Executive Pay rises 41%, worker pay 1%

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

DJRC said:

crankedup said:

DJRC said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

At long last? It's been the position all along. Shareholders exercising power is overdue, complain to them whoever they are on a case by case basis, not PH.

Correct Turbobloke, but the long winded discussion last year I had with many PH members who then, for some reason I could never fathom out, was that Dr Vince Cable was quite wrong to propose legislation that would permit the owners of Companies to be given BINDING voting Rights. Look back at the thread about the Barclays Bank shareholders. Of course most of the stuff spouted by other PH members was either ignorance or just being obtuse.

But that wasnt the discussion. Your stance was never about company owners and shareholders, nor was it where Vince was coming from originally. It was in govt. legislating some kind of restraint. YOU were told *explicitly* and repeatedly that the responsibility was on the shareholders to impose upon the management their concerns with regards to remuneration. Your position was always supporting Saint Vince's position of govt regulating, NOT the shareholders and company owners.

Look back at my posts and I make many many references throughout in many posts, most being dismissed as leftie rantings. Your pick and splitting hairs mate, go back and read some threads. I know PH doesn't like to be wrong but in this instance they were.

Spitting hairs???? You were outright stating 180 degree the opposite of that! You and Vince were arguing the govt should be regulating and controlling the pay, NOT for the shareholders and owners.

Happened before. Is crankedup actually Grasshopper following Sensei's advice to bend (viewpoint) with the prevailing wind...if so ICMTP

Not long ago crankedup said:

Amazingly I agree with Zod, the City Institutions also select from outside of the uni's I am pleased to say. My own Daughter is a product of Secondary Modern schooling, took a lowly paid job in the low end of finance and has steadily worked her way up the greasy pole of achievement.

Yet the pixels are barely dry on this one...

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

otolith said:

eccles said:

Personality? I thought it was all about skill.

You know, here is a thought, I think it might just be a range of attributes, including talent, education, experience and, yes, personality. The other attributes won't get you far if you are passive, idle and unambitious, will they?

One of the attributes that you have left out and of utmost importance, the old boys network tie.

Can't see any on Ebay. What do they look like?

Have a wander around the City at lunch times, they are easy to spot if you know what to look for.

Hmmm.

In reply to your very childish responses, my Daughter is a person with her own mind, she was brought up to 'do well'work hard and be honest with everything in life. Is that wrong in your world?
My Daughter adopted the mindset and is now making her own way in the City, holding down a responsible position. Is that something that is to be frowned upon?
Selective quotes are the poorest form of critique. It is very shallow of you attempting to discredit my opinions in such a way. Yes some jobs are selected from outside of Uni's so far as city backroom jobs go, hardly the same thing as appointmets of senior Executives and CEO's is it. If you cannot argue sensibly why try at all?

[turbobloke]

Childish responses you mean people have a memory and you want one too?!

As you will clearly appreciate it had nothing to do with your daughter, good luck to her

Selective quotes...I know, people will select the bits you wish they hadn't

Is this another 'I wuz taken out of context guv'?

Rock on

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

What wrankles in me is the fact that PH always goes for the line 'if they don't like it find another job'. This is used when discussing workers rights and pay. And yet when it comes to CEO remuneration its always OK for them to hold the Company to ransom with excessive demands, because the group seems to be deluded into believing these people are worth it.

Surely someone can only be holding them to ransom if they are worth it?

To my mind the same logic applies across the board... If you don't believe they are worth the money they are asking/wanting then get rid... That logic applies from the bloke that cleans the bogs to the CEO surely?

Yes of course, however in the past CEO's have been able to 'get away' with excessive remuneration awards on the basis of Company growth, fair enough until one considers the back drop within the financial and business world up until 2007/8. Not overly demanding to be able to grow and make decent profits. Different back drop now and tough markets add to that the shareholders have been largely ignored when it came to voting regards executive remuneration, being only an advisory non binding vote. Broadly speaking a average executive could get away with average performance and still enjoy excessive rewards, that will now be changing with the introduction of shareholders votes being binding. This is why I make a reference to the matter of CEO and executives can walk away when the shareholders dismiss claims for excessive reward. At long last shareholders will become meaningful part owners in Companies.

There is a heck of an assumption in what you are seeking to engender - that being the shareholders are equipped to make the decision and/or are doing so for the right motives.

