Citigroup shareholders vote against CEO's pay package thanks to Dodd-Frank act

[Phokus]

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/citigroup-shareholders-reject-executive-pay-plan/

It's about time, these bastards have been sucking companies dry while laying off/offshoring jobs.

Hopefully more of these shareholder votes take place. CEO pay often times has little to do with performance and everything to do with the circle jerk of the CEO and board thanks to interlocking directorates.

 

[Genx87]

Pandit is one of the worst. He is clearly sucking citigroup dry.

In 2009 and 2010, as Mr. Pandit struggled to pull the bank back from the brink, he accepted only a $1 annual salary.

 

[Phokus]

Pandit is one of the worst. He is clearly sucking citigroup dry.

Actually... he is:

Pandit did receive $165 million for his low performing hedge fund which was purchased by Citi in 2007.[31] The fund has since been shuttered.

 

[Genx87]

Actually... he is:

Nice dodge. Clearly you didnt even read your own article, again.

 

[Phokus]

Nice dodge. Clearly you didnt even read your own article, again.

Nice dodge? LOL are you insane? He got 165 million for his 'low performing hedgefund', talk about conflict of interest. He shouldn't even have had the luxury of remaining CEO after needing a government bailout to stay afloat.

Sorry your attack backfired on you bigtime though.

 

[manimal]

Good thing Dodd Frank is gonna get repealed soon.

/sarcasm

 

[Genx87]

Nice dodge? LOL are you insane? He got 165 million for his 'low performing hedgefund', talk about conflict of interest. He shouldn't even have had the luxury of remaining CEO after needing a government bailout to stay afloat.

Sorry your attack backfired on you bigtime though.

You are discussing shareholders denying a compensation package are you not? And go on about how it is great they rejected it because these CEOs are being rewarded compensation packages sucking the company dry. When the fact is in this example you are citing he took an a salary of 1/year while the bank struggled. Your retort is a quick run to his wikipedia page and grab something about him selling his hedgefund to the bank in 2007 and it is a conflict of interest. What is the topic of your thread now? You clearly are trying to change the subject after this example blew up in your face. He sucked the company dry for 2 bucks in salary for 2009-2010.

Like I said, nice dodge. And you didnt read your own article before posting, again. That other is a doozy. Posting a story from 7 years ago. Nice work lol

 

[Phokus]

You are discussing shareholders denying a compensation package are you not? And go on about how it is great they rejected it because these CEOs are being rewarded compensation packages sucking the company dry. When the fact is in this example you are citing he took an a salary of 1/year while the bank struggled. Your retort is a quick run to his wikipedia page and grab something about him selling his hedgefund to the bank in 2007 and it is a conflict of interest. What is the topic of your thread now? You clearly are trying to change the subject after this example blew up in your face. He sucked the company dry for 2 bucks in salary for 2009-2010.

Like I said, nice dodge. And you didnt read your own article before posting, again. That other is a doozy. Posting a story from 7 years ago. Nice work lol

Actually, it's you who did not read the article

Here is Citi's and Goldman Sach's Stock

Answer these 2 questions:

1) Why did Vikram deserve this pay last year:

Last year, Mr. Pandit’s compensation included a $1.67 million salary and a $5.3 million cash bonus. In addition, he received a retention package valued at $40 million, to be awarded through 2015. In 2009 and 2010, as Mr. Pandit struggled to pull the bank back from the brink, he accepted only a $1 annual salary.

2) Why does Vikram deserve to be paid more than Lloyd Blankfein. Even though Goldman Sachs way outperformed Citi for the past few years.

Mr. Pandit’s compensation is higher than some more successful rivals, according to proxy filings. Lloyd C. Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, received $3 million less than Mr. Pandit’s $15 million, while James P. Gorman, the chief of Morgan Stanley, had a pay package of $10.5 million.

Yes, he did suck the company dry before AND AFTER the financial crisis, he didn't deserve to stay CEO in those 2 cherry picked years you are talking about considering he needed a government bailout. Sorry about the backfire on you.

 

[Ausm]

Good thing Dodd Frank is gonna get repealed soon.

/sarcasm

It wouldn't make a difference because the Republicans have been blocking the implementation of the law since it was passed by a Congress elected democratically by the people.

 

[Genx87]

Actually, it's you who did not read the article

Here is Citi's and Goldman Sach's Stock

Answer these 2 questions:

1) Why did Vikram deserve this pay last year:



2) Why does Vikram deserve to be paid more than Lloyd Blankfein. Even though Goldman Sachs way outperformed Citi for the past few years.

