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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,534
2,746
136
Hold on here, are you providing proof your original article is factually incorrect?

No, because you're being obtuse. You're hanging on to the misguided belief that "compensation" = "salary" when in actuality salary is a subset that partially comprises compensation. Compensation often includes items not constituting salary such as health benefits, retirement benefits, fringe benefits, perquisites, stock options, stock grants, etc.

The article and OP focus on compensation and you rebut that by focusing on salary, which is a disingenuous argument at best.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
776
126
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.

I'm not mad, he had already sucked the company dry. He received hundreds of billions of dollars in bailout from the government, of course he couldn't just take money willy nilly under public pressure.

YOU, however, refuse to look at the big picture and dishonestly cherry pick something that's not even that relevant in the fact that they were afloat thanks to the government. Now that the heats off him, he HAS gone back to sucking the company dry again.

What don't you get about that.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
776
126
No, because you're being obtuse. You're hanging on to the misguided belief that "compensation" = "salary" when in actuality salary is a subset that partially comprises compensation. Compensation often includes items not constituting salary such as health benefits, retirement benefits, fringe benefits, perquisites, stock options, stock grants, etc.

The article and OP focus on compensation and you rebut that by focusing on salary, which is a disingenuous argument at best.

Classic Genx
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
This vote sounded good until I read the part about it not being binding! So the CEO will still 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.

The Board has apparently not voted on it yet. The article mentions that Boards went along with the shareholder vote to deny compensation packages in many cases last year. I guess we'll see. Still, it is disappointing that the vote is non-binding.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
No, because you're being obtuse. You're hanging on to the misguided belief that "compensation" = "salary" when in actuality salary is a subset that partially comprises compensation. Compensation often includes items not constituting salary such as health benefits, retirement benefits, fringe benefits, perquisites, stock options, stock grants, etc.

The article and OP focus on compensation and you rebut that by focusing on salary, which is a disingenuous argument at best.

The article discusses mainly cash salary. I am staying within the confines of the orignal article.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
I'm not mad, he had already sucked the company dry. He received hundreds of billions of dollars in bailout from the government, of course he couldn't just take money willy nilly under public pressure.

YOU, however, refuse to look at the big picture and dishonestly cherry pick something that's not even that relevant in the fact that they were afloat thanks to the government. Now that the heats off him, he HAS gone back to sucking the company dry again.

What don't you get about that.

Of course it is relevant to the facts of the article. Otherwise you wouldnt had gone looking for an article to prove it wrong.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,693
2,456
126
I'm proud to be one of the (tiny) shareholders that voted against this boondoogle. I've never actually seen dissenting shareholders win a vote in a publically traded company.

See, your vote does make a difference.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
Why even talk to Genx? His kind of thinking is the problem with having a rational real discussion on topics.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
776
126
Of course it is relevant to the facts of the article. Otherwise you wouldnt had gone looking for an article to prove it wrong.

It's irrelevant considering if you look at his whole tenure, he has sucked much more out of citigroup than he has given to it. And everyone seems to disagree with you and the shareholders voted against him because of it.

Sorry that you aren't attached to reality i guess.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
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.

By Republicans, you mean the House that was voted democratically by the people?
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,534
2,746
136
The article discusses mainly cash salary. I am staying within the confines of the orignal article.

Except for all those instances where it discusses bonus payments and retention packages. Oh, and when it compares "pay packages" across various executives (since pay package is a synonym for compensation and not salary).