I posted in the other thread you have started on the WPP subject there is a heck of a risk taken by engendering this ability - that risk being that the now powerful block voting funds that have the majority holdings and therefore the control are now in a position where they can claw back some nice healthy profits without making any more actual money by reducing exec pay. All well and good you cry and about bloody time too etc etc.

.....But is it?

The risk you have then taken is that the fund holders sack off £10m in costs on the exec committee and it gets back into the company coffers and all looks rosy for a year or so... The stock price climbs so then that allows them (major stock holders) cash out on the higher stock price. The problem occurs with the next step in this scenario though - Said £100m company is now left with a £1m a year exec team who actually as it turns out is not capable of running the £100m company as well as the ones who wanted £11m a year and all of a sudden they business is in the toilet. Your block voting funds don't care though as they have now reaped their rewards and are off to the next £100m company to do the same again.

Hardly helps the man in the street shareholder and more importantly the workers in the said £100m company though who now have an incompetent exec board because the block voting shareholders wanted their pound of flesh before they scarpered.

I am not saying that the above is a given I am saying it is possible bordering on probable when you look at the fact that really the ones who will be the controlling factor in these binding votes are not vested interest partners in the very long term future of the company in question only in the term that reaps them the most reward.

Being mindful of an old adage..... Be careful what you wish for!

Edited by heppers75 on Thursday 14th June 15:06

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your POV on this, but what I will say is that shareholders will have the right in the form of binding voting rights for the first time. Now your contention is purely suppositions, if and buts, some may happen some may not the important point is that the owners of these Companies will be able to exercise their decisions in a way that will affect the Companies concerned, for better (hopefully) or sometimes worse (possibly).
I am also mindful that the CEO and Executives will almost certainly have a vested interest in the business through their own shareholdings. Being afraid of the future is no good reason to dismiss new ideas is my response to the 'be careful what you wish for' school of thought.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

Childish responses you mean people have a memory and you want one too?!

As you will clearly appreciate it had nothing to do with your daughter, good luck to her

Selective quotes...I know, people will select the bits you wish they hadn't

Is this another 'I wuz taken out of context guv'?

Rock on

An even poorer reply, sad really why not face up to some facts, your not as bright as you may like some people to think, are you. Shallow, very shallow.

[heppers75]

crankedup said:

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

What wrankles in me is the fact that PH always goes for the line 'if they don't like it find another job'. This is used when discussing workers rights and pay. And yet when it comes to CEO remuneration its always OK for them to hold the Company to ransom with excessive demands, because the group seems to be deluded into believing these people are worth it.

Surely someone can only be holding them to ransom if they are worth it?

To my mind the same logic applies across the board... If you don't believe they are worth the money they are asking/wanting then get rid... That logic applies from the bloke that cleans the bogs to the CEO surely?

Yes of course, however in the past CEO's have been able to 'get away' with excessive remuneration awards on the basis of Company growth, fair enough until one considers the back drop within the financial and business world up until 2007/8. Not overly demanding to be able to grow and make decent profits. Different back drop now and tough markets add to that the shareholders have been largely ignored when it came to voting regards executive remuneration, being only an advisory non binding vote. Broadly speaking a average executive could get away with average performance and still enjoy excessive rewards, that will now be changing with the introduction of shareholders votes being binding. This is why I make a reference to the matter of CEO and executives can walk away when the shareholders dismiss claims for excessive reward. At long last shareholders will become meaningful part owners in Companies.

There is a heck of an assumption in what you are seeking to engender - that being the shareholders are equipped to make the decision and/or are doing so for the right motives.

I posted in the other thread you have started on the WPP subject there is a heck of a risk taken by engendering this ability - that risk being that the now powerful block voting funds that have the majority holdings and therefore the control are now in a position where they can claw back some nice healthy profits without making any more actual money by reducing exec pay. All well and good you cry and about bloody time too etc etc.

.....But is it?

The risk you have then taken is that the fund holders sack off £10m in costs on the exec committee and it gets back into the company coffers and all looks rosy for a year or so... The stock price climbs so then that allows them (major stock holders) cash out on the higher stock price. The problem occurs with the next step in this scenario though - Said £100m company is now left with a £1m a year exec team who actually as it turns out is not capable of running the £100m company as well as the ones who wanted £11m a year and all of a sudden they business is in the toilet. Your block voting funds don't care though as they have now reaped their rewards and are off to the next £100m company to do the same again.

