PrezBO.jpg

0 Replies

@BigTexN,

Quote:

My argument boils down to this: NO ONE...not even you kickycan...should be told that your income will be capped...especially capped below current prevailing wages.

Jesus H. Christ, Tex...no one is telling them their income has to be capped.

They really are perfectly free not to accept the bail out. (I was just kidding up above with my friend, Setanta. We do that to each other all the time.)

Nobody has to agree to salary caps (feel like I'm talking about major league sports). All they have to do is to refuse the ******* money we are throwing at them.

1 Reply

Executive Pay limitation!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know