If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Citigroup shareholders make history by becoming the first Wall St. shareholders to reject the executives' compensation packages   (marketday.msnbc.msn.com) divider line 150
    More: Hero, Wall St, Vikram Pandit, Citigroup, executive compensation, share buyback, Meredith Whitney, shareholders, Citigroup shareholders  
•       •       •

17355 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Apr 2012 at 12:35 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



150 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-18 09:38:55 AM  
Better late than never. I hope this is the start of a beautiful trend.
 
2012-04-18 09:48:50 AM  
From another article (that I can't link to since it's the Financial Times):


Some 55 per cent of shareholders either went against the plan or abstained at Citi's annual meeting in Dallas in a non-binding vote on Tuesday.


So WTF does that mean?
 
2012-04-18 10:02:47 AM  

Petit_Merdeux: So WTF does that mean?


Mo money!
/but not for you!
 
2012-04-18 10:09:58 AM  

Petit_Merdeux: From another article (that I can't link to since it's the Financial Times):

Some 55 per cent of shareholders either went against the plan or abstained at Citi's annual meeting in Dallas in a non-binding vote on Tuesday.

So WTF does that mean?


It means that Citigroup's board of directors can give their shareholders the bird and jack up the CEO's outlandish pay even more.
 
2012-04-18 10:35:31 AM  

Petit_Merdeux: From another article (that I can't link to since it's the Financial Times):


Some 55 per cent of shareholders either went against the plan or abstained at Citi's annual meeting in Dallas in a non-binding vote on Tuesday.

So WTF does that mean?


The Say on Pay laws require that shareholders be given an advisory vote on compensation packages. Doesn't require the board to follow the vote.
 
2012-04-18 10:36:07 AM  

Serious Black: Petit_Merdeux: From another article (that I can't link to since it's the Financial Times):

Some 55 per cent of shareholders either went against the plan or abstained at Citi's annual meeting in Dallas in a non-binding vote on Tuesday.

So WTF does that mean?

It means that Citigroup's board of directors can give their shareholders the bird and jack up the CEO's outlandish pay even more.


Because it's smart to piss off your shareholders
 
2012-04-18 10:42:51 AM  

DamnYankees: Petit_Merdeux: From another article (that I can't link to since it's the Financial Times):


Some 55 per cent of shareholders either went against the plan or abstained at Citi's annual meeting in Dallas in a non-binding vote on Tuesday.

So WTF does that mean?

The Say on Pay laws require that shareholders be given an advisory vote on compensation packages. Doesn't require the board to follow the vote.


This. While it would be great if the vote did have some teeth to it, the PR generated by events like this can make it very tough for the board to publicly justify the pay packages going forward. Sometimes, negative press is worse than actual technical punishments.
 
2012-04-18 11:15:35 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Serious Black: Petit_Merdeux: From another article (that I can't link to since it's the Financial Times):

Some 55 per cent of shareholders either went against the plan or abstained at Citi's annual meeting in Dallas in a non-binding vote on Tuesday.

So WTF does that mean?

It means that Citigroup's board of directors can give their shareholders the bird and jack up the CEO's outlandish pay even more.

Because it's smart to piss off your shareholders


Presumably, their shareholders were pissed off before now. It didn't seem to stop the board then.
 
2012-04-18 12:38:59 PM  
Non

Binding


And the rich get richer
 
2012-04-18 12:40:22 PM  
Interesting.

Citigroup is still on the shiatlist, though.
 
2012-04-18 12:40:38 PM  
At least it's starting to go in the right direction....
 
2012-04-18 12:41:19 PM  
make history by becoming the first Wall St. shareholders

Like centipedes in your vagina, subby, it's more likely than you think.
 
2012-04-18 12:41:44 PM  
and just $128,741 in 2009

How can a person subsist on such a paltry salary?
 
2012-04-18 12:42:13 PM  
Almost all assembly votes are non-binding, if you aren't on the board of directors, your vote means nothing.
Almost all bills presented to the annual shareholder meeting are non-biding.
 
2012-04-18 12:42:14 PM  
This reminds me of a story where the President of Nintendo personally halved his pay due to the failure of some product or other. And people wonder why America is doing as well as it is.
 
2012-04-18 12:42:15 PM  
Since this was a non-binding vote, I'm surprised the board of directors isn't flat-out ignoring it.
 
2012-04-18 12:43:15 PM  

cameroncrazy1984:
Because it's smart to piss off your shareholders


Yeah, you risk having them get together and holding another non-binding vote.
 
2012-04-18 12:45:43 PM  
Don't the shareholders get to decide who is on the board of directors? The directors all serve for terms, and when their term is up the shareholders decide whether or not to retain them in an up-down vote.
 
