Pigs at the trough 2016

[sidicks]

Mr Whippy said:

If people who pay their salaries want to act on their views, then that is a good thing. They will take their money and invest in companies who don't pay their CEOs too much, in their view.
If this is important to businesses they can then alter their CEO pay accordingly.
The last thing I want to see is government making arbitrary policy to try control anything on behalf of the apathetic class. It's those scrotums that need to wake up and take part in society rather than expecting government to do it for them!

Agreed 100%

[sidicks]

Mr Whippy said:

So fund managers making judgements based on shareholder value, which is basically making as much money as possible so the shareholders don't go elsewhere, isn't motivated by greed?

Really?

So your pension isn't about saving for your retirement, it's purely about greed? It's certainly an interesting viewpoint...

Me Whippy said:

If we're happy to let people exercise greed then why isn't it acceptable to let them exercise envy too?

Personally I think that supporting investment into business which meets customer needs and which provides employment and requiring a return on that investment is not greed.

Likewise I think that being obsessed with CEO salaries without fully understanding what they do and how this impacts the business and shareholder value is more about envy than economics!

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

crankedup said:

The facts remain, CEO pay is out of control that has led to grossly excessive sums of money for individuals.

1 Please prove that 'fact'. If you've asserted it without evidence then I can dismiss it without evidence.
2 Please define "grossly excessive". I understand it to mean 'you don't like it'.

crankedup said:

It's an opinion shared by many other shareholders, around 50% of those that vote, is that fact enough for you.

No. An opinion doesn't become fact because lots of people think the same.

It is a fact that up to 50% of those shareholders who vote, in respect of board pay, vote against such recommendation. That % is growing year on year which is also a fact. Board pay has risen from 247x median twenty years ago to 1000x median today, that is fact.

Definition of grossly excessive : to plunder without embarrassment in excess of that which draws attention to the event. For example, the party goer who elbows past other guests to the Buffett table overloading his /her plate with the best meats on offer, leaving scraps for the other guests. Showing no sign of remorse but rather the opposite to the fellow guests.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

It is a fact that up to 50% of those shareholders who vote, in respect of board pay, vote against such recommendation. That % is growing year on year which is also a fact. Board pay has risen from 247x median twenty years ago to 1000x median today, that is fact.

When it's the majority, not the minority then it's quite right that they exert appropriate influence.

On what basis is '247' the right number and '1000' the wrong number?
Why versus the median, not the mean or the minimum salary?

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

You didn't answer my question, have you ever ran your own business? I have offered a brief background of my professional life already, I think that is reasonable.

No, but I've had extensive experience with working with CEOs, which seems more relevant for this thread...

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Do you actually have any substancial debating points to add to the thread or are you simply continuing to act like a troll? Also it's not 'they' it's just you.

What experience do you have of how fund management firms work with (and influence the strategy and approach of) the CEO and the boards?

[Mr Whippy]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Thank goodness Mr Whippy can negotiate the differences between fact and opinions.

Seemingly not.

So if half the people in a survey have the opinion that CEOs are paid too much, it's not a fact that half the people think CEOs are paid too much?

How does that work?

[0000]

crankedup said:

It is a fact that up to 50% of those shareholders who vote, in respect of board pay, vote against such recommendation. That % is growing year on year which is also a fact. Board pay has risen from 247x median twenty years ago to 1000x median today, that is fact.

For all companies worldwide, just the few in the FTSE100, or some other subset?

[sidicks]

Mr Whippy said:

So if half the people in a survey have the opinion that CEOs are paid too much, it's not a fact that half the people think CEOs are paid too much?

How does that work?

Eh? WTF?

[Mr Whippy]

sidicks said:

Mr Whippy said:

So fund managers making judgements based on shareholder value, which is basically making as much money as possible so the shareholders don't go elsewhere, isn't motivated by greed?

Really?

So your pension isn't about saving for your retirement, it's purely about greed? It's certainly an interesting viewpoint...

Me Whippy said:

If we're happy to let people exercise greed then why isn't it acceptable to let them exercise envy too?

Personally I think that supporting investment into business which meets customer needs and which provides employment and requiring a return on that investment is not greed.

Likewise I think that being obsessed with CEO salaries without fully understanding what they do and how this impacts the business and shareholder value is more about envy than economics!

