Pigs at the trough 2016

[sidicks]

legzr1 said:

As I thought, you were wrong, can't find a post of mine in this thread that backs up your assertion and now it's time for wriggle, twist and face saving.

Similar to Siddicks tactics.

He too works with/for similar financial institutions - is this a trend?

Go on, show some humility - I just know it's in there somewhere.

Sorry, didn't you get the memo?

Apparently, rather than justify your comments you can simply respond with:

legzr1 said:

There is no need

[Hol]

legzr1 said:

Hol said:

Ok Mr ******.

Show ME in the above statement of mine where I have said anything othan YOu have opinions based on your feelings.

You can't can you?


Guess what.... You are...

As I thought, you were wrong, can't find a post of mine in this thread that backs up your assertion and now it's time for wriggle, twist and face saving.

Similar to Siddicks tactics.

He too works with/for similar financial institutions - is this a trend?

Go on, show some humility - I just know it's in there somewhere.

So, you accuse me of saying something YOU made up. And then insult me when I can't find this thing that I didn't even say.

Just listen to yourself.....

[Hol]

sidicks said:

legzr1 said:

As I thought, you were wrong, can't find a post of mine in this thread that backs up your assertion and now it's time for wriggle, twist and face saving.

Similar to Siddicks tactics.

He too works with/for similar financial institutions - is this a trend?

Go on, show some humility - I just know it's in there somewhere.

Sorry, didn't you get the memo?

Apparently, rather than justify your comments you can simply respond with:

legzr1 said:

There is no need

Is it just me, or does he also remind you of the whingey interrogator in a really ste low budget spy movie.
You know the one I mean - he tells the good guys friend he is lying, even she he is telling the truth, because it wasn't what he wanted to hear.

[sidicks]

Hol said:

Is it just me, or does he also remind you of the whingey interrogator in a really ste low budget spy movie.
You know the one I mean - he tells the good guys friend he is lying, even she he is telling the truth, because it wasn't what he wanted to hear.

No comment.

[crankedup]

Mr Whippy said:

But fundamentally they're allowed to have the opinion that CEOs are paid too much.

I think they take too much in pay too.


But like I've said, the only people to change this are the people who own these businesses, and they need to stand up together to make a fundamental change in attitude.

Easy to do, but people are still too apathetic

100% agree, but we can't have any impact upon pay board recommendations, that is us small shareholders. And that is the crux of my dissatisfaction with the current system. Small shareholders are of course allowed to vote regards pay board recommendations, but our votes are non binding or put another way, advisory. The board are not obliged to accept and implement any small shareholder votes on the matter, they are non binding. And that is the most annoying part of the process.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

No room for guessing I'm afraid, and I not sure that fund managers nodding and grunting through pay board recommendations is the basis of corruption, after all the fund manager is not the only suit casting a vote. no wonder you get yourself stewed up, you read stuff that isn't there, or is it a guilt complex, I wouldn't know.

They don't - HTH

They don't what?

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

Mr Whippy said:

But fundamentally they're allowed to have the opinion that CEOs are paid too much.

I think they take too much in pay too.


But like I've said, the only people to change this are the people who own these businesses, and they need to stand up together to make a fundamental change in attitude.

Easy to do, but people are still too apathetic

Agreed 100%.

The OP admitted he isn't prepared to put his money where his mouth is, which says a lot.

Did I really? Refresh my memory on how we arrived at that conclusion

[crankedup]

legzr1 said:

Hol said:

Ok Mr ******.

Show ME in the above statement of mine where I have said anything othan YOu have opinions based on your feelings.

You can't can you?


Guess what.... You are...

As I thought, you were wrong, can't find a post of mine in this thread that backs up your assertion and now it's time for wriggle, twist and face saving.

Similar to Siddicks tactics.

He too works with/for similar financial institutions - is this a trend?

Go on, show some humility - I just know it's in there somewhere.