Yes, he did suck the company dry, he didn't deserve to stay CEO in those 2 cherry picked years you are talking about.

I read the article just fine. I think it is rather pathetic you didnt notice he took a $1/year salary for 2 years while you proclaimed him a money sucking CEO. Isnt that what you want? A CEO who reduces his salary during the bad times?

 

[Ausm]

Actually, it's you who did not read the article

Here is Citi's and Goldman Sach's Stock

Answer these 2 questions:

1) Why did Vikram deserve this pay last year:



2) Why does Vikram deserve to be paid more than Lloyd Blankfein. Even though Goldman Sachs way outperformed Citi for the past few years.

Yes, he did suck the company dry before AND AFTER the financial crisis, he didn't deserve to stay CEO in those 2 cherry picked years you are talking about considering he needed a government bailout. Sorry about the backfire on you.

Finding Genx69 being full of shit isn't a real stretch. 😉

 

[crownjules]

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/citigroup-shareholders-reject-executive-pay-plan/

It's about time, these bastards have been sucking companies dry while laying off/offshoring jobs.

Hopefully more of these shareholder votes take place. CEO pay often times has little to do with performance and everything to do with the circle jerk of the CEO and board thanks to interlocking directorates.

It's one example of success in a sea of failure. I read an article a few weeks back that did a report on the instances in which shareholders voted against executive compensation. It was something sad like 80% or more of such cases voted to keep CEO pay the same.

As you might imagine, the majority of the majority shareholders, especially in your large blue chip stocks and well off companies, are your institutional investors. Fidelity, Black Rock, BoA, GS, and so on. They aren't really concerned about executive pay packages so long as the company is doing alright. And so they largely vote for the status quo.

 

[Phokus]

I read the article just fine. I think it is rather pathetic you didnt notice he took a $1/year salary for 2 years while you proclaimed him a money sucking CEO. Isnt that what you want? A CEO who reduces his salary during the bad times?

He also INCREASED his salary during bad times, he hasn't done shit for Citigroup's stock and he wants to be PAID MORE THAN LLOYD BLANKFEIN WHO IS OUTPERFORMING HIM BY A GIANT MARGIN. What part of that don't you understand.

Also, check 2008 where the stock tanked and he accepted a 45 billion dollar taxpayerbailout (edit: actually 300 billion total if this article is right: http://seekingalpha.com/article/107514-citibank-bailout-300-billion-doesn-t-sound-like-a-lot-anymore)

Explain to me why he deserved a 38 million dollar pay package when the stock crashed over the course of the year:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/03/citigroup_ceo_vikram_pandit_go.html

As for 2009, it wasn't "$1":

(AP) Citigroup Inc. CEO Vikram Pandit received $128,751 in compensation for 2009 as the bank suffered huge losses on risky investments and failing consumer loans, according to an Associated Press analysis of a regulatory filing disclosed Friday.

Pandit agreed in February 2009 that he would only take a $1 salary for the year after the bank was forced to take billions in federal bailout money. But he had already received $125,000 in salary before making that announcement, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. He received no bonus or stock awards.

His only other compensation was $3,750 in 401(k) benefits.

Major major backfire on you.

 

[woolfe9999]

Is the $1 per year in "salary" he received in 2009-10 his only compensation, or did he get a multi-million dollar bonus like in 2011?

$1/year salaries are often a gimmick to make the CEO look non-greedy when in fact total compensation is quite high.

 

[IBMer]

Gen you just need to look up "1 Dollar CEOs" to know that is not all they get paid. A lot of companies use it as a loop hole. A few executives at Google do this and are billionaires while having a salary of $1

 

[Phokus]

Gen you just need to look up "1 Dollar CEOs" to know that is not all they get paid. A lot of companies use it as a loop hole. A few executives at Google do this and are billionaires while having a salary of $1

Yeah, i think steve jobs had a $1 salary as well, but he gets a ton in other compensation

 

[kage69]

Is the $1 per year in "salary" he received in 2009-10 his only compensation, or did he get a multi-million dollar bonus like in 2011?

$1/year salaries are often a gimmick to make the CEO look non-greedy when in fact total compensation is quite high.

QFT, it's common and not exactly noteworthy, I'm not sure why some like Genx87 need to cling to semantics and ignore that compensation comes in different names, but it all amounts to the same thing.


/hands Genx some Lidocaine infused aloe...

