True. I read it as if you were classifying hedge funds as fly-by-night outfits. I should relax more.

Sort-of.
The pension funds clearly ARE involved as are fly-by-night hedgies, retail investors and even those passive investors such as anyone with a FTSE tracker.

However, I applaud the "shareholder spring" because I firmly believe that wealth inequality is now so far out of whack that it has become socially damaging.
We, as a society, are intimately involved in wealth creation and wealth division.

In a situation where you are earning more in a year than you could possibly spend in a lifetime I just don't see the harm in clipping their wings.

Would The Great Zuck have failed to work so hard on FB if he thought he would only become a multi-millionaire not multi-billionaire?
No way. He was doing it for sts and giggles.
Would Silicon Valley be less entrepreneurial if you took a zero or two off the lottery-win style returns a founder can achieve?
No way.

Would Sorrell have worked less hard last year if he thought he might get a minor pay cut this year?
Hardly.

Will the UK be slightly less inclined to riot if they are seeing astronomically well paid people also seeing a pay-cut.
Possibly.

Maybe, maybe not. Probably unlikely in his circumstances, but he might have touted his wares with other companies and moved. Maybe to a non-UK domiciled company. And then WPP shareholders and the UK Revenue lose. Is it worth that risk?

The recent riots were nothing to do with this, no matter what people might have tried to suggest. You're right that there are people wanting wealthy people "cut down to size". But how far that has to go to preclude riots who knows. And even then there will be bodies of people simply out for a ruck and a bit of looting.

That's why you need a shareholder spring-like event.

If ALL the companies are cutting CEO pay then WPP is still the best place for Sorrell to work and the grass isn't greener elsewhere.
All that happens is that EVERY CEO is slightly worse off.

In which case you might see a few more seeking early retirement but no one is jumping ship.

On the riots point, of course there are untold numbers of reasons why you have riots but ALL ELSE EQUAL slightly fewer fat-cat CEOs could only help no?
I am just making the point that excessive wealth inequality breeds significant discontent in a recession.
A shareholder spring will do A LITTLE to mitigate that discontent.

We had riots because we have an entire culture that is used to being given everything on a plate without ever working.

Just like spoilt little brats they want more and more.

Cutting the incomes of those at the top will not change the behaviour of those at the bottom. It would be madness to even think so.

Might you change your opinion on wealth inequality if it could be shown that there is a negative correlation between the overall happiness and social cohesion of nations and the degree of wealth inequality therein?

People in jobs are also forgetting the trickle down effect of having their boss' salary cut

It just doesn't serve any positive purpose.

Cutting the salaries of CEOs won't change the wealth divide. These people do not define the top earners. It will however trickle down and impact salaries of the private sector.

It's good that shareholders are taking an interest in their fiduciary duties and it's good that their custodians are paying heed but none of this will impact the wealth divide, not that the divide is relevant.

As I said, the problem is people at the lowest working rung taking home less than non workers and not enough jobs.

The problem with envy politics is that not only does it spike the envious but it also risks damaging the least fortunate.

We need more CEOs and more businesses not fewer.

But the people should be lobbying govt for support for small businesses to assist them to employ more. SMEs need support in order to compete against the multinationals. Building internal competition to these firms will not only put pressure on boards in these firms but have far reaching positive impacts on regional blights and general social woes.

For 30 years govt has favoured big business over small and this needs to be reversed to bring back opportunity and cohesion to regional populations.

Unemployment combined with govt incentives to not work are the roots of our problems not a small number of people at the top.

But sadly the masses are thick and ignorant and will allways cut off their noses to spite their faces than stand up and do the right thing.

As a Country we can no longer sustain, in terms of social acceptability, the huge pay gap that has opened up over the past ten years (400%). If some CEO'S get the ache and move out I can imagine a few foreign CEO's just waiting in the wings to fill the gap. Its a World market and this nonsense about 'we can't afford to lose him or her' just will not cut it now.

Really? I mean the last line was perhaps a bit harsh but actually you know what our masses to prove to be exactly that on many an occasion so whilst harsh it does seem to have some weight. The rest however seemed to be making some sense, or did you just skip to the last line decide to take offence and ignore the rest?

Sorry I am going to have to duck this one, If I say yes I will have to name them and speak of my association with them, if, on the other hand I say no you will suggest that I do not have the knowledge to speak of such things. So how do I counter this, perhaps I will simply say its for me to know only and you will have to form your own conclusions. TBH I cannot see it makes very much difference either way regarding this particular discussion, but I do understand your motives for asking.