Pigs at the trough 2016

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

But it's OK for you to throw out personal remarks, seems to me that double standards are at play as well so far as your concerned. If you use insults man up when one or two very mild rebukes head your way.

Double standards? It was your original post about personal insults that I quoted in my response...

Treat my comments as insults if you will, I see them more as facts - it's unarguable that you are pretty ignorant about how fund management firms engage with the management of the businesses they invest in on behalf of their customers. Not sure why you'd even deny that?

Your attempted insults towards me were both irrelevant to the discussion and extremely wide of the mark. Unfortunately you are one of the many on PH who seem determined to demonstrate their ignorance by commenting on things they clearly don't understand.

I also see you're still struggling with the different between "your" and "you're"...

crankedup said:

This is about CEO and Board pay, not the running of the company, you seem to be confused.

You seem to be unaware that the CEO runs the company, no wonder you are finding this all so confusing...

The facts remain, CEO pay is out of control that has led to grossly excessive sums of money for individuals. It's double standards of the worst type when these same people deny workers a modest pay rise, usually suggesting the company cannot afford it.
The CEO s head of the company, he enacts the wishes of the company owners via his Board Members, it's not like he is on his/her own to carry out the task. All employees have a role in the company.
Have you ever ran a company, even a small company?

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

smifffymoto said:

Rovinghawk said:

smifffymoto said:

All this has stopped but the bosses take no pay cuts,something has to give.

Why not start your own business if it's that good a deal?

You know this thread is about bosses of multinationals and global big hitters not sme and one man bands but if you want to "score points" carry on.
BTW I'm retired .

The principle is the same- those who run the company decide how it's run. Anyone wishing to run it otherwise should get in a position where they run the show rather than whingeing about how others do it.

Enjoy your retirement and let those still working worry about the world of work.

I ran my own business, influenced and directed major changes on a National basis, those changes and new innovations that I personally introduced are now part and parcel of the industry that I was part of. Customers now have far more choice in their decision making regarding requirement and purchases. Introduction to the market was met with hostility by the establishment, promotions through National media including newspapers, radio and television took a toll on my health ore several years. However, these innovations are now growing into the international markets.
I sold my business to a major American Company about 20 years ago and now enjoy retirement, although I am playing building another micro business now.

Retirement doesn't. mean I should crawl under a rock and not express my beliefs, I am vehemently against Corporate greed and some the widening wealth gap. Yes I still sometimes struggle with grammar and spelling errors, but then that has never got in my way, but offers some idiots on forums some easy point scoring, they must have sad lives I imagine

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

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

No, that's not a fact at all. That's your opinion, which may or may not be true for one, some, many, but certainly not all CEOs.

crankedup said:

It's double standards of the worst type when these same people deny workers a modest pay rise, usually suggesting the company cannot afford it.

That clearly depends on what value the CEO adds and what value the employee adds.

crankedup. said:

The CEO s head of the company, he enacts the wishes of the company owners via his Board Members, it's not like he is on his/her own to carry out the task. All employees have a role in the company.
Have you ever ran a company, even a small company?

What experience do you have of the job of a multinational CEO?

It's an opinion shared by many other shareholders, around 50% of those that vote, is that fact enough for you.
Yes of course it's about value the CEO brings to a company, it's also about the rewards and how those rewards are granted which is at the crux of this matter.
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.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

I ran my own business, influenced and directed major changes on a National basis, those changes and new innovations that I personally introduced are now part and parcel of the industry that I was part of. Customers now have far more choice in their decision making regarding requirement and purchases. Introduction to the market was met with hostility by the establishment, promotions through National media including newspapers, radio and television took a toll on my health ore several years. However, these innovations are now growing into the international markets.
I sold my business to a major American Company about 20 years ago and now enjoy retirement, although I am playing building another micro business now.