Hardly helps the man in the street shareholder and more importantly the workers in the said £100m company though who now have an incompetent exec board because the block voting shareholders wanted their pound of flesh before they scarpered.

I am not saying that the above is a given I am saying it is possible bordering on probable when you look at the fact that really the ones who will be the controlling factor in these binding votes are not vested interest partners in the very long term future of the company in question only in the term that reaps them the most reward.

Being mindful of an old adage..... Be careful what you wish for!

Edited by heppers75 on Thursday 14th June 15:06

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your POV on this, but what I will say is that shareholders will have the right in the form of binding voting rights for the first time. Now your contention is purely suppositions, if and buts, some may happen some may not the important point is that the owners of these Companies will be able to exercise their decisions in a way that will affect the Companies concerned, for better (hopefully) or sometimes worse (possibly).
I am also mindful that the CEO and Executives will almost certainly have a vested interest in the business through their own shareholdings. Being afraid of the future is no good reason to dismiss new ideas is my response to the 'be careful what you wish for' school of thought.

I agree it is a supposition but it is based on a pretty rational set of logic, in the sense that actually the majority shareholders in these firms are not the likes of the man in the street we are not empowering the people here and to think this would is a tad naive. The simple fact is the majority shareholders in these firms are speculative share dealing traders themselves and they have and will continue to demonstrate the morals of an alley cat when it comes to extracting a profit from their portfolios. I think we are all well aware that a few of the ethical and religion based funds excepted we are not talking about the most scrupulous of professions here and that is whom this hands control over to.

If you accept that premise then logically you get to the conclusion that when it comes to their concern for the longevity of a particular business they don't have one, their interest is in maximising the return on their shareholdings for a period which will lets face it will be a couple of years and if that does untold damage to the company over the next 5 or ten years or even causes it to fold, once they are out they are not going to care.

It is not to do with being afraid of the future, it is ensuring that you consider all the cons as well as the pros for a given idea and do so eyes open.

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

Childish responses you mean people have a memory and you want one too?!

As you will clearly appreciate it had nothing to do with your daughter, good luck to her

Selective quotes...I know, people will select the bits you wish they hadn't

Is this another 'I wuz taken out of context guv'?

Rock on

An even poorer reply, sad really why not face up to some facts, your not as bright as you may like some people to think, are you. Shallow, very shallow.

You got me there, I wake up every day and wish I was as profound and all-knowing as a libdim supporter

For your part when you claim to be an unwavering force, a rock in the shifting sands of the political and social commentary landscape, it would help if there wasn't evidence to the contrary from your own keyboard. Let me know when I proudly flaunt my membership of Greenpeas

Shooting the messenger with tame and tepid insults...how bright and shallow is that? Answers on a postcard, or a post on PH but maybe best not unless you can find a sense of humour somewhere.

[DJRC]

crankedup said:

DJRC said:

crankedup said:

DJRC said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

At long last? It's been the position all along. Shareholders exercising power is overdue, complain to them whoever they are on a case by case basis, not PH.

Correct Turbobloke, but the long winded discussion last year I had with many PH members who then, for some reason I could never fathom out, was that Dr Vince Cable was quite wrong to propose legislation that would permit the owners of Companies to be given BINDING voting Rights. Look back at the thread about the Barclays Bank shareholders. Of course most of the stuff spouted by other PH members was either ignorance or just being obtuse.

But that wasnt the discussion. Your stance was never about company owners and shareholders, nor was it where Vince was coming from originally. It was in govt. legislating some kind of restraint. YOU were told *explicitly* and repeatedly that the responsibility was on the shareholders to impose upon the management their concerns with regards to remuneration. Your position was always supporting Saint Vince's position of govt regulating, NOT the shareholders and company owners.

Look back at my posts and I make many many references throughout in many posts, most being dismissed as leftie rantings. Your pick and splitting hairs mate, go back and read some threads. I know PH doesn't like to be wrong but in this instance they were.

Spitting hairs???? You were outright stating 180 degree the opposite of that! You and Vince were arguing the govt should be regulating and controlling the pay, NOT for the shareholders and owners.

Your clearly not reading my previous posts. For goodness sake did you not understand that Dr Cables proposal was about regulating remuneration through shareholders voting rights be legislated as binding, not advisory. I have always advocated shareholders voting rights being used in a form of those votes being Binding regards executive and CEO remuneration. If you can't find those posts that is a problem for you and you alone. And yes I have always supported Dr Cable and his political policy proposals, he has more common sense than all of the Tories put together IMO.

