Would less greedy executives make our economy stronger?

[manlymatt83]

Today I got a carwash at the local carwash. It cost me $10, but prior to getting my car washed, I gave them a $2 tip in their jar. The guys saw it, and for the next 5 minutes, it was obvious they worked a lot harder on my car than I saw them working on other cars.

So then I thought ... I would gladly have paid $12 for the service I got from them, but that extra $2 would have then gone to the owners of the car wash and not necessarily the workers. So I felt the tipping was definitely a good system.

But I wonder - if more businesses "profit shared" (didn't focus on tipping so much and instead, gave 20% off the top to its workers or something like that), wouldn't our economy be stronger? People would work harder because they know the harder they work, the more they benefit...

Just .02. Any thoughts?

 

[Andrew1990]

Please, all this common sense is bad for the economy. Our system is based on loopholes and money grabbers. If we take away both of those elements we are left with a solid foundation for a great economy.

pff...

 

[brownzilla786]

Greed is good

Generally greed is good, but as we can all tell from how our economy is in the complete shitter greed can take a very ugly turn.

And many financial jobs are profit shared, bonus's comprise most of the income for investment bankers/analysts etc...

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Please, all this common sense is bad for the economy. Our system is based on loopholes and money grabbers. If we take away both of those elements we are left with a solid foundation for a great economy.

pff...

I don't think you quite understand how all this works. A good friend of mine is a Senior Executive Compensations Consultant. He reguarly meets with companies that are looking for CEOs and execs, but mostly ones that already have theirs. Do you know what they ask him 9 times out of 10? "Is our compensation package competitive with the market? Is it enough to attract the talented people we need to run our company? Is our current contract with our executive enough to keep him here in hard times? In good times?"

These are questions members of the board are asking. Questions that shareholders are asking.

I hope this answers your question.

If you want to talk about freeing up funds in relation to executives, start with the government, with the Sarbanes-Oxley act. That's when executive packages began balooning; because it holds CEOs responsible under penalty of jail for life for accounting practices that could be going on 6 links down the chain of command in an area he has no idea about, has no time to manage, and has little chance of ever finding. It makes it easy to see, after the fact, what how where and who with it all went wrong; but it does nothing to prevent it from happening again in the future. It was crap legislation that, like usual, was pushed through Congress when everybody was excited over Enron/Worldcom etc.

Another way Sarbanes-Oxley contributed to bad company practices and the decline of good business in America-- now that all this financial data is out in the open, boards had to show to shareholders that the CEO's compensation package was appropriate and linked to outcomes and fiscal targets. So how did they get around that? They gave them options and shares instead of hefty fixed cash bonuses; because the share price is a direct indicator of company performance! So it lead to diluted shareholder value. There's a lot more that goes into the specifics of why they do this through shares and not a performance-based salary, but I don't have time to get into that now. High income tax, reasonable capital gains tax is one major (main?) one, to be specific.

 

[Craig234]

I don't think there's any point in looking at the 'greed' of CEO's.

What's needed is for the systme to work.

Do you want to be protected from buying a car that's misrepresented by a 'greedy' salesman by trying to make him not act greedy? Or by laws giving you protection?

I'd sure take the latter. There's no reason to personalize the issue to praise or attack the CEO when discussing the system.

 

[jagec]

Well, sure, motivated executives who care more about keeping their companies strong than their own compensation packages are great for the economy. They grow their business, hire new workers, and create more wealth and primary production, while keeping their accounts on a solid enough footing so that there will be no scandals and ensuing market panic.

But the government can't legislate motivation, and often businesses (and employees!) don't know what a good thing they have until it's gone. Incentivising good business practices is, well, good government practice, but you can't just throw more legislation on the books in a reactionary response to every new scandal and wave of public opinion. IMHO the reason why we elect legislators is so that they consider the long-term effects of these proposed new laws...but that doesn't happen as often as it should.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Please, all this common sense is bad for the economy. Our system is based on loopholes and money grabbers. If we take away both of those elements we are left with a solid foundation for a great economy.

pff...

I don't think you quite understand how all this works. A good friend of mine is a Senior Executive Compensations Consultant. He reguarly meets with companies that are looking for CEOs and execs, but mostly ones that already have theirs. Do you know what they ask him 9 times out of 10? "Is our compensation package competitive with the market? Is it enough to attract the talented people we need to run our company? Is our current contract with our executive enough to keep him here in hard times? In good times?"

These are questions members of the board are asking. Questions that shareholders are asking.

I hope this answers your question.

If you want to talk about freeing up funds in relation to executives, start with the government, with the Sarbanes-Oxley act. That's when executive packages began balooning; because it holds CEOs responsible under penalty of jail for life for accounting practices that could be going on 6 links down the chain of command in an area he has no idea about, has no time to manage, and has little chance of ever finding. It makes it easy to see, after the fact, what how where and who with it all went wrong; but it does nothing to prevent it from happening again in the future. It was crap legislation that, like usual, was pushed through Congress when everybody was excited over Enron/Worldcom etc.

Another way Sarbanes-Oxley contributed to bad company practices and the decline of good business in America-- now that all this financial data is out in the open, boards had to show to shareholders that the CEO's compensation package was appropriate and linked to outcomes and fiscal targets. So how did they get around that? They gave them options and shares instead of hefty fixed cash bonuses; because the share price is a direct indicator of company performance! So it lead to diluted shareholder value. There's a lot more that goes into the specifics of why they do this through shares and not a performance-based salary, but I don't have time to get into that now. High income tax, reasonable capital gains tax is one major (main?) one, to be specific.

2 points:

You can argue this a million ways, but CEOs today get paid a lot more than CEOs of yesterday (50s-80s). Do they really add that much more value to a company? I doubt it. The whole CEO compensation thing has become a joke. Board rooms are filled with buddies that get other buddies well compensated. If a company truly thinks that the amount of talented people out there to run companies is so limited, then the company has its own problems. Whenever a CEO steps down, in my opinion, there is ALWAYS the option of promoting from within. And if you look at books such as Good to Great you will see that the MOST successful CEOs are promoted from within. The one exception perhaps being GE, since they are known and damn good at producing top management that go on to other companies and make them good too.


