Obama doesn't want you to succeed

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus
So CEO's who tank their companies into the water and receive golden parachutes and large compensation = capitalism?

The OP is retarded. I think shareholders who have the power to punish executives for poor performance is the very definition of capitalism. If anything, Obama is not going far enough by making it non-binding.

Well shareholders can typically vote out the board that gave the CEO the golden parachute.
The disconnect comes from people owning such a small % of the company their vote ends up being dwarfed by mutual fund managers or people who own a majority stake. But as a shareholder these are the risks you need to weigh before investing.

Not all shareholders are created equal. The system is usually rigged for the benefit of larger shareholders.

EDIT: I'm really happy to see that shareholders are waking up to this and taking the fight to anyone and everyone. Obama is late on this but a little assistance from the government can't hurt.

 

[JS80]

It's a pretty crappy process right now but allowing shareholders to vote on it will make it worse and will probably be a distraction.

Any legislation will be feel good and will do nothing. I can't really think of a more efficient way to determine executive compensation though.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Thread should have been titled:

If you are an underperforming over-compensated CEO, Obama doesn't want you to succeed

If you are an unsuccessful CEO, Obama wants shareholders to have a symbolic say in whether you are rewarded for your failure

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: JS80
It's a pretty crappy process right now but allowing shareholders to vote on it will make it worse and will probably be a distraction.

Any legislation will be feel good and will do nothing. I can't really think of a more efficient way to determine executive compensation though.

Rewarding good LONG TERM performance and punish bad LONG TERM performance would be a good start. You would have thought this is the way things should have been all along. But it's almost like there's an incentive to tank companies when you have these ridiculous golden parachute contracts.

 

[conehead433]

Obviously any legislation attempting to restrict income of anyone in the private sector is BS. But when a company gets bailed out by the fed it's not fair to taxpayers for CEOs and other high ranking officers to rip us off for millions.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: conehead433
Obviously any legislation attempting to restrict income of anyone in the private sector is BS. But when a company gets bailed out by the fed it's not fair to taxpayers for CEOs and other high ranking officers to rip us off for millions.

I don't see it as legislation attempting to restrict income (i.e. a law that says you cannot earn more than $1 million per year), it's more like legislation empowering the owners of the company to set compensation plans.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: conehead433
Obviously any legislation attempting to restrict income of anyone in the private sector is BS. But when a company gets bailed out by the fed it's not fair to taxpayers for CEOs and other high ranking officers to rip us off for millions.

I don't see it as legislation attempting to restrict income (i.e. a law that says you cannot earn more than $1 million per year), it's more like legislation empowering the owners of the company to set compensation plans.

I think a lot of people, including the OP, aren't reading the article.

 

[conehead433]

Investor's already have a say on pay, but their votes for budget approval, officer pay, etc. don't usually mean squat. I'm just sick of seeing our government bailing out companies while their officers still get millions. Anyone remember Harken Oil?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: conehead433
Obviously any legislation attempting to restrict income of anyone in the private sector is BS. But when a company gets bailed out by the fed it's not fair to taxpayers for CEOs and other high ranking officers to rip us off for millions.

I don't see it as legislation attempting to restrict income (i.e. a law that says you cannot earn more than $1 million per year), it's more like legislation empowering the owners of the company to set compensation plans.

I think a lot of people, including the OP, aren't reading the article.

How could he have read it? He's lashing out at Obama for supporting legislation that would do nothing but allow shareholders to have a non-binding symbolic vote regarding executive compensation while simultaneously making the claim that shareholders already have actual binding votes in this regard.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: conehead433
Investor's already have a say on pay, but their votes for budget approval, officer pay, etc. don't usually mean squat. I'm just sick of seeing our government bailing out companies while their officers still get millions. Anyone remember Harken Oil?

FFS, they really do not. Go to yahoo finance, look up the % of stock held by institutions, then explain how institutionally held stock gets voted. Then get back to me.

 

[Vic]

Wow... anyone read the comments under the article? I weep for this country knowing that there are so many stupid, ignorant, bigoted idiots out there. If you actually think that mere symbolic corporate accountability to shareholders is "leftist," "communist," or "nanny-statist," then you are a brainwashed idiot. Should this kind continue selling this country down the river of corruption and cronyism, then I hope their backs will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

 

[conehead433]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: conehead433
Investor's already have a say on pay, but their votes for budget approval, officer pay, etc. don't usually mean squat. I'm just sick of seeing our government bailing out companies while their officers still get millions. Anyone remember Harken Oil?