OK, Ill state this again. Vince started from a position of regulating via the govt, NOT anything to do with voting rights being binding.

If you wish to suggest otherwise or re-write history then Sir you are nowt but telling porkies.

[London424]

crankedup, what do you mean by 'binding votes'? What do you see actually happening?

Apologies if you've already answered this question.

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

What wrankles in me is the fact that PH always goes for the line 'if they don't like it find another job'. This is used when discussing workers rights and pay. And yet when it comes to CEO remuneration its always OK for them to hold the Company to ransom with excessive demands, because the group seems to be deluded into believing these people are worth it.

Surely someone can only be holding them to ransom if they are worth it?

To my mind the same logic applies across the board... If you don't believe they are worth the money they are asking/wanting then get rid... That logic applies from the bloke that cleans the bogs to the CEO surely?

Yes of course, however in the past CEO's have been able to 'get away' with excessive remuneration awards on the basis of Company growth, fair enough until one considers the back drop within the financial and business world up until 2007/8. Not overly demanding to be able to grow and make decent profits. Different back drop now and tough markets add to that the shareholders have been largely ignored when it came to voting regards executive remuneration, being only an advisory non binding vote. Broadly speaking a average executive could get away with average performance and still enjoy excessive rewards, that will now be changing with the introduction of shareholders votes being binding. This is why I make a reference to the matter of CEO and executives can walk away when the shareholders dismiss claims for excessive reward. At long last shareholders will become meaningful part owners in Companies.

There is a heck of an assumption in what you are seeking to engender - that being the shareholders are equipped to make the decision and/or are doing so for the right motives.

I posted in the other thread you have started on the WPP subject there is a heck of a risk taken by engendering this ability - that risk being that the now powerful block voting funds that have the majority holdings and therefore the control are now in a position where they can claw back some nice healthy profits without making any more actual money by reducing exec pay. All well and good you cry and about bloody time too etc etc.

.....But is it?

The risk you have then taken is that the fund holders sack off £10m in costs on the exec committee and it gets back into the company coffers and all looks rosy for a year or so... The stock price climbs so then that allows them (major stock holders) cash out on the higher stock price. The problem occurs with the next step in this scenario though - Said £100m company is now left with a £1m a year exec team who actually as it turns out is not capable of running the £100m company as well as the ones who wanted £11m a year and all of a sudden they business is in the toilet. Your block voting funds don't care though as they have now reaped their rewards and are off to the next £100m company to do the same again.

Hardly helps the man in the street shareholder and more importantly the workers in the said £100m company though who now have an incompetent exec board because the block voting shareholders wanted their pound of flesh before they scarpered.

I am not saying that the above is a given I am saying it is possible bordering on probable when you look at the fact that really the ones who will be the controlling factor in these binding votes are not vested interest partners in the very long term future of the company in question only in the term that reaps them the most reward.

Being mindful of an old adage..... Be careful what you wish for!

Edited by heppers75 on Thursday 14th June 15:06

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your POV on this, but what I will say is that shareholders will have the right in the form of binding voting rights for the first time. Now your contention is purely suppositions, if and buts, some may happen some may not the important point is that the owners of these Companies will be able to exercise their decisions in a way that will affect the Companies concerned, for better (hopefully) or sometimes worse (possibly).
I am also mindful that the CEO and Executives will almost certainly have a vested interest in the business through their own shareholdings. Being afraid of the future is no good reason to dismiss new ideas is my response to the 'be careful what you wish for' school of thought.

I agree it is a supposition but it is based on a pretty rational set of logic, in the sense that actually the majority shareholders in these firms are not the likes of the man in the street we are not empowering the people here and to think this would is a tad naive. The simple fact is the majority shareholders in these firms are speculative share dealing traders themselves and they have and will continue to demonstrate the morals of an alley cat when it comes to extracting a profit from their portfolios. I think we are all well aware that a few of the ethical and religion based funds excepted we are not talking about the most scrupulous of professions here and that is whom this hands control over to.

If you accept that premise then logically you get to the conclusion that when it comes to their concern for the longevity of a particular business they don't have one, their interest is in maximising the return on their shareholdings for a period which will lets face it will be a couple of years and if that does untold damage to the company over the next 5 or ten years or even causes it to fold, once they are out they are not going to care.

It is not to do with being afraid of the future, it is ensuring that you consider all the cons as well as the pros for a given idea and do so eyes open.