Back of the net! Spot on. You won't read of any humility from the likes of those that we disagree with, for some reason they must think it's a show of superiority not to show such human considerations. Sad really.

[crankedup]

Hol said:

sidicks said:

legzr1 said:

As I thought, you were wrong, can't find a post of mine in this thread that backs up your assertion and now it's time for wriggle, twist and face saving.

Similar to Siddicks tactics.

He too works with/for similar financial institutions - is this a trend?

Go on, show some humility - I just know it's in there somewhere.

Sorry, didn't you get the memo?

Apparently, rather than justify your comments you can simply respond with:

legzr1 said:

There is no need

Is it just me, or does he also remind you of the whingey interrogator in a really ste low budget spy movie.
You know the one I mean - he tells the good guys friend he is lying, even she he is telling the truth, because it wasn't what he wanted to hear.

You financial institution types are not supposed to have fertile imaginations, careful you may start enjoying yourself.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

sidicks said:

The OP admitted he isn't prepared to put his money where his mouth is, which says a lot.

Did I really? Refresh my memory on how we arrived at that conclusion

This is too easy...

crankedup said:

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.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

No room for guessing I'm afraid, and I not sure that fund managers nodding and grunting through pay board recommendations is the basis of corruption, after all the fund manager is not the only suit casting a vote. no wonder you get yourself stewed up, you read stuff that isn't there, or is it a guilt complex, I wouldn't know.

They don't - HTH

They don't what?

The section has already been highlighted in bold for you - not sure what else I can do to help you understand...

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 22 May 07:11

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Back of the net! Spot on. You won't read of any humility from the likes of those that we disagree with, for some reason they must think it's a show of superiority not to show such human considerations. Sad really.

Humility is a most valuable and positive trait - I think it's very important to recognise the areas where one has little or no experience and defer to others - for this reason the vast majority of my posts are limited to a few key areas where I have a lot of experience - rather to suggest that one's own view is somehow more important.

On the other hand, some people:
- seem to believe that their views are much more important than others ("small shareholders should have more say than large shareholders")
- seem to believe that their opinions are more important than those with years of actual experience

Perhaps you might review your own posts in the context of 'humility' before making comments about others...

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

100% agree, but we can't have any impact upon pay board recommendations, that is us small shareholders. And that is the crux of my dissatisfaction with the current system. Small shareholders are of course allowed to vote regards pay board recommendations, but our votes are non binding or put another way, advisory. The board are not obliged to accept and implement any small shareholder votes on the matter, they are non binding. And that is the most annoying part of the process.

Are the votes of large shareholders binding in a way that those of small shareholders are not?
Why should minority shareholders have greater influence than other shareholders?

[legzr1]

Hol said:

So, you accuse me of saying something YOU made up. And then insult me when I can't find this thing that I didn't even say.

Just listen to yourself.....

You bundled me in with Cranked in a half-Arsed rant when I hadn't actually made comment on the topic up until then.

You assumed I'd made the same comments as Cranked.


I asked you to provide proof of this.

You did not.
You cannot.
Stop digging.

I presume this will be the last we hear of it...
Have a good day

[legzr1]

sidicks said:

legzr1 said:

As I thought, you were wrong, can't find a post of mine in this thread that backs up your assertion and now it's time for wriggle, twist and face saving.

Similar to Siddicks tactics.

He too works with/for similar financial institutions - is this a trend?

Go on, show some humility - I just know it's in there somewhere.

Sorry, didn't you get the memo?

Apparently, rather than justify your comments you can simply respond with:

legzr1 said:

There is no need

You know there is no need.

You're already aware of my opinion of you and the way you twist everything when you're caught out.
Seems you have an understudy in this thread.
Good luck HoL.


I used a four letter word to describe you in another thread - that gave you the opportunity to run to Mods to get me removed from a thread in which you were out of your depth.

There is no need to repeat that.

HTH

[sidicks]

legzr1 said:

You're already aware of my opinion of you...