SOX has actually made companies really be careful how they operate. Is it to their detriment? Probably to some degree, but at the same time when the SOX auditors come through the door (I am a consultant so I have been with many different clients) things get documented properly, procedures are followed etc. which is the way it should be in the first place.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Please, all this common sense is bad for the economy. Our system is based on loopholes and money grabbers. If we take away both of those elements we are left with a solid foundation for a great economy.

pff...

I don't think you quite understand how all this works. A good friend of mine is a Senior Executive Compensations Consultant. He reguarly meets with companies that are looking for CEOs and execs, but mostly ones that already have theirs. Do you know what they ask him 9 times out of 10? "Is our compensation package competitive with the market? Is it enough to attract the talented people we need to run our company? Is our current contract with our executive enough to keep him here in hard times? In good times?"

These are questions members of the board are asking. Questions that shareholders are asking.

I hope this answers your question.

If you want to talk about freeing up funds in relation to executives, start with the government, with the Sarbanes-Oxley act. That's when executive packages began balooning; because it holds CEOs responsible under penalty of jail for life for accounting practices that could be going on 6 links down the chain of command in an area he has no idea about, has no time to manage, and has little chance of ever finding. It makes it easy to see, after the fact, what how where and who with it all went wrong; but it does nothing to prevent it from happening again in the future. It was crap legislation that, like usual, was pushed through Congress when everybody was excited over Enron/Worldcom etc.

Another way Sarbanes-Oxley contributed to bad company practices and the decline of good business in America-- now that all this financial data is out in the open, boards had to show to shareholders that the CEO's compensation package was appropriate and linked to outcomes and fiscal targets. So how did they get around that? They gave them options and shares instead of hefty fixed cash bonuses; because the share price is a direct indicator of company performance! So it lead to diluted shareholder value. There's a lot more that goes into the specifics of why they do this through shares and not a performance-based salary, but I don't have time to get into that now. High income tax, reasonable capital gains tax is one major (main?) one, to be specific.

LOL. You're kidding, right? I mean, really, you can't be serious!?

Part of the problem is your buddy. Compensation consultants? Fuck that, the only consultant they need are REAL shareholders. I'm not talking about the circle-jerk of investment managers voting proxy votes, I am talking about fractional voting combined with escrow hold periods for bonuses of a decade and stock vesting periods of a decade also.

Executive compensation isn't set by a "free market", it's set by interlocking boards, money managers, and other executives, none of whom give two flying fucks through a rolling donut about investors. Why? Because investors don't have one fucking say about the whole debacle.

You blaming SarbOx is typical. I heard the same shitty story before. Exec comp was ridiculous way before SarbOx came around and all SarbOx did was hold their feet to the fire if they were lying.

This whole thing reminds me of RE "professionals" who stick by the 6% commission rate. THey say it's market rate, but it isn't.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Please, all this common sense is bad for the economy. Our system is based on loopholes and money grabbers. If we take away both of those elements we are left with a solid foundation for a great economy.

pff...

I don't think you quite understand how all this works. A good friend of mine is a Senior Executive Compensations Consultant. He reguarly meets with companies that are looking for CEOs and execs, but mostly ones that already have theirs. Do you know what they ask him 9 times out of 10? "Is our compensation package competitive with the market? Is it enough to attract the talented people we need to run our company? Is our current contract with our executive enough to keep him here in hard times? In good times?"

These are questions members of the board are asking. Questions that shareholders are asking.

I hope this answers your question.

If you want to talk about freeing up funds in relation to executives, start with the government, with the Sarbanes-Oxley act. That's when executive packages began balooning; because it holds CEOs responsible under penalty of jail for life for accounting practices that could be going on 6 links down the chain of command in an area he has no idea about, has no time to manage, and has little chance of ever finding. It makes it easy to see, after the fact, what how where and who with it all went wrong; but it does nothing to prevent it from happening again in the future. It was crap legislation that, like usual, was pushed through Congress when everybody was excited over Enron/Worldcom etc.

Another way Sarbanes-Oxley contributed to bad company practices and the decline of good business in America-- now that all this financial data is out in the open, boards had to show to shareholders that the CEO's compensation package was appropriate and linked to outcomes and fiscal targets. So how did they get around that? They gave them options and shares instead of hefty fixed cash bonuses; because the share price is a direct indicator of company performance! So it lead to diluted shareholder value. There's a lot more that goes into the specifics of why they do this through shares and not a performance-based salary, but I don't have time to get into that now. High income tax, reasonable capital gains tax is one major (main?) one, to be specific.

LOL. You're kidding, right? I mean, really, you can't be serious!?

Part of the problem is your buddy. Compensation consultants? Fuck that, the only consultant they need are REAL shareholders. I'm not talking about the circle-jerk of investment managers voting proxy votes, I am talking about fractional voting combined with escrow hold periods for bonuses of a decade and stock vesting periods of a decade also.

Executive compensation isn't set by a "free market", it's set by interlocking boards, money managers, and other executives, none of whom give two flying fucks through a rolling donut about investors. Why? Because investors don't have one fucking say about the whole debacle.

You blaming SarbOx is typical. I heard the same shitty story before. Exec comp was ridiculous way before SarbOx came around and all SarbOx did was hold their feet to the fire if they were lying.

This whole thing reminds me of RE "professionals" who stick by the 6% commission rate. THey say it's market rate, but it isn't.

100% agree. Noone cares about the little shareholders because they have no influence on anything. Proxy voting needs to be stopped. For the people who are being "proxy voted" right now, they should be required to vote on their own, or not vote at all (thereby increasing the voting rights of the shareholders who care). I don't care if you own shares in 100 companies because you hold shares in a mutual fund, you should still have to vote (or choose to not vote). "Selling"/Giving away your vote to someone else (fund manager) is immoral and should be illegal.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Please, all this common sense is bad for the economy. Our system is based on loopholes and money grabbers. If we take away both of those elements we are left with a solid foundation for a great economy.

pff...

I don't think you quite understand how all this works. A good friend of mine is a Senior Executive Compensations Consultant. He reguarly meets with companies that are looking for CEOs and execs, but mostly ones that already have theirs. Do you know what they ask him 9 times out of 10? "Is our compensation package competitive with the market? Is it enough to attract the talented people we need to run our company? Is our current contract with our executive enough to keep him here in hard times? In good times?"