Again I agree with what you have to say in the most part at least. However, the fact that already four FTSE Company CEO and director level bosses have felt the wrath of the shareholders should be fair warning to all. On the other side of your logic comes the fact that its been long overdue shareholders voting rights being binding. Already we see small shareholders, as a group, employing services of an independent 'expert' to advise the group before voting takes place. In the case of MS he states that he is very concerned and anxious regarding shareholder dissatisfaction in the Company that he resides over as CEO. He believes that the remuneration is key to maintaining good management and Company profits. I would certainly agree to that, the point is the level of that remuneration is simply not regarded as appropriate to the shareholders. It has to come as a surprise the some CEO and Directors to find thier shareholders shouting out loud and clear 'enough is enough'.
I believe we are in a better place, as shareholders, for the Company and I find it rather condescending
when it is suggested that small shareholders may not see the issues involved clearly in order to make a rational vote on a subject. It will mean that Companies will have to be more transparent perhaps.
We may start to see pressure bear down from Government regarding the Management of pension funds including much more transparency. (thats my hope, nothing more at the moment)
I am not against any person earning huge rewards for work well done, provided shareholders agree.
What unlisted Companies do about pay is their business and theirs alone (just thought I would make that clear)

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

Childish responses you mean people have a memory and you want one too?!

As you will clearly appreciate it had nothing to do with your daughter, good luck to her

Selective quotes...I know, people will select the bits you wish they hadn't

Is this another 'I wuz taken out of context guv'?

Rock on

An even poorer reply, sad really why not face up to some facts, your not as bright as you may like some people to think, are you. Shallow, very shallow.

You got me there, I wake up every day and wish I was as profound and all-knowing as a libdim supporter

For your part when you claim to be an unwavering force, a rock in the shifting sands of the political and social commentary landscape, it would help if there wasn't evidence to the contrary from your own keyboard. Let me know when I proudly flaunt my membership of Greenpeas

Shooting the messenger with tame and tepid insults...how bright and shallow is that? Answers on a postcard, or a post on PH but maybe best not unless you can find a sense of humour somewhere.

Yes I will admit I was rather hasty with my remarks, but they are not far off the mark. Your correct you are only a messenger but you can't even get that right with your gross misinterpretations.Having said clearly you do not support any of my political ideologies, fine I feel quite relaxed about that. Politics is not black and white, its why so many people disagree on the blasted subject I guess.Can't expect you to offer any support for Lib-Dems policies but I am sure we can manage without it. Sorry I very very rarely use humour in here, I've been shot down too many times in the past and humour is best practised in an altogether different forum. Mind you I do like your use of words in 'my unwavering force etc etc seriously stinging in a nice way I found.

[crankedup]

DJRC said:

crankedup said:

DJRC said:

crankedup said:

DJRC said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

At long last? It's been the position all along. Shareholders exercising power is overdue, complain to them whoever they are on a case by case basis, not PH.

Correct Turbobloke, but the long winded discussion last year I had with many PH members who then, for some reason I could never fathom out, was that Dr Vince Cable was quite wrong to propose legislation that would permit the owners of Companies to be given BINDING voting Rights. Look back at the thread about the Barclays Bank shareholders. Of course most of the stuff spouted by other PH members was either ignorance or just being obtuse.

But that wasnt the discussion. Your stance was never about company owners and shareholders, nor was it where Vince was coming from originally. It was in govt. legislating some kind of restraint. YOU were told *explicitly* and repeatedly that the responsibility was on the shareholders to impose upon the management their concerns with regards to remuneration. Your position was always supporting Saint Vince's position of govt regulating, NOT the shareholders and company owners.

Look back at my posts and I make many many references throughout in many posts, most being dismissed as leftie rantings. Your pick and splitting hairs mate, go back and read some threads. I know PH doesn't like to be wrong but in this instance they were.

Spitting hairs???? You were outright stating 180 degree the opposite of that! You and Vince were arguing the govt should be regulating and controlling the pay, NOT for the shareholders and owners.

Your clearly not reading my previous posts. For goodness sake did you not understand that Dr Cables proposal was about regulating remuneration through shareholders voting rights be legislated as binding, not advisory. I have always advocated shareholders voting rights being used in a form of those votes being Binding regards executive and CEO remuneration. If you can't find those posts that is a problem for you and you alone. And yes I have always supported Dr Cable and his political policy proposals, he has more common sense than all of the Tories put together IMO.