 

[Genx87]

He also INCREASED his salary during bad times, he hasn't done shit for Citigroup's stock and he wants to be PAID MORE THAN LLOYD BLANKFEIN WHO IS OUTPERFORMING HIM BY A GIANT MARGIN. What part of that don't you understand.

Also, check 2008 where the stock tanked and he accepted a 45 billion dollar taxpayerbailout (edit: actually 300 billion total if this article is right: http://seekingalpha.com/article/107514-citibank-bailout-300-billion-doesn-t-sound-like-a-lot-anymore)

Explain to me why he deserved a 38 million dollar pay package when the stock crashed over the course of the year:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/03/citigroup_ceo_vikram_pandit_go.html

As for 2009, it wasn't "$1":



Major major backfire on you.

Hold on here, are you providing proof your original article is factually incorrect?

 

[Genx87]

Gen you just need to look up "1 Dollar CEOs" to know that is not all they get paid. A lot of companies use it as a loop hole. A few executives at Google do this and are billionaires while having a salary of $1

Of course I understand a lot of these guys make their money with stock options. However that isnt what I am discussing with Phokus. The fact he posted an article that is showing 1/year salary for a guy and claiming he is a blood sucker. If the guy makes money in stock options that isnt really his original point. And his article contradicts this. In othyer words Phokus failed to read his own article, again. Now he is scrambling on google and wiki finding articles that contradict his own to paint this guy in the light he originally wanted. The effort he is putting in to save this from blowing up in his face is amusing as hell.

 

[Phokus]

Hold on here, are you providing proof your original article is factually incorrect?

Are you seriously not going to answer the questions and dodge dodge dodge?

 

[Phokus]

Of course I understand a lot of these guys make their money with stock options. However that isnt what I am discussing with Phokus. The fact he posted an article that is showing 1/year salary for a guy and claiming he is a blood sucker. If the guy makes money in stock options that isnt really his original point. And his article contradicts this. In othyer words Phokus failed to read his own article, again. Now he is scrambling on google and wiki finding articles that contradict his own to paint this guy in the light he originally wanted. The effort he is putting in to save this from blowing up in his face is amusing as hell.

No, what's 'amusing as hell' is you dodging the fact that he should have been fired in 2008 (yet received over 30 million), the fact that he defrauded Citi in 2007 when he sold his shitty hedge fund to them (and why don't you count this as 'blood sucking') and the fact that he was paid way too much LAST year and now wants to be paid MORE THAN Financial CEO's that outperform him by a wide margin.

He should have been fired a LONG TIME AGO:

You arguments and deflections are representative of EVERYTHING that's wrong with the conservative movement.

 

[Genx87]

Are you seriously not going to answer the questions and dodge dodge dodge?

Well I am not interested in discussing this guys compensation compared to his peers. Nor if I deem it fair. I am more interested in you failing to read your own link and now forced to find other sources that show your original to be incorrect. Perhaps like the other thread if you read your article you wouldnt be forced to move the goal posts in your own thread and prove your own articles incorrect.

 

[Phokus]

Well I am not interested in discussing this guys compensation compared to his peers. Nor if I deem it fair. I am more interested in you failing to read your own link and now forced to find other sources that show your original to be incorrect. Perhaps like the other thread if you read your article you wouldnt be forced to move the goal posts in your own thread and prove your own articles incorrect.

He didn't deserve to be employed during those years you claim that he got "$1" as he already sucked the blood out of his company twice.

Sorry about the major backfire on you though. Now explain why he deserves to get paid more than Lloyd.

 

[Genx87]

No, what's 'amusing as hell' is you dodging the fact that he should have been fired in 2008 (yet received over 30 million), the fact that he defrauded Citi in 2007 when he sold his shitty hedge fund to them (and why don't you count this as 'blood sucking') and the fact that he was paid way too much LAST year and now wants to be paid MORE THAN Financial CEO's that outperform him by a wide margin.

He should have been fired a LONG TIME AGO:

You arguments and deflections are representative of EVERYTHING that's wrong with the conservative movement.

You created this argument after it was pointed out by me you failed to read your own damn article. Dont get mad at me because your OP was so poorly thought out a simple reading of the article required you to expand your argument and find articles that prove your own article wrong.

 

[Mursilis]

This vote sounded good until I read the part about it not being binding! So the CEO will still receive the pay package, because it's been approved by the board, and the shareholders' vote was basically symbolic. I suppose it's a start, but not much of one.