These are questions members of the board are asking. Questions that shareholders are asking.

I hope this answers your question.

If you want to talk about freeing up funds in relation to executives, start with the government, with the Sarbanes-Oxley act. That's when executive packages began balooning; because it holds CEOs responsible under penalty of jail for life for accounting practices that could be going on 6 links down the chain of command in an area he has no idea about, has no time to manage, and has little chance of ever finding. It makes it easy to see, after the fact, what how where and who with it all went wrong; but it does nothing to prevent it from happening again in the future. It was crap legislation that, like usual, was pushed through Congress when everybody was excited over Enron/Worldcom etc.

Another way Sarbanes-Oxley contributed to bad company practices and the decline of good business in America-- now that all this financial data is out in the open, boards had to show to shareholders that the CEO's compensation package was appropriate and linked to outcomes and fiscal targets. So how did they get around that? They gave them options and shares instead of hefty fixed cash bonuses; because the share price is a direct indicator of company performance! So it lead to diluted shareholder value. There's a lot more that goes into the specifics of why they do this through shares and not a performance-based salary, but I don't have time to get into that now. High income tax, reasonable capital gains tax is one major (main?) one, to be specific.

LOL. You're kidding, right? I mean, really, you can't be serious!?

Part of the problem is your buddy. Compensation consultants? Fuck that, the only consultant they need are REAL shareholders. I'm not talking about the circle-jerk of investment managers voting proxy votes, I am talking about fractional voting combined with escrow hold periods for bonuses of a decade and stock vesting periods of a decade also.

Executive compensation isn't set by a "free market", it's set by interlocking boards, money managers, and other executives, none of whom give two flying fucks through a rolling donut about investors. Why? Because investors don't have one fucking say about the whole debacle.

You blaming SarbOx is typical. I heard the same shitty story before. Exec comp was ridiculous way before SarbOx came around and all SarbOx did was hold their feet to the fire if they were lying.

This whole thing reminds me of RE "professionals" who stick by the 6% commission rate. THey say it's market rate, but it isn't.

100% agree. Noone cares about the little shareholders because they have no influence on anything. Proxy voting needs to be stopped. For the people who are being "proxy voted" right now, they should be required to vote on their own, or not vote at all (thereby increasing the voting rights of the shareholders who care). I don't care if you own shares in 100 companies because you hold shares in a mutual fund, you should still have to vote (or choose to not vote). "Selling"/Giving away your vote to someone else (fund manager) is immoral and should be illegal.

Doesnt giving away your vote require written authorization?

This shareholder voting rights thing is a valid argument. But do you think people will honestly vote? Most people view the stock market as an investment tool where they send their money off and if they are lucky when they ask for it back there is more of it. I bet 99.9% of investors wouldnt care who runs the company they own provided the stock price doesnt tank. And even if they do care, do you think the avg stock holder has a damned clue who they are voting for?

If people are this disgusted with the current setup. They should pull their money out of the market all together and let the stocks tank.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Please, all this common sense is bad for the economy. Our system is based on loopholes and money grabbers. If we take away both of those elements we are left with a solid foundation for a great economy.

pff...

I don't think you quite understand how all this works. A good friend of mine is a Senior Executive Compensations Consultant. He reguarly meets with companies that are looking for CEOs and execs, but mostly ones that already have theirs. Do you know what they ask him 9 times out of 10? "Is our compensation package competitive with the market? Is it enough to attract the talented people we need to run our company? Is our current contract with our executive enough to keep him here in hard times? In good times?"

These are questions members of the board are asking. Questions that shareholders are asking.

I hope this answers your question.

If you want to talk about freeing up funds in relation to executives, start with the government, with the Sarbanes-Oxley act. That's when executive packages began balooning; because it holds CEOs responsible under penalty of jail for life for accounting practices that could be going on 6 links down the chain of command in an area he has no idea about, has no time to manage, and has little chance of ever finding. It makes it easy to see, after the fact, what how where and who with it all went wrong; but it does nothing to prevent it from happening again in the future. It was crap legislation that, like usual, was pushed through Congress when everybody was excited over Enron/Worldcom etc.

Another way Sarbanes-Oxley contributed to bad company practices and the decline of good business in America-- now that all this financial data is out in the open, boards had to show to shareholders that the CEO's compensation package was appropriate and linked to outcomes and fiscal targets. So how did they get around that? They gave them options and shares instead of hefty fixed cash bonuses; because the share price is a direct indicator of company performance! So it lead to diluted shareholder value. There's a lot more that goes into the specifics of why they do this through shares and not a performance-based salary, but I don't have time to get into that now. High income tax, reasonable capital gains tax is one major (main?) one, to be specific.

LOL. You're kidding, right? I mean, really, you can't be serious!?

Part of the problem is your buddy. Compensation consultants? Fuck that, the only consultant they need are REAL shareholders. I'm not talking about the circle-jerk of investment managers voting proxy votes, I am talking about fractional voting combined with escrow hold periods for bonuses of a decade and stock vesting periods of a decade also.

Executive compensation isn't set by a "free market", it's set by interlocking boards, money managers, and other executives, none of whom give two flying fucks through a rolling donut about investors. Why? Because investors don't have one fucking say about the whole debacle.

You blaming SarbOx is typical. I heard the same shitty story before. Exec comp was ridiculous way before SarbOx came around and all SarbOx did was hold their feet to the fire if they were lying.

This whole thing reminds me of RE "professionals" who stick by the 6% commission rate. THey say it's market rate, but it isn't.

Post of the year so far in P&N 🙂

 

[GoPackGo]

Executives are short-sighted....its all about quarter to quarter and not long term.

Do they even have 5 or 10 year plans anymore?

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Please, all this common sense is bad for the economy. Our system is based on loopholes and money grabbers. If we take away both of those elements we are left with a solid foundation for a great economy.

pff...

I don't think you quite understand how all this works. A good friend of mine is a Senior Executive Compensations Consultant. He reguarly meets with companies that are looking for CEOs and execs, but mostly ones that already have theirs. Do you know what they ask him 9 times out of 10? "Is our compensation package competitive with the market? Is it enough to attract the talented people we need to run our company? Is our current contract with our executive enough to keep him here in hard times? In good times?"