OK, Ill state this again. Vince started from a position of regulating via the govt, NOT anything to do with voting rights being binding.

If you wish to suggest otherwise or re-write history then Sir you are nowt but telling porkies.

You Sir are quite pedantic, policy evolves from green papers in Government and lead eventually to enactment in Law following discussions and alterations. Now follow Dr Cables proposals and see where they lead you. I have come to believe your just trying to wind me up!

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

Yes I will admit I was rather hasty with my remarks, but they are not far off the mark.

We don't have a valid role in judging our own remarks, others get the privilege.

Time to move on, at a guess.

[turbobloke]

It's not called being pedantic it's called being accurate

Meanwhile are there no more executives with big salaries (size matters) to slag off? The pause in executive abuse can't last for ever shirley.

[crankedup]

London424 said:

crankedup, what do you mean by 'binding votes'? What do you see actually happening?

Apologies if you've already answered this question.

Yes I have answered this question before, a long time ago in a similar thread which others in here deny ever existed, odd. 'Binding voting Rights' being legislated for currently, are simply meaning that when a shareholder votes on a particular Company proposal, that vote stands and will form the part of shareholders decision regarding 'for or against' said proposal. If it a vote for or in favour then the Company are entitled to action that proposal. If on other hand the vote goes against the proposal then that proposal cannot be actioned. In the past shareholders have been able to vote on Company proposals but those votes were 'non - binding' meaning the Company could ignore the shareholders decisions. Hence the changes afoot have many people concerned as to what the future may hold. Fancy giving nasty shareholders binding voting rights, whatever next.
My own personal opinion of the outcome of these massive change to Boardroom practice will be much jostling and wrangling between shareholders for a short period of a few years. This will settle as the new practices become established for all concerned. Small shareholders will employ independent freelance advisor's for technical advise and guidance on complex issues before casting votes. Large gulfs between Boardrooms and shareholders may appear occasionally and a new Board and CEO may be the only answer. In the end it means more transparency throughout and I believe a lowering of top level bosses remunerations ultimately, which may take a decade or so for this to evolve. On the other hand others in here will say I am talking utter bull, as you yourself may say

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

It's not called being pedantic it's called being accurate

Meanwhile are there no more executives with big salaries (size matters) to slag off? The pause in executive abuse can't last for ever shirley.

This is only the beginning of what will be a hard long road of adjustment in my view. Most of the population, it is reported, have taken some big hits on their living standards. Contrasting this with 'top level' bosses rewards is certainly a catalyst for this upsurge in interest in Boardroom remunerations. Some say stirred up by the media, which means their doing their job. I don't see it as abuse at all, I see it as a process of bringing down the unsustainable (in terms of social acceptance)levels of the rewards. I say again it is only those Companies that are listed, in case your wondering otherwise of my stance.

[London424]

crankedup said:

London424 said:

crankedup, what do you mean by 'binding votes'? What do you see actually happening?

Apologies if you've already answered this question.

Yes I have answered this question before, a long time ago in a similar thread which others in here deny ever existed, odd. 'Binding voting Rights' being legislated for currently, are simply meaning that when a shareholder votes on a particular Company proposal, that vote stands and will form the part of shareholders decision regarding 'for or against' said proposal. If it a vote for or in favour then the Company are entitled to action that proposal. If on other hand the vote goes against the proposal then that proposal cannot be actioned. In the past shareholders have been able to vote on Company proposals but those votes were 'non - binding' meaning the Company could ignore the shareholders decisions. Hence the changes afoot have many people concerned as to what the future may hold. Fancy giving nasty shareholders binding voting rights, whatever next.
My own personal opinion of the outcome of these massive change to Boardroom practice will be much jostling and wrangling between shareholders for a short period of a few years. This will settle as the new practices become established for all concerned. Small shareholders will employ independent freelance advisor's for technical advise and guidance on complex issues before casting votes. Large gulfs between Boardrooms and shareholders may appear occasionally and a new Board and CEO may be the only answer. In the end it means more transparency throughout and I believe a lowering of top level bosses remunerations ultimately, which may take a decade or so for this to evolve. On the other hand others in here will say I am talking utter bull, as you yourself may say

Thanks for answering again. It's an interesting one and although some reform is required I personally don't think it will accomplish what you are hoping.

Currently it's the media flavour of the moment and of all the companies that are required to disclose exec pay, less than a handful have passed the 50% mark that would be voted down. And these have only been the extreme situations.