FFS, they really do not. Go to yahoo finance, look up the % of stock held by institutions, then explain how institutionally held stock gets voted. Then get back to me.

The fact that they are mostly institutionally owned is why I suggested that the average shareholder's vote didn't mean squat. But as a shareholder you still get an opportunity in the mail to vote on such matters. Before you open the mail and exercise your vote it had already been decided. But you can't say that they have no say. Their say collectively isn't enough to make a difference. Are we going to make laws that say who can and can't own stock in publicly traded companies. Trying to legislate this shouldn't be the government's business.

 

[techs]

Actually Bush doesn't want you to succeed.
Destroy education, hurt workers incomes, spend the country into oblivion, favor big business over small businesses, etc.
I don't think ANYONE thinks that under Bush it has become easier for the average American to succeed.
In fact its the laws governing corporations that have been manipulated to give execs huge salaries while cutting employees incomes.
So its fairer to say Bush doesn't want 99.9 percent of you to succeed.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Other than wasting time and effort, what's the benefit of having a non-binding vote?

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: techs
Actually Bush doesn't want you to succeed.
Destroy education, hurt workers incomes, spend the country into oblivion, favor big business over small businesses, etc.
I don't think ANYONE thinks that under Bush it has become easier for the average American to succeed.
In fact its the laws governing corporations that have been manipulated to give execs huge salaries while cutting employees incomes.
So its fairer to say Bush doesn't want 99.9 percent of you to succeed.

Uh - wrong thread? or troll?

*You* make the call!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Other than wasting time and effort, what's the benefit of having a non-binding vote?

It draws attention to a subject and raises the level of knowledge people have about their rights and responsibilities. This thread is pretty good evidence as to the benefit of it.

 

[piasabird]

Maybe we should be able to put a limit on CEO pay based on some formula. Maybe same thing should go for a lot of jobs that are overpayed. What cracks me up is that a lot of companies pay people more to steal them from the competition. Then higher paid employees start shopping the competition in a highest bidder gets your skills. Sounds kind of like football.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Other than wasting time and effort, what's the benefit of having a non-binding vote?

It draws attention to a subject and raises the level of knowledge people have about their rights and responsibilities. This thread is pretty good evidence as to the benefit of it.

That makes no sense. The subject has plenty of attention - who doesn't know about the incestual nature of boards of directors or the massive golden parachutes that craptastic CEOs and other executives have? Who has stock in companies, yet doesn't receive information about how to vote on company issues?

Sounds like grandstanding to me.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Other than wasting time and effort, what's the benefit of having a non-binding vote?

It draws attention to a subject and raises the level of knowledge people have about their rights and responsibilities. This thread is pretty good evidence as to the benefit of it.

That makes no sense. The subject has plenty of attention - who doesn't know about the incestual nature of boards of directors or the massive golden parachutes that craptastic CEOs and other executives have? Who has stock in companies, yet doesn't receive information about how to vote on company issues?

Sounds like grandstanding to me.

Considering how many people in this thread alone have displayed a profound lack of knowledge into the relationship of stock owners and boards to CEOs, purportedly people who pay attention to these sorts of things, that people are very much unaware of it.

So how does it make no sense?

EDIT: By the way, something can be grandstanding and useful at the same time.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Other than wasting time and effort, what's the benefit of having a non-binding vote?

It draws attention to a subject and raises the level of knowledge people have about their rights and responsibilities. This thread is pretty good evidence as to the benefit of it.

That makes no sense. The subject has plenty of attention - who doesn't know about the incestual nature of boards of directors or the massive golden parachutes that craptastic CEOs and other executives have? Who has stock in companies, yet doesn't receive information about how to vote on company issues?

Sounds like grandstanding to me.

And McCain hasn't been grandstanding himself on this issue?

And read the article before you chide me on bringing McCain into the discussion, because this very question is in fact what the OP's article is actually about. McCain's been blowing hot air about CEO compensation with no walk to back his talk, and Obama called him on it.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Other than wasting time and effort, what's the benefit of having a non-binding vote?

It draws attention to a subject and raises the level of knowledge people have about their rights and responsibilities. This thread is pretty good evidence as to the benefit of it.