These are questions members of the board are asking. Questions that shareholders are asking.

I hope this answers your question.

If you want to talk about freeing up funds in relation to executives, start with the government, with the Sarbanes-Oxley act. That's when executive packages began balooning; because it holds CEOs responsible under penalty of jail for life for accounting practices that could be going on 6 links down the chain of command in an area he has no idea about, has no time to manage, and has little chance of ever finding. It makes it easy to see, after the fact, what how where and who with it all went wrong; but it does nothing to prevent it from happening again in the future. It was crap legislation that, like usual, was pushed through Congress when everybody was excited over Enron/Worldcom etc.

Another way Sarbanes-Oxley contributed to bad company practices and the decline of good business in America-- now that all this financial data is out in the open, boards had to show to shareholders that the CEO's compensation package was appropriate and linked to outcomes and fiscal targets. So how did they get around that? They gave them options and shares instead of hefty fixed cash bonuses; because the share price is a direct indicator of company performance! So it lead to diluted shareholder value. There's a lot more that goes into the specifics of why they do this through shares and not a performance-based salary, but I don't have time to get into that now. High income tax, reasonable capital gains tax is one major (main?) one, to be specific.

LOL. You're kidding, right? I mean, really, you can't be serious!?

Part of the problem is your buddy. Compensation consultants? Fuck that, the only consultant they need are REAL shareholders. I'm not talking about the circle-jerk of investment managers voting proxy votes, I am talking about fractional voting combined with escrow hold periods for bonuses of a decade and stock vesting periods of a decade also.

Executive compensation isn't set by a "free market", it's set by interlocking boards, money managers, and other executives, none of whom give two flying fucks through a rolling donut about investors. Why? Because investors don't have one fucking say about the whole debacle.

You blaming SarbOx is typical. I heard the same shitty story before. Exec comp was ridiculous way before SarbOx came around and all SarbOx did was hold their feet to the fire if they were lying.

This whole thing reminds me of RE "professionals" who stick by the 6% commission rate. THey say it's market rate, but it isn't.

Post of the year so far in P&N 🙂

And this would be why you're [LK] not running a company. I'm glad your political vote only counts for one point. Genx87 is right on the *money*.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Please, all this common sense is bad for the economy. Our system is based on loopholes and money grabbers. If we take away both of those elements we are left with a solid foundation for a great economy.

pff...

I don't think you quite understand how all this works. A good friend of mine is a Senior Executive Compensations Consultant. He reguarly meets with companies that are looking for CEOs and execs, but mostly ones that already have theirs. Do you know what they ask him 9 times out of 10? "Is our compensation package competitive with the market? Is it enough to attract the talented people we need to run our company? Is our current contract with our executive enough to keep him here in hard times? In good times?"

These are questions members of the board are asking. Questions that shareholders are asking.

I hope this answers your question.

If you want to talk about freeing up funds in relation to executives, start with the government, with the Sarbanes-Oxley act. That's when executive packages began balooning; because it holds CEOs responsible under penalty of jail for life for accounting practices that could be going on 6 links down the chain of command in an area he has no idea about, has no time to manage, and has little chance of ever finding. It makes it easy to see, after the fact, what how where and who with it all went wrong; but it does nothing to prevent it from happening again in the future. It was crap legislation that, like usual, was pushed through Congress when everybody was excited over Enron/Worldcom etc.

Another way Sarbanes-Oxley contributed to bad company practices and the decline of good business in America-- now that all this financial data is out in the open, boards had to show to shareholders that the CEO's compensation package was appropriate and linked to outcomes and fiscal targets. So how did they get around that? They gave them options and shares instead of hefty fixed cash bonuses; because the share price is a direct indicator of company performance! So it lead to diluted shareholder value. There's a lot more that goes into the specifics of why they do this through shares and not a performance-based salary, but I don't have time to get into that now. High income tax, reasonable capital gains tax is one major (main?) one, to be specific.

LOL. You're kidding, right? I mean, really, you can't be serious!?

Part of the problem is your buddy. Compensation consultants? Fuck that, the only consultant they need are REAL shareholders. I'm not talking about the circle-jerk of investment managers voting proxy votes, I am talking about fractional voting combined with escrow hold periods for bonuses of a decade and stock vesting periods of a decade also.

Executive compensation isn't set by a "free market", it's set by interlocking boards, money managers, and other executives, none of whom give two flying fucks through a rolling donut about investors. Why? Because investors don't have one fucking say about the whole debacle.

You blaming SarbOx is typical. I heard the same shitty story before. Exec comp was ridiculous way before SarbOx came around and all SarbOx did was hold their feet to the fire if they were lying.

This whole thing reminds me of RE "professionals" who stick by the 6% commission rate. THey say it's market rate, but it isn't.

Post of the year so far in P&N 🙂

And this would be why you're [LK] not running a company. I'm glad your political vote only counts for one point. Genx87 is right on the *money*.

"This trend is most notable when comparing CEO pay to that for typical employees. The ratio of average CEO compensation at large U.S. companies to the average production worker's pay was about 40 to 1 in 1980, according to The Economist.[4] The magazine reported that the ratio had risen to 85 to 1 by 1990, and then soared to about 400 to 1 by 2003.[5]"

http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/082/ceopay.html

So in other words, it makes perfect sense for the gap between CEO pay and front-line employee pay to have drastically widened over the years?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Please, all this common sense is bad for the economy. Our system is based on loopholes and money grabbers. If we take away both of those elements we are left with a solid foundation for a great economy.

pff...

I don't think you quite understand how all this works. A good friend of mine is a Senior Executive Compensations Consultant. He reguarly meets with companies that are looking for CEOs and execs, but mostly ones that already have theirs. Do you know what they ask him 9 times out of 10? "Is our compensation package competitive with the market? Is it enough to attract the talented people we need to run our company? Is our current contract with our executive enough to keep him here in hard times? In good times?"

These are questions members of the board are asking. Questions that shareholders are asking.

I hope this answers your question.