Greed drives me to want the very highest return on my investment so I have the very best pension possible.

It's not *purely* about greed, but greed drives the entire process. Otherwise why not leave the money in the bank and be happy with basic interest rate growth?
From there you may accept lower growth due to ethics or other elements.

I wouldn't invest my pension money into businesses that didn't follow my personal ethical outlook for example, if I had the choice.

I'm not looking at greed or envy as good or bad, just forcings.

Low envy would be just as bad because it'd suggest the population isn't interested in greed, which drives enterprise.

Envy and greed show a healthy society in my view. The problem is those with envy seem incapable of acting in their own interests.

I'm also happy for people to do that too, that shows people are free to be apathetic.

Better to have excessive wealth disparity because those envious are free to be apathetic, than anything else in my view!

sidicks said:

Mr Whippy said:

So if half the people in a survey have the opinion that CEOs are paid too much, it's not a fact that half the people think CEOs are paid too much?

How does that work?

Eh? WTF?

By definition if you sample the opinions of a selection of people, and half of them think something, it's a fact half of them think that thing!

That is what crankedup said from what I read.

[sidicks]

Mr Whippy said:

By definition if you sample the opinions of a selection of people, and half of them think something, it's a fact half of them think that thing!

That is what crankedup said from what I read.

I suggest he's done no such 'sampling', possibly just referred to one particular company he knows about, along with a massive amount of extrapolation...

He said 'up to 50%', which is a very vague claim.

Up to 100% of people are entirely happy with the way things are..

[Mr Whippy]

sidicks said:

Mr Whippy said:

By definition if you sample the opinions of a selection of people, and half of them think something, it's a fact half of them think that thing!

That is what crankedup said from what I read.

I suggest he's done no such 'sampling', possibly just referred to one particular company he knows about, along with a massive amount of extrapolation...

He said 'up to 50%', which is a very vague claim.

Up to 100% of people are entirely happy with the way things are..

I don't believe he's done sampling either.

But this is what was said:

Rovinghawk said:

crankedup said:

It's an opinion shared by many other shareholders, around 50% of those that vote, is that fact enough for you.

No. An opinion doesn't become fact because lots of people think the same.

crankedup suggests 50% of those that vote, vote for no rise. Taken on face value that is a fact. Around 50% vote for no rise. Fact.

That opinion expressed by voting for no rise, the opinion that CEOs are paid too much, will never become fact through consensus, because it's arbitrary and opinion based.

The only thing that can be factual is the distribution of opinion, not the opinion itself.

So no an opinion can't become fact, but we never said it could.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

You didn't answer my question, have you ever ran your own business? I have offered a brief background of my professional life already, I think that is reasonable.

No, but I've had extensive experience with working with CEOs, which seems more relevant for this thread...

I have run a business, not FTSE or close, but my own. It offered me wide perspectives on real world life and being responsible for those who worked for me . Real world experience, not insulated, and of course I am a small shareholder which allows me to be vocal both on forums and at agm,s if I have time to attend.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

Mr Whippy said:

By definition if you sample the opinions of a selection of people, and half of them think something, it's a fact half of them think that thing!

That is what crankedup said from what I read.

I suggest he's done no such 'sampling', possibly just referred to one particular company he knows about, along with a massive amount of extrapolation...

He said 'up to 50%', which is a very vague claim.

Up to 100% of people are entirely happy with the way things are..

For somebody in the industry I am not surprised by your indifference to the reality of the situation. Clearly it suits you to be less active and content with the status quo. And that sums up in a nutshell how I see the industry working hand in glove and why an investigation should clear out the clouds and lack of transparency required. It is utterly incredible that you seem to have missed the rising dissatisfaction amongst shareholders and their CEO pay greed, the worst part is the non binding votes when it comes to the in favour / not in favour.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Do you actually have any substancial debating points to add to the thread or are you simply continuing to act like a troll? Also it's not 'they' it's just you.

What experience do you have of how fund management firms work with (and influence the strategy and approach of) the CEO and the boards?