Once some other cause comes along this will be forgotten about. IMO anyway.

[AstonZagato]

crankedup said:

London424 said:

crankedup, what do you mean by 'binding votes'? What do you see actually happening?

Apologies if you've already answered this question.

Yes I have answered this question before, a long time ago in a similar thread which others in here deny ever existed, odd. 'Binding voting Rights' being legislated for currently, are simply meaning that when a shareholder votes on a particular Company proposal, that vote stands and will form the part of shareholders decision regarding 'for or against' said proposal. If it a vote for or in favour then the Company are entitled to action that proposal. If on other hand the vote goes against the proposal then that proposal cannot be actioned. In the past shareholders have been able to vote on Company proposals but those votes were 'non - binding' meaning the Company could ignore the shareholders decisions. Hence the changes afoot have many people concerned as to what the future may hold. Fancy giving nasty shareholders binding voting rights, whatever next.
My own personal opinion of the outcome of these massive change to Boardroom practice will be much jostling and wrangling between shareholders for a short period of a few years. This will settle as the new practices become established for all concerned. Small shareholders will employ independent freelance advisor's for technical advise and guidance on complex issues before casting votes. Large gulfs between Boardrooms and shareholders may appear occasionally and a new Board and CEO may be the only answer. In the end it means more transparency throughout and I believe a lowering of top level bosses remunerations ultimately, which may take a decade or so for this to evolve. On the other hand others in here will say I am talking utter bull, as you yourself may say

Just out of interest, do you think shareholders ought to have binding votes that govern shop floor pay?

[heppers75]

crankedup said:

Again I agree with what you have to say in the most part at least. However, the fact that already four FTSE Company CEO and director level bosses have felt the wrath of the shareholders should be fair warning to all. On the other side of your logic comes the fact that its been long overdue shareholders voting rights being binding. Already we see small shareholders, as a group, employing services of an independent 'expert' to advise the group before voting takes place. In the case of MS he states that he is very concerned and anxious regarding shareholder dissatisfaction in the Company that he resides over as CEO. He believes that the remuneration is key to maintaining good management and Company profits. I would certainly agree to that, the point is the level of that remuneration is simply not regarded as appropriate to the shareholders. It has to come as a surprise the some CEO and Directors to find thier shareholders shouting out loud and clear 'enough is enough'.
I believe we are in a better place, as shareholders, for the Company and I find it rather condescending
when it is suggested that small shareholders may not see the issues involved clearly in order to make a rational vote on a subject. It will mean that Companies will have to be more transparent perhaps.
We may start to see pressure bear down from Government regarding the Management of pension funds including much more transparency. (thats my hope, nothing more at the moment)
I am not against any person earning huge rewards for work well done, provided shareholders agree.
What unlisted Companies do about pay is their business and theirs alone (just thought I would make that clear)

I do get the feeling you are missing my point a bit, you keep saying we and us, what I dont think you get is what I am saying is that those that will actually end up being the decision makers on these issues are not the "we" or the "us" you seem to be referring to, not the man in the street etc. It does not matter a jot if it is condesending or not or what anyone thinks small shareholders think or are capable of or not, they catagorically will not be the ones that get to have an effect, majority shareholders here are the ones that will and they are an arguably far more bloodthirsty and mercenary group than any corporate CEO knows how to be and that is who will get this power not some altruistic group conglomerate of decent right thinking people you seem to be supporting.

Essentially if you are of the mindset the CEO is the self serving evil wrong doer then what you are doing is swapping the say from the hands of one for another and I would contend is arguably much much worse.

[Halb]

Fatman2 said:

I didn't read the article but 41% vs 1% sucks big time and is why I like John Lewis. The fact that there is a limit on the chief exec's salary prevents this kind of imbalance and no one can say that the business model doesn't work.

Same here. I also think that aspect of the company's personality is one part of the company's attitude in general in where they fit in society, how they operate, their level of service etc.

[Halb]

TTwiggy said:

Personally, I think you need to have psychopathic tendencies to succeed in business. Which explains a lot about some posters on here

That line reminded me of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trap_%28televisio...

article said:

Curtis's narration concludes with the observation that the game theory/free market model is now undergoing interrogation by economists who suspect a more irrational model of behaviour is appropriate and useful. In fact, in formal experiments the only people who behaved exactly according to the mathematical models created by game theory are economists themselves, and psychopaths.