If you want to talk about freeing up funds in relation to executives, start with the government, with the Sarbanes-Oxley act. That's when executive packages began balooning; because it holds CEOs responsible under penalty of jail for life for accounting practices that could be going on 6 links down the chain of command in an area he has no idea about, has no time to manage, and has little chance of ever finding. It makes it easy to see, after the fact, what how where and who with it all went wrong; but it does nothing to prevent it from happening again in the future. It was crap legislation that, like usual, was pushed through Congress when everybody was excited over Enron/Worldcom etc.

Another way Sarbanes-Oxley contributed to bad company practices and the decline of good business in America-- now that all this financial data is out in the open, boards had to show to shareholders that the CEO's compensation package was appropriate and linked to outcomes and fiscal targets. So how did they get around that? They gave them options and shares instead of hefty fixed cash bonuses; because the share price is a direct indicator of company performance! So it lead to diluted shareholder value. There's a lot more that goes into the specifics of why they do this through shares and not a performance-based salary, but I don't have time to get into that now. High income tax, reasonable capital gains tax is one major (main?) one, to be specific.

LOL. You're kidding, right? I mean, really, you can't be serious!?

Part of the problem is your buddy. Compensation consultants? Fuck that, the only consultant they need are REAL shareholders. I'm not talking about the circle-jerk of investment managers voting proxy votes, I am talking about fractional voting combined with escrow hold periods for bonuses of a decade and stock vesting periods of a decade also.

Executive compensation isn't set by a "free market", it's set by interlocking boards, money managers, and other executives, none of whom give two flying fucks through a rolling donut about investors. Why? Because investors don't have one fucking say about the whole debacle.

You blaming SarbOx is typical. I heard the same shitty story before. Exec comp was ridiculous way before SarbOx came around and all SarbOx did was hold their feet to the fire if they were lying.

This whole thing reminds me of RE "professionals" who stick by the 6% commission rate. THey say it's market rate, but it isn't.

Post of the year so far in P&N 🙂

And this would be why you're [LK] not running a company. I'm glad your political vote only counts for one point. Genx87 is right on the *money*.

I may not be running a company, but I have the CEO, CFO, Treasurer of 15 different Fortune 100 companies in my address book, all of whom I am on a first name basis with. Why? Because when you're lending them $200MM+ at a time, I can call them.

I also understand, quite well, the corporate structure, having studied it in-depth during my MBA and CFA programs, not to mention my wife's law school education and reading her own b-law books.

Shareholder rights are a travesty in this country. I'll address GenX's post shortly.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Please, all this common sense is bad for the economy. Our system is based on loopholes and money grabbers. If we take away both of those elements we are left with a solid foundation for a great economy.

pff...

I don't think you quite understand how all this works. A good friend of mine is a Senior Executive Compensations Consultant. He reguarly meets with companies that are looking for CEOs and execs, but mostly ones that already have theirs. Do you know what they ask him 9 times out of 10? "Is our compensation package competitive with the market? Is it enough to attract the talented people we need to run our company? Is our current contract with our executive enough to keep him here in hard times? In good times?"

These are questions members of the board are asking. Questions that shareholders are asking.

I hope this answers your question.

If you want to talk about freeing up funds in relation to executives, start with the government, with the Sarbanes-Oxley act. That's when executive packages began balooning; because it holds CEOs responsible under penalty of jail for life for accounting practices that could be going on 6 links down the chain of command in an area he has no idea about, has no time to manage, and has little chance of ever finding. It makes it easy to see, after the fact, what how where and who with it all went wrong; but it does nothing to prevent it from happening again in the future. It was crap legislation that, like usual, was pushed through Congress when everybody was excited over Enron/Worldcom etc.

Another way Sarbanes-Oxley contributed to bad company practices and the decline of good business in America-- now that all this financial data is out in the open, boards had to show to shareholders that the CEO's compensation package was appropriate and linked to outcomes and fiscal targets. So how did they get around that? They gave them options and shares instead of hefty fixed cash bonuses; because the share price is a direct indicator of company performance! So it lead to diluted shareholder value. There's a lot more that goes into the specifics of why they do this through shares and not a performance-based salary, but I don't have time to get into that now. High income tax, reasonable capital gains tax is one major (main?) one, to be specific.

LOL. You're kidding, right? I mean, really, you can't be serious!?

Part of the problem is your buddy. Compensation consultants? Fuck that, the only consultant they need are REAL shareholders. I'm not talking about the circle-jerk of investment managers voting proxy votes, I am talking about fractional voting combined with escrow hold periods for bonuses of a decade and stock vesting periods of a decade also.

Executive compensation isn't set by a "free market", it's set by interlocking boards, money managers, and other executives, none of whom give two flying fucks through a rolling donut about investors. Why? Because investors don't have one fucking say about the whole debacle.

You blaming SarbOx is typical. I heard the same shitty story before. Exec comp was ridiculous way before SarbOx came around and all SarbOx did was hold their feet to the fire if they were lying.

This whole thing reminds me of RE "professionals" who stick by the 6% commission rate. THey say it's market rate, but it isn't.

100% agree. Noone cares about the little shareholders because they have no influence on anything. Proxy voting needs to be stopped. For the people who are being "proxy voted" right now, they should be required to vote on their own, or not vote at all (thereby increasing the voting rights of the shareholders who care). I don't care if you own shares in 100 companies because you hold shares in a mutual fund, you should still have to vote (or choose to not vote). "Selling"/Giving away your vote to someone else (fund manager) is immoral and should be illegal.

Doesnt giving away your vote require written authorization?

This shareholder voting rights thing is a valid argument. But do you think people will honestly vote? Most people view the stock market as an investment tool where they send their money off and if they are lucky when they ask for it back there is more of it. I bet 99.9% of investors wouldnt care who runs the company they own provided the stock price doesnt tank. And even if they do care, do you think the avg stock holder has a damned clue who they are voting for?

If people are this disgusted with the current setup. They should pull their money out of the market all together and let the stocks tank.

When was the last time you gave specific written information to an investment manager of a mutual fund? I'm not talking about some deeply buried non-signature consent (if you invest in this fund you know...xyz). I'm talking about a specific signature.