Apart from investing into unit trust funds, aside from individual shareholding,very little. I wholly depend upon the prospectus sent out by the investment house, or my own research in the case of a purchase of shares. I would like to know more about each individual investment company working 'with' companies regarding strategy planning but this is a missing element or lacking transparency. Quite how a fund manager can become involved in strategic planning is a mystery when the manager has so many companies on his/her book. I can appreciate the fund manager casting a eye over the company medium term strategy and basing a decision regarding the investment potential but not sitting in a board meeting having direct input of any meaningful depth. Is this the time fund managers cosy up to the CEO and board members

Having said that it matters not a jot to the overall situation regarding corporate greed which remains alive and thriving.

[crankedup]

0000 said:

crankedup said:

It is a fact that up to 50% of those shareholders who vote, in respect of board pay, vote against such recommendation. That % is growing year on year which is also a fact. Board pay has risen from 247x median twenty years ago to 1000x median today, that is fact.

For all companies worldwide, just the few in the FTSE100, or some other subset?

I have already stated the thread parameters.

[Gandahar]

ZOLLAR said:

Well my FTSE 100 CEO steps down next Thursday so is giving us all a £1000 (before tax unfortunately)
He's a pretty nice guy too.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-34...

Ultimately if a CEO delivers on promises, increases growth and the shareholders are happy who cares?

Are the shareholders happy though?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/02/n...

[Gandahar]

crankedup said:

It is utterly incredible that you seem to have missed the rising dissatisfaction amongst shareholders and their CEO pay greed, the worst part is the non binding votes when it comes to the in favour / not in favour.

Indeed

Just look at the car industry to see the gravy train mentality. It's led to Porsche bosses being in the dock for hedging and the whole VW group being brought to book for "lying" to governments.

It is all down to greed at the end of the day. Figures have to get bigger and bigger on year one way or another and the greedy people in charge are happy with this, rather than being customer focused

[Mr Whippy]

crankedup said:

sidicks said:

Mr Whippy said:

By definition if you sample the opinions of a selection of people, and half of them think something, it's a fact half of them think that thing!

That is what crankedup said from what I read.

I suggest he's done no such 'sampling', possibly just referred to one particular company he knows about, along with a massive amount of extrapolation...

He said 'up to 50%', which is a very vague claim.

Up to 100% of people are entirely happy with the way things are..

For somebody in the industry I am not surprised by your indifference to the reality of the situation. Clearly it suits you to be less active and content with the status quo. And that sums up in a nutshell how I see the industry working hand in glove and why an investigation should clear out the clouds and lack of transparency required. It is utterly incredible that you seem to have missed the rising dissatisfaction amongst shareholders and their CEO pay greed, the worst part is the non binding votes when it comes to the in favour / not in favour.

Crankedup, it's everywhere.

The whole too big to fail mantra gives them even less motivation to change.

I'm not envious though.

I suppose I'm disgusted at everyone involved, from the CEOs who take more than they need to take, and the whingers complaining but not doing anything about it.
In a way it's greed on both sides. The CEOs are greedy for taking too much when they could survive on much less, and the whingers are greedy for letting them take too much, but not being willing to do anything about it because it might cost them something of theirs (time, money, job etc)


Things will only change when people stop being so easily distracted by the mostly inane crap on telly, or the latest iPhone or gadget, or junk news articles.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Apart from investing into unit trust funds, aside from individual shareholding,very little. I wholly depend upon the prospectus sent out by the investment house, or my own research in the case of a purchase of shares. I would like to know more about each individual investment company working 'with' companies regarding strategy planning but this is a missing element or lacking transparency.

Which is exactly why I struggle with your claims about 'what fund managers do and don't do' - you know very little and assume far too much!

crankedup said:

Quite how a fund manager can become involved in strategic planning is a mystery when the manager has so many companies on his/her book. I can appreciate the fund manager casting a eye over the company medium term strategy and basing a decision regarding the investment potential but not sitting in a board meeting having direct input of any meaningful depth.

It's the analysts job to do this - that's why fund managers have analysts specialising in different sectors!

crankedup said:

Is this the time fund managers cosy up to the CEO and board members

Once again, the tone of your comment betrays your prejudice.

crankedup said:

Having said that it matters not a jot to the overall situation regarding corporate greed which remains alive and thriving.

If the majority of shareholders share that view them they will act accordingly and something will be done!