Retirement doesn't. mean I should crawl under a rock and not express my beliefs, I am vehemently against Corporate greed and some the widening wealth gap. Yes I still sometimes struggle with grammar and spelling errors, but then that has never got in my way, but offers some idiots on forums some easy point scoring, they must have sad lives I imagine

No-one is suggesting you shouldn't express your beliefs, they are just asking that you stick to things you know and understand, rather than making claims for which you have zero experience.

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.

[crankedup]

Mr Whippy 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.

Erm, it's a fact that lots of shareholders think CEOs are paid too much if they do indeed all think the same.

CEOs will think they're not paid enough, some of those paying their salaries will probably think they're paid too much.


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.


Healthy capitalism is exactly what this country needs right now!

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!

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

I am also a Capitalist, but not at the expense of everything else which supports Society.

Unfortunately it is not always the best move to sell shares on the basis that the Board are being overpaid. Blue cihips are the bedrock of investments in company shares, usually safe reliable, rather dull, investments. They do usually pay reasonable dividends with a creep upwards in share price. I feel strongly in regard to over generous pay but not so strongly as to want to cut off my nose to spite my face. This is especially reinforced in the face of almost negative interest on cash investment.

So far as Government intervention is concerned, I long for the day when legislation is introduced which will lead to small investor votes regarding pay recommendations to be binding. This strikes me as being fair and reasonable.

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

smifffymoto said:

Rovinghawk said:

smifffymoto said:

All this has stopped but the bosses take no pay cuts,something has to give.

Why not start your own business if it's that good a deal?

You know this thread is about bosses of multinationals and global big hitters not sme and one man bands but if you want to "score points" carry on.
BTW I'm retired .

The principle is the same- those who run the company decide how it's run. Anyone wishing to run it otherwise should get in a position where they run the show rather than whingeing about how others do it.

Enjoy your retirement and let those still working worry about the world of work.

No that is incorrect, the CEO and Board put forward proposals for shareholders to decide on how the Company should move forward. Therefore it is the shareholders who run the company and employ people to execute the instructions from them.

[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.

[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.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

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!

Change comes slowly, you once again make the mistake of suggesting that shareholders will change matters regarding the debate subject. For the millionth time small shareholder votes are non binding, that means they can be and generally are, disregarded by the Board.
Fair play your use of the generic terms within the investment industry plainly makes my contentions completely incorrect.
You keep saying I am prejudice , if that means sick to the back teeth of the current system of reward level in the Board rooms, yes you are correct
My comment about cosy relationships between investment houses and FTSE companies stands.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

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.

As usual, your claims are based on nothing but prejudice and don't align with the realities for those of us that actually have experience of the situation,

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.

You miss the point - again.

I don't dispute what 'some' shareholders think - I simply dispute your claims about institutional fund managers and their involvement as shareholders, At least you are now admitting they you don't actually have any knowledge on which you are basing those claims!

Me thinks you are most desperate in your quest to somehow swim against a tide of dissatisfaction so vividly apparent to all, except yourself of course. The actual intricacies of the workings of the industry you are in are of no importance to me, what is important are the fundamentals. Your use of minor inaccuracies are testimony to your desperation.

In life I always found that a little humility goes a long way, clearly that is not part of your make up, at least I have never seen anything approaching humility within any of your posts. Some see humility as a weakness, to me it's a strength You may wonder why I mention this? it is merely myself trying to understand 'what mAkes you tick' which in turn may help me to be able to interpret your posts to a better understanding and my responses to your posts.

Edited by crankedup on Friday 20th May 10:50

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

legzr1 said:

You're hilarious.

I remember when you were banned from an AV forum for your snidey insults to other members when losing an argument.

Once again, you are wrong. I'd lost nothing, just got fed up with the usual ignorant claims from the usual suspect(s) and unfortunately fell foul of the deputy moderator who was massively left wing with a huge chip on his shoulder. The regulator moderator wouldn't have banned me and said as much, but who cares? They made the rules, so even when I was invited back I wasn't interested.

legzr1 said:

Your version of what happened in the 'union' thread tells me everything I need to know about you.