It doesn't happen. not only that, but the IM's take advantage of the situation, since they aren't really held to any higher standard for voting for shareholder interests. If they did Wagoner wouldn't have gotten 4x as much as Toyota's CEO.

Did I ever say that they needed to know who? No. I've alluded that they need to know HOW MUCH.

LOL, getting out and letting shit sink isn't a great resolution. Instead of making that the resolution, why not fix the problem through other means?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Please, all this common sense is bad for the economy. Our system is based on loopholes and money grabbers. If we take away both of those elements we are left with a solid foundation for a great economy.

pff...

I don't think you quite understand how all this works. A good friend of mine is a Senior Executive Compensations Consultant. He reguarly meets with companies that are looking for CEOs and execs, but mostly ones that already have theirs. Do you know what they ask him 9 times out of 10? "Is our compensation package competitive with the market? Is it enough to attract the talented people we need to run our company? Is our current contract with our executive enough to keep him here in hard times? In good times?"

These are questions members of the board are asking. Questions that shareholders are asking.

I hope this answers your question.

If you want to talk about freeing up funds in relation to executives, start with the government, with the Sarbanes-Oxley act. That's when executive packages began balooning; because it holds CEOs responsible under penalty of jail for life for accounting practices that could be going on 6 links down the chain of command in an area he has no idea about, has no time to manage, and has little chance of ever finding. It makes it easy to see, after the fact, what how where and who with it all went wrong; but it does nothing to prevent it from happening again in the future. It was crap legislation that, like usual, was pushed through Congress when everybody was excited over Enron/Worldcom etc.

Another way Sarbanes-Oxley contributed to bad company practices and the decline of good business in America-- now that all this financial data is out in the open, boards had to show to shareholders that the CEO's compensation package was appropriate and linked to outcomes and fiscal targets. So how did they get around that? They gave them options and shares instead of hefty fixed cash bonuses; because the share price is a direct indicator of company performance! So it lead to diluted shareholder value. There's a lot more that goes into the specifics of why they do this through shares and not a performance-based salary, but I don't have time to get into that now. High income tax, reasonable capital gains tax is one major (main?) one, to be specific.

LOL. You're kidding, right? I mean, really, you can't be serious!?

Part of the problem is your buddy. Compensation consultants? Fuck that, the only consultant they need are REAL shareholders. I'm not talking about the circle-jerk of investment managers voting proxy votes, I am talking about fractional voting combined with escrow hold periods for bonuses of a decade and stock vesting periods of a decade also.

Executive compensation isn't set by a "free market", it's set by interlocking boards, money managers, and other executives, none of whom give two flying fucks through a rolling donut about investors. Why? Because investors don't have one fucking say about the whole debacle.

You blaming SarbOx is typical. I heard the same shitty story before. Exec comp was ridiculous way before SarbOx came around and all SarbOx did was hold their feet to the fire if they were lying.

This whole thing reminds me of RE "professionals" who stick by the 6% commission rate. THey say it's market rate, but it isn't.

100% agree. Noone cares about the little shareholders because they have no influence on anything. Proxy voting needs to be stopped. For the people who are being "proxy voted" right now, they should be required to vote on their own, or not vote at all (thereby increasing the voting rights of the shareholders who care). I don't care if you own shares in 100 companies because you hold shares in a mutual fund, you should still have to vote (or choose to not vote). "Selling"/Giving away your vote to someone else (fund manager) is immoral and should be illegal.

Doesnt giving away your vote require written authorization?

This shareholder voting rights thing is a valid argument. But do you think people will honestly vote? Most people view the stock market as an investment tool where they send their money off and if they are lucky when they ask for it back there is more of it. I bet 99.9% of investors wouldnt care who runs the company they own provided the stock price doesnt tank. And even if they do care, do you think the avg stock holder has a damned clue who they are voting for?

If people are this disgusted with the current setup. They should pull their money out of the market all together and let the stocks tank.

When was the last time you gave specific written information to an investment manager of a mutual fund? I'm not talking about some deeply buried non-signature consent (if you invest in this fund you know...xyz). I'm talking about a specific signature.

It doesn't happen. not only that, but the IM's take advantage of the situation, since they aren't really held to any higher standard for voting for shareholder interests. If they did Wagoner wouldn't have gotten 4x as much as Toyota's CEO.

Did I ever say that they needed to know who? No. I've alluded that they need to know HOW MUCH.

LOL, getting out and letting shit sink isn't a great resolution. Instead of making that the resolution, why not fix the problem through other means?

I think you misunderstood my response eventhough I wrote it in the second sentence.

This shareholder voting rights thing is a valid argument.

However I honestly question if it is something worth pursuing when I doubt anybody who owns stock either directly or indirectly via a mutual fund knows or cares that much about who is running the company provided they get their returns. And I doubt they would care that much about how much they are paid provided they get returns. As you will notice the only time executive pay comes up is when the company doesnt perform.

And I never claimed getting out of the market is a "great" resolution. However if executive compensation is that big of a deal take your money elsewhere and let corporations try to raise capital through other means.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think you misunderstood my response eventhough I wrote it in the second sentence.

This shareholder voting rights thing is a valid argument.

However I honestly question if it is something worth pursuing when I doubt anybody who owns stock either directly or indirectly via a mutual fund knows or cares that much about who is running the company provided they get their returns. And I doubt they would care that much about how much they are paid provided they get returns. As you will notice the only time executive pay comes up is when the company doesnt perform.

And I never claimed getting out of the market is a "great" resolution. However if executive compensation is that big of a deal take your money elsewhere and let corporations try to raise capital through other means.

It's a problem with America in general. They only care about returns today, not returns overall. Look at Jack Welch, lauded as such a great CEO. Yet when you look at his performance, it was a fraction of the best GE CEO and his pay, even adjusted for inflation, was massive compared to the prior head. How about Grasso? Wagoner?

It's curious that the acceleration of executive compensation is correlated (not infering causation) to the raise of the mutual fund industry and 401k programs.

It wouldn't even take much work to set the CEOs straight. As I've said before 10-year vesting periods for stocks and bonuses. Public notification of proxy votes for BoD. Voting of any compensation package exceeding $XX. Fractional voting.