How strange! You appear to know everything about me based on my Internet forum posts, yet somehow You seem to believe that we can't discern anything about you in the same manner...

legzr1 said:

You know nothing about me or my life so you clutch at straws

[Mr Whippy]

crankedup said:

Mr Whippy said:

But fundamentally they're allowed to have the opinion that CEOs are paid too much.

I think they take too much in pay too.


But like I've said, the only people to change this are the people who own these businesses, and they need to stand up together to make a fundamental change in attitude.

Easy to do, but people are still too apathetic

100% agree, but we can't have any impact upon pay board recommendations, that is us small shareholders. And that is the crux of my dissatisfaction with the current system. Small shareholders are of course allowed to vote regards pay board recommendations, but our votes are non binding or put another way, advisory. The board are not obliged to accept and implement any small shareholder votes on the matter, they are non binding. And that is the most annoying part of the process.

This is where small shareholders need to stick together.

In aggregate their holdings will be significant. An orderly exit from the holdings of that business would make sense.

But again people wouldn't want the risk of losing some money so they don't do it. So we're back to apathy and their ethics only going so far.

[Hol]

legzr1 said:

Hol said:

So, you accuse me of saying something YOU made up. And then insult me when I can't find this thing that I didn't even say.

Just listen to yourself.....

You bundled me in with Cranked in a half-Arsed rant when I hadn't actually made comment on the topic up until then.

You assumed I'd made the same comments as Cranked.


I asked you to provide proof of this.

You did not.
You cannot.
Stop digging.

I presume this will be the last we hear of it...
Have a good day

I have provided you with an explanation of where you have dug a mineshaft of your own design.

You made an assumption and commented, that my prior paragraph was about the two of you, because you didn't read it properly. It was quite clearly a general comment that didn't, mention either of you and had no linked correlation to my second paragraph - which did mention you.

Or, you did read it properly and the message actually struck a chord in your physche even though it was a generalisation, hence you went on the attack and started acting like id slapped you in the face.


Ironic really, when you read it.



Your wrong, you owe me an apology for your obvious error, but I don't want one, as I don't really want to converse with somebody like you any further.
Do you understand now?

Hol said:

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.

Edited by Hol on Sunday 22 May 12:23

[Hol]

crankedup said:

You financial institution types are not supposed to have fertile imaginations, careful you may start enjoying yourself.

I guess starting my working career as a Landscape Gardener, before I realised I had an advanced analytical mind, gives me a wholly different perspective to my colleagues who went to Oxbridge, because they could.

It's a mistake for people to assume I am a chinless wonder, just because I work in that industry.

Edited by Hol on Sunday 22 May 12:34

[sealtt]

Fragmented corporate ownership has led to this scenario... as paraphrased from a Mr Bogle (Founder and Former Chairman, The Vanguard Group, writer of Battle for the Soul of Capitalism)...


Late in the twentieth century, something went wrong, a "pathological mutation in capitalism," in the words of journalist William Pfaff. The classic system—owners' capitalism—had been based on a dedication to serving the interests of the corporation's owners in maximizing the return on their capital investment. But a new system developed—managers' capitalism—in which, Pfaff wrote, "the corporation came to be run to profit its managers, in complicity if not conspiracy with accountants and the managers of other corporations." Why did it happen? "Because the markets had so diffused corporate ownership that no responsible owner exists. This is morally unacceptable, but also a corruption of capitalism itself." And so it is.

Once an "ownership society" in which direct owners of stock held voting control over corporate America [UK, etc], we have become an "agency society," and we are not going back. But the agents—largely mutual fund managers and pension fund trustees—have failed to represent, first and foremost, their principals—pension beneficiaries and owners of mutual fund shares. These intermediaries consume far too large a portion of whatever returns our corporations and our financial markets are generous enough to provide, with far too small a portion of these returns delivered to the last-line investors who have put up all of the capital and assumed all of the risks.