Why don't you actually explain yourself rather than hiding behind a pathetic vague slur?

Regardless, still you persist with your off topic nonsense. You know nothing, and your continued attempts to provoke me suggest you have a significant issue that you need to resolve. Please go away.

legzr1 said:

Only in your world could 'button pusher' ever be considered an insult - get out more, it'll do you the world of good.

It is irrelevant to what I do, but it's generally taken as a less than positive comment.

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 19th May 23:26

Have you noticed sidicks that you now stand alone defending the dreadful accusations made involving the industry in which you work? There is a reason for this, other such defenders have, by and large, realised that they were wrong, not entirely of course, but fundamentally wrong.

Please advise me of whom you work for, the thought of any of my money supporting you or your company makes me feel sick.

Edited by crankedup on Friday 20th May 15:33

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Me thinks you are most desperate in your quest to somehow swim against a tide of dissatisfaction so vividly apparent to all, except yourself of course.

Things will change according to what the majority of shareholders want - as usual you confuse what you want with the majority. Shareholders should decide how the business they own should be run,

crankedup said:

The actual intricacies of the workings of the industry you are in are of no importance to me, what is important are the fundamentals.

And there we have it - facts are not important, you can just make up your ignorant claims from afar and hope no-one disputes them.

crankedup said:

Your use of minor inaccuracies are testimony to your desperation. As a shareholder and holder of trust funds I must have confidence in the investment houses that deal with my investments,

In that case I'd recommend actually finding out about most investment firms actually do in this regard, rather than make false claims!

crankedup said:

Having said that I offer you two points for correcting my mistake of not using correct industry terminology, I e pact you now to say it's worth more points than that?

???

Edited by sidicks on Friday 20th May 14:53

See you have moved the goalposts on my thread, it's about CEO pay NOT how a company is run.
Maybe true what you say about investigating fully exactly shattered it is that investment houses offer, oh hang on that's something I have been arguing for!! Investigation is underway by people who will dig about deeper than I am able. Quite pleased you now, at long last agree.
False claims, what false claims have I made!

[crankedup]

Hol said:

I actually run a company that has associations with the asset management industry and in the past I have worked for an asset manager (most of which are NOT owned by banks either )



Sidlicks is both factually and historically correct in his observations about how fund managers have influenced pay for a long time..

Crankedup and Legzr1 are not....they have opinions based on their 'feelings' ONLY.




A whole lot of opinion and a lack understanding always seems to bring out an argument on PH where both sides are intractable in their views, but in reality only one of them actually understands.

Your fund manager is interested in maximising the returns of his end investors - even IF they happen to be misinformed individuals like Crank and Leg, the Fund manager will still make the best decision possible, to make sure that neither of them retire bitter and penniless.

My contention is that fund managers certainly influenced Board pay recommendations, by nodding and grunting through excessive rewards. So I do agree the facts but it's a negative and something that needs to be investigated.

When you suggest that fund managers make the best decisions possible, I assume you are talking about the buy/sell issue?

Understanding is not required, it is transparency that is missing from the industry. No evidence whatsoever has been shown in this thread regarding value for investment. Sidicks or you may suggest meeting the average is fine, of course but it's not an answer it's just a notion that one investment house is as bad as the next.

[crankedup]

Hol said:

I actually run a company that has associations with the asset management industry and in the past I have worked for an asset manager (most of which are NOT owned by banks either )



Sidlicks is both factually and historically correct in his observations about how fund managers have influenced pay for a long time..

Crankedup and Legzr1 are not....they have opinions based on their 'feelings' ONLY.




A whole lot of opinion and a lack understanding always seems to bring out an argument on PH where both sides are intractable in their views, but in reality only one of them actually understands.