It's laughable that somebody uses a "compensation consultant"'s opinion to base any kind of rationale for exec comp. Talk about a conflicted individual. They make more as execs make more.

It's like trusting a RE broker to also appraise your house, or the RE brokers best friend to do so.

 

[Genx87]

It's curious that the acceleration of executive compensation is correlated (not infering causation) to the raise of the mutual fund industry and 401k programs.

It makes sense as more and more people plowed money into the market. By the volume of money stocks were bound to rise regardless of return. CEO pay peaked as a ratio compared to the avg worker in 2000 right before the stock market bubble bursting. I think your thoughts are on the right track.

 

[OCGuy]

A government without a credit card would make our economy stronger.


There are already reports of China thinking about cutting us off, so we may not have a choice....

 

[palehorse]

I've been told that Unicorns would be a big help too.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Please, all this common sense is bad for the economy. Our system is based on loopholes and money grabbers. If we take away both of those elements we are left with a solid foundation for a great economy.

pff...

I don't think you quite understand how all this works. A good friend of mine is a Senior Executive Compensations Consultant. He reguarly meets with companies that are looking for CEOs and execs, but mostly ones that already have theirs. Do you know what they ask him 9 times out of 10? "Is our compensation package competitive with the market? Is it enough to attract the talented people we need to run our company? Is our current contract with our executive enough to keep him here in hard times? In good times?"

These are questions members of the board are asking. Questions that shareholders are asking.

I hope this answers your question.

If you want to talk about freeing up funds in relation to executives, start with the government, with the Sarbanes-Oxley act. That's when executive packages began balooning; because it holds CEOs responsible under penalty of jail for life for accounting practices that could be going on 6 links down the chain of command in an area he has no idea about, has no time to manage, and has little chance of ever finding. It makes it easy to see, after the fact, what how where and who with it all went wrong; but it does nothing to prevent it from happening again in the future. It was crap legislation that, like usual, was pushed through Congress when everybody was excited over Enron/Worldcom etc.

Another way Sarbanes-Oxley contributed to bad company practices and the decline of good business in America-- now that all this financial data is out in the open, boards had to show to shareholders that the CEO's compensation package was appropriate and linked to outcomes and fiscal targets. So how did they get around that? They gave them options and shares instead of hefty fixed cash bonuses; because the share price is a direct indicator of company performance! So it lead to diluted shareholder value. There's a lot more that goes into the specifics of why they do this through shares and not a performance-based salary, but I don't have time to get into that now. High income tax, reasonable capital gains tax is one major (main?) one, to be specific.

You missed the part where it's the executive himself who hires the "compensation consultant" who is probably his buddy from HBS, who will then receive a nice fee for saying "you're under market." Cmon man, at that level it's a huge fucking circle jerk.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Please, all this common sense is bad for the economy. Our system is based on loopholes and money grabbers. If we take away both of those elements we are left with a solid foundation for a great economy.

pff...

I don't think you quite understand how all this works. A good friend of mine is a Senior Executive Compensations Consultant. He reguarly meets with companies that are looking for CEOs and execs, but mostly ones that already have theirs. Do you know what they ask him 9 times out of 10? "Is our compensation package competitive with the market? Is it enough to attract the talented people we need to run our company? Is our current contract with our executive enough to keep him here in hard times? In good times?"

These are questions members of the board are asking. Questions that shareholders are asking.

I hope this answers your question.

If you want to talk about freeing up funds in relation to executives, start with the government, with the Sarbanes-Oxley act. That's when executive packages began balooning; because it holds CEOs responsible under penalty of jail for life for accounting practices that could be going on 6 links down the chain of command in an area he has no idea about, has no time to manage, and has little chance of ever finding. It makes it easy to see, after the fact, what how where and who with it all went wrong; but it does nothing to prevent it from happening again in the future. It was crap legislation that, like usual, was pushed through Congress when everybody was excited over Enron/Worldcom etc.

Another way Sarbanes-Oxley contributed to bad company practices and the decline of good business in America-- now that all this financial data is out in the open, boards had to show to shareholders that the CEO's compensation package was appropriate and linked to outcomes and fiscal targets. So how did they get around that? They gave them options and shares instead of hefty fixed cash bonuses; because the share price is a direct indicator of company performance! So it lead to diluted shareholder value. There's a lot more that goes into the specifics of why they do this through shares and not a performance-based salary, but I don't have time to get into that now. High income tax, reasonable capital gains tax is one major (main?) one, to be specific.

LOL. You're kidding, right? I mean, really, you can't be serious!?

Part of the problem is your buddy. Compensation consultants? Fuck that, the only consultant they need are REAL shareholders. I'm not talking about the circle-jerk of investment managers voting proxy votes, I am talking about fractional voting combined with escrow hold periods for bonuses of a decade and stock vesting periods of a decade also.

Executive compensation isn't set by a "free market", it's set by interlocking boards, money managers, and other executives, none of whom give two flying fucks through a rolling donut about investors. Why? Because investors don't have one fucking say about the whole debacle.

You blaming SarbOx is typical. I heard the same shitty story before. Exec comp was ridiculous way before SarbOx came around and all SarbOx did was hold their feet to the fire if they were lying.

This whole thing reminds me of RE "professionals" who stick by the 6% commission rate. THey say it's market rate, but it isn't.

100% agree. Noone cares about the little shareholders because they have no influence on anything. Proxy voting needs to be stopped. For the people who are being "proxy voted" right now, they should be required to vote on their own, or not vote at all (thereby increasing the voting rights of the shareholders who care). I don't care if you own shares in 100 companies because you hold shares in a mutual fund, you should still have to vote (or choose to not vote). "Selling"/Giving away your vote to someone else (fund manager) is immoral and should be illegal.

Doesnt giving away your vote require written authorization?

This shareholder voting rights thing is a valid argument. But do you think people will honestly vote? Most people view the stock market as an investment tool where they send their money off and if they are lucky when they ask for it back there is more of it. I bet 99.9% of investors wouldnt care who runs the company they own provided the stock price doesnt tank. And even if they do care, do you think the avg stock holder has a damned clue who they are voting for?

If people are this disgusted with the current setup. They should pull their money out of the market all together and let the stocks tank.