That makes no sense. The subject has plenty of attention - who doesn't know about the incestual nature of boards of directors or the massive golden parachutes that craptastic CEOs and other executives have? Who has stock in companies, yet doesn't receive information about how to vote on company issues?

Sounds like grandstanding to me.

And McCain hasn't been grandstanding himself on this issue?

And read the article before you chide me on bringing McCain into the discussion, because this very question is in fact what the OP's article is actually about. McCain's been blowing hot air about CEO compensation with no walk to back his talk, and Obama called him on it.

I'm not going to chide you on bringing McCain into the discussion, but I will chide you for assuming that I think that no politicians grandstand.

That said, how is Obama "calling [McCain] on it"? By wanting to legislate a "non-binding vote"? It's be just as helpful to name a bridge "[insert crappy CEO name here] was a crappy CEO."

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Other than wasting time and effort, what's the benefit of having a non-binding vote?

It draws attention to a subject and raises the level of knowledge people have about their rights and responsibilities. This thread is pretty good evidence as to the benefit of it.

That makes no sense. The subject has plenty of attention - who doesn't know about the incestual nature of boards of directors or the massive golden parachutes that craptastic CEOs and other executives have? Who has stock in companies, yet doesn't receive information about how to vote on company issues?

Sounds like grandstanding to me.

And McCain hasn't been grandstanding himself on this issue?

And read the article before you chide me on bringing McCain into the discussion, because this very question is in fact what the OP's article is actually about. McCain's been blowing hot air about CEO compensation with no walk to back his talk, and Obama called him on it.

I'm not going to chide you on bringing McCain into the discussion, but I will chide you for assuming that I think that no politicians grandstand.

That said, how is Obama "calling [McCain] on it"? By wanting to legislate a "non-binding vote"? It's be just as helpful to name a bridge "[insert crappy CEO name here] was a crappy CEO."

Has anyone in this thread actually read the fsckin article?

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: Vic
Wow... anyone read the comments under the article? I weep for this country knowing that there are so many stupid, ignorant, bigoted idiots out there. If you actually think that mere symbolic corporate accountability to shareholders is "leftist," "communist," or "nanny-statist," then you are a brainwashed idiot. Should this kind continue selling this country down the river of corruption and cronyism, then I hope their backs will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

QFT. Its very infuriating to me to see people brainwashed into zealously supporting a state of affairs working directly against their interests. (e.g. non-corporate-CEOs opposing reform to a clearly corrupt system that's screwing them over).

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Other than wasting time and effort, what's the benefit of having a non-binding vote?

It draws attention to a subject and raises the level of knowledge people have about their rights and responsibilities. This thread is pretty good evidence as to the benefit of it.

That makes no sense. The subject has plenty of attention - who doesn't know about the incestual nature of boards of directors or the massive golden parachutes that craptastic CEOs and other executives have? Who has stock in companies, yet doesn't receive information about how to vote on company issues?

Sounds like grandstanding to me.

Considering how many people in this thread alone have displayed a profound lack of knowledge into the relationship of stock owners and boards to CEOs, purportedly people who pay attention to these sorts of things, that people are very much unaware of it.

So how does it make no sense?

EDIT: By the way, something can be grandstanding and useful at the same time.

How does it make no sense?

Well, it's been claimed here that maybe shareholders can vote but so much stock is held by institutional investors the average guy's vote doesn't count (he is overruled by the large institutional investors).

So now we're going to have a non-binding vote. Won't the institutional investors just do the same thing? Their vote will make it like stockholders approve. So what's the friggin point?

Personally, I don't think the CEO's etc give a sh!t what the small investors think. Now if the institutional investors protested, they'd pay attention.

A real solution? I think it starts with better disclosure, and I mean accurate & simplified disclosure. A very clear dislosure that the (non-financial professional) average investor concerned about this can readily understand.

BTW: Just because a company is NOT making boatloads of money doesn't mean the CEO isn't deserving. At certain times limiting losses is as valuable as making lots of money and takes a real skill.

Fern

 

[Babbles]

Sounds like a useless pandering idea from Obama. If I read this correctly, this idea is to allow shareholders pass non-binding resolutions (i.e. essentially useless in my opinion) to executive officers.

What is stopping shareholders now?

Are shareholders not allowed to get together and make some sort of statement of disgust for executive officers?

Do we need a new law to allow shareholders the "right" to do what they can probably do now if they were to organize and just do it?

I hate pandering and Obama seems, unfortunately, really good at it compared to other candidates.