Your fund manager is interested in maximising the returns of his end investors - even IF they happen to be misinformed individuals like Crank and Leg, the Fund manager will still make the best decision possible, to make sure that neither of them retire bitter and penniless.

Having ran a business and then sold it n I have no need to rely upon shiny suits, of course I invest in shares through unit trust funds and also my own individual holdings. Perhaps you may care to retract your comments about bitter and penniless as it is wholly incorrect and unfounded.

[crankedup]

Mr Whippy said:

crankedup said:

Having said that I offer you two points for correcting my mistake of not using correct industry terminology, I e pact you now to say it's worth more points than that?

You too eh?

My posts are picked apart on details despite the merit of the points being made being very clear and reasonably made.

Not that I care too much, I get a mild education and then I move on and still feel the same way about the fundamental argument I was making.


But I also do think there is a case of many people not being able to see the wood for the trees in lots of industries. They are so comfortable with the status quo and so wrapped up in the detail, they can't stand back and see the big picture in simple terms.

I believe the pension industry is like this too.


Only really the direct to consumer industries like fashion are really in touch with the consumers perspective and needs. They adapt ahead of the consumer to stay relevant, they don't wait for consumers to change their tastes.

Advertising too has to really push boundaries to engage.

Finance and pensions are like dinosaurs who couldn't change to save their lives... which is why government seems to have to do it for them by legislating to keep them relevant and competitive.

I have freely and openly owned up about my in depth knowledge of the intricacies of financial investment houses and how they operate. But it seems to me that if you are not a dedicated expert you are wrong to complain, suggest, invoke any sort of opinion that is contrary to the image that sidicks likes to enthuse over. The sad part is that the whole of the industry has this bad attitude, no wonder a full investigation into this industry has been ordered, about time I say.
I agree with your comments entirely, it is an industry where time has stood still, well very nearly. Time for a blooming good shakedown.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

See you have moved the goalposts on my thread, it's about CEO pay NOT how a company is run.
Maybe true what you say about investigating fully exactly shattered it is that investment houses offer, oh hang on that's something I have been arguing for!! Investigation is underway by people who will dig about deeper than I am able. Quite pleased you now, at long last agree.
False claims, what false claims have I made!

Oh FFS! How many times?

Try this for starters...

crankedup said:

those businesses running pension funds do not give a flying fig about the pay board recommendations. Therefore simply nod and grunt.

crankedup said:

fund managers have simply grunted and nodded through massive hikes in Corporate Board pay, time for change.

crankedup said:

Boardroom pay hikes for the past twenty years or so!

crankedup said:

Well said! an indication of the indifference between those that invest real money and those that are paid to invest on behalf of those that pay their wages.

ctankedup said:

Like I have said for years, Fund Managers simply wave through any pay board recommendations.

crankedup said:

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

crankedup said:

My contention is that fund managers certainly influenced Board pay recommendations, by nodding and grunting through excessive rewards.

Thank you for putting all my facts into one basket. All of the points are those shared by other small investors and it is partially the reason why the industry is being investigated, amongst other matters. You can't see it because you have become 'smell blind'.

With so much shareholder discontent you and people like you should be concerned, instead you breath arrogance at every turn.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Have you noticed sidicks that you now stand alone defending the dreadful accusations made involving the industry in which you work?

Plenty of people disagreed with you at the start of thread - they just get bored with responding to people who have already made up their minds about something (despite having limited understanding of the issue in question).

crankedup said:

There is a reason for this, other such defenders have, by and large, realised that they were wrong, not entirely of course, but fundamentally wrong.

Priceless!




Please advise me of whom you work for, the thought of any of my money supporting you or your company makes me feel sick.

Edited by crankedup on Friday 20th May 15:33

Scrapping the barrel, I still say and always will until such times as matters are corrected that CEO pay is grossly excessive and that the investment houses fund managers have much to do with the problem, that is nodding and grunting through the excessive pay rewards.