No, it does not require written authorization. By investing in most "funds" (ETF / Open-end / Closed-end / UIT / etc...), you implicitly give away your vote(s) in the constituent securities to the fund managers of said funds.

The way it stands right now, is that there are MASSIVE blocks of votes that are voted by fund managers, which is an abuse of those votes. Often times these large blocks of votes are leveraged by fund managers to benefit themselves (and/or the board of directors, C-executives, third parties, etc...), instead of benefiting the shareholders of the fund (and therefore shareholders in the constituent companies). This is how you get massive bonuses and golden parachutes for tanking companies. It is corruption, plain and simple.

Also, I DO understand that most "normal" people would choose NOT vote their shares, and that is just fine. However, by them choosing NOT to vote (abstain), it would shrink the pool of total votes, thereby increasing the voting power of the people who DID decide to vote their shares.

This way, the investors who are actually interested in the running of a company would have a say, and a remote chance to affect how things are run.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Please, all this common sense is bad for the economy. Our system is based on loopholes and money grabbers. If we take away both of those elements we are left with a solid foundation for a great economy.

pff...

I don't think you quite understand how all this works. A good friend of mine is a Senior Executive Compensations Consultant. He reguarly meets with companies that are looking for CEOs and execs, but mostly ones that already have theirs. Do you know what they ask him 9 times out of 10? "Is our compensation package competitive with the market? Is it enough to attract the talented people we need to run our company? Is our current contract with our executive enough to keep him here in hard times? In good times?"

These are questions members of the board are asking. Questions that shareholders are asking.

I hope this answers your question.

If you want to talk about freeing up funds in relation to executives, start with the government, with the Sarbanes-Oxley act. That's when executive packages began balooning; because it holds CEOs responsible under penalty of jail for life for accounting practices that could be going on 6 links down the chain of command in an area he has no idea about, has no time to manage, and has little chance of ever finding. It makes it easy to see, after the fact, what how where and who with it all went wrong; but it does nothing to prevent it from happening again in the future. It was crap legislation that, like usual, was pushed through Congress when everybody was excited over Enron/Worldcom etc.

Another way Sarbanes-Oxley contributed to bad company practices and the decline of good business in America-- now that all this financial data is out in the open, boards had to show to shareholders that the CEO's compensation package was appropriate and linked to outcomes and fiscal targets. So how did they get around that? They gave them options and shares instead of hefty fixed cash bonuses; because the share price is a direct indicator of company performance! So it lead to diluted shareholder value. There's a lot more that goes into the specifics of why they do this through shares and not a performance-based salary, but I don't have time to get into that now. High income tax, reasonable capital gains tax is one major (main?) one, to be specific.

LOL. You're kidding, right? I mean, really, you can't be serious!?

Part of the problem is your buddy. Compensation consultants? Fuck that, the only consultant they need are REAL shareholders. I'm not talking about the circle-jerk of investment managers voting proxy votes, I am talking about fractional voting combined with escrow hold periods for bonuses of a decade and stock vesting periods of a decade also.

Executive compensation isn't set by a "free market", it's set by interlocking boards, money managers, and other executives, none of whom give two flying fucks through a rolling donut about investors. Why? Because investors don't have one fucking say about the whole debacle.

You blaming SarbOx is typical. I heard the same shitty story before. Exec comp was ridiculous way before SarbOx came around and all SarbOx did was hold their feet to the fire if they were lying.

This whole thing reminds me of RE "professionals" who stick by the 6% commission rate. THey say it's market rate, but it isn't.

100% agree. Noone cares about the little shareholders because they have no influence on anything. Proxy voting needs to be stopped. For the people who are being "proxy voted" right now, they should be required to vote on their own, or not vote at all (thereby increasing the voting rights of the shareholders who care). I don't care if you own shares in 100 companies because you hold shares in a mutual fund, you should still have to vote (or choose to not vote). "Selling"/Giving away your vote to someone else (fund manager) is immoral and should be illegal.

Doesnt giving away your vote require written authorization?

This shareholder voting rights thing is a valid argument. But do you think people will honestly vote? Most people view the stock market as an investment tool where they send their money off and if they are lucky when they ask for it back there is more of it. I bet 99.9% of investors wouldnt care who runs the company they own provided the stock price doesnt tank. And even if they do care, do you think the avg stock holder has a damned clue who they are voting for?

If people are this disgusted with the current setup. They should pull their money out of the market all together and let the stocks tank.

No, it does not require written authorization. By investing in most "funds" (ETF / Open-end / Closed-end / UIT / etc...), you implicitly give away your vote(s) in the constituent securities to the fund managers of said funds.

The way it stands right now, is that there are MASSIVE blocks of votes that are voted by fund managers, which is an abuse of those votes. Often times these large blocks of votes are leveraged by fund managers to benefit themselves (and/or the board of directors, C-executives, third parties, etc...), instead of benefiting the shareholders of the fund (and therefore shareholders in the constituent companies). This is how you get massive bonuses and golden parachutes for tanking companies. It is corruption, plain and simple.

Also, I DO understand that most "normal" people would choose NOT vote their shares, and that is just fine. However, by them choosing NOT to vote (abstain), it would shrink the pool of total votes, thereby increasing the voting power of the people who DID decide to vote their shares.

This way, the investors who are actually interested in the running of a company would have a say, and a remote chance to affect how things are run.

Well when I read your response I wasnt thinking of Mutual funds as much as individual people who own stock. I guess in the case of mutual funds isnt that one of the things you are paying these fund managers to do? To vote for executive teams that will give your investment the best returns?

I am not sure how you manage such a situation when mutual funds can own hundreds of stocks. Everytime a company hires a new executive you want the mutual fund to send out a vote to each mutual fund participant? Seems like a lot of paperwork.

I am not against looking into some kind of investor safeguards. But when it comes to mutual funds I dont see an easy nor efficient way to do it. And the essence of a mutual fund is to offload the individual day to day maintenance of investment to a 3rd party. If I or anybody else wanted full control over our investment we would be doing the research and buying individual stocks.

/shrug

 

[heyheybooboo]

In the Wachovia/Wells debacle, the 'Walk-All-Over-Yah' BOD gave Wells preferred stock representing 39.9 percent voting power without a shareholder vote ...