2012-04-18 12:47:41 PM  
14.9 million is not even 1% of 1 penny to these guys.
 
2012-04-18 12:47:59 PM  

arcas: Since this was a non-binding vote, I'm surprised the board of directors isn't flat-out ignoring it.


Because there's another measure on the ballot each time that is binding:

We aprove the following (list) for membership on the board [ ] Yes to all [ ] No to all [ ] Yes to all except:________

Next time the board might not get reelected.

Generally any non-board initiated proxy question gets 15% or less... Anything above about 25% the board better at least appear to be paying attention to because it could bite them in the ass.
 
2012-04-18 12:48:12 PM  
This guy was not exactly getting "outlandish" pay to begin with. My bet is that if he winds up not getting his millions, he'll go somewhere else that will pay him what he feels he is worth.

I'm not sure how I feel about this non-story.

Meh, I guess.
 
2012-04-18 12:48:13 PM  

farkityfarker: and just $128,741 in 2009

How can a person subsist on such a paltry salary?


Hear, Hear! This poor man works all day in the coal mines of the CEO office, and all he gets is $128k?? For Shame, Shareholders. Let this man have his more appropriate $14 MILLION salary that he so obviously deserves.
 
2012-04-18 12:48:16 PM  

arcas: Since this was a non-binding vote, I'm surprised the board of directors isn't flat-out ignoring it.


Oh, they were. But the press didn't. The spin doctors are probably furiously spinning as we peruse Fark.
 
2012-04-18 12:49:33 PM  
"It also was an embarrassment to Chief Executive Vikram Pandit, who took virutally no pay in 2010 while trying to turn the bank around."

so it that Virtually no pay according to a CEO?
 
2012-04-18 12:50:11 PM  

Petit_Merdeux: From another article (that I can't link to since it's the Financial Times):


Some 55 per cent of shareholders either went against the plan or abstained at Citi's annual meeting in Dallas in a non-binding vote on Tuesday.

So WTF does that mean?


It means "After a careful review of the stockholder's concerns, we have decided to give everyone on the board and executive team a giant allowance rather than salary. So it's totally different."
 
2012-04-18 12:50:34 PM  
Always found it curious that the concept of, yanno, pay being tied inextricably to performance was such a foreign one in institutions which purportedly are the backbone of Capitalism in this country.

Weirdos.
 
2012-04-18 12:51:36 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Serious Black: Petit_Merdeux: From another article (that I can't link to since it's the Financial Times):

Some 55 per cent of shareholders either went against the plan or abstained at Citi's annual meeting in Dallas in a non-binding vote on Tuesday.

So WTF does that mean?

It means that Citigroup's board of directors can give their shareholders the bird and jack up the CEO's outlandish pay even more.

Because it's smart to piss off your shareholders


If shareholders are limited to advisory votes, why on Earth would anyone give a shiat if they were pissed off or not?
 
2012-04-18 12:53:02 PM  
Class warfare thread!
 
2012-04-18 12:53:04 PM  
cameroncrazy1984: Serious Black: Petit_Merdeux: From another article (that I can't link to since it's the Financial Times):

Some 55 per cent of shareholders either went against the plan or abstained at Citi's annual meeting in Dallas in a non-binding vote on Tuesday.

So WTF does that mean?

It means that Citigroup's board of directors can give their shareholders the bird and jack up the CEO's outlandish pay even more.

Because it's smart to piss off your shareholders


Majority shareholders, CEO's and BOD's are usually all Ivy League frat brothers. It's why compensation is a giant circle jerk to funnel cash out of public companies into private bank accounts. Socialism for the rich, it's what they teach at HBS.
 
2012-04-18 12:53:51 PM  
Many MANY companies have these votes on their annual meetings. Citi is the first prominent very large company to lose a proxy fight though.
 
2012-04-18 12:54:15 PM  

SkunkWerks: Always found it curious that the concept of, yanno, pay being tied inextricably to performance was such a foreign one in institutions which purportedly are the backbone of Capitalism in this country.

Weirdos.


performance matters, unless you're an executive. then you and your buddies keep each other afloat.
 
2012-04-18 12:54:33 PM  

SkunkWerks: Always found it curious that the concept of, yanno, pay being tied inextricably to performance was such a foreign one in institutions which purportedly are the backbone of Capitalism in this country.

Weirdos.


Be quiet and pay your monthly services charges like a good peon. CEO needs a new helicopter.
 
2012-04-18 12:54:33 PM  
Heard this on the radio this morning. The best bit was that it was a protest against what are "perceived as" excessively high compensation. So if $15 million a year seems like a lot of money to you, it's just you.
 
2012-04-18 12:54:40 PM  
FTFA: "The vote is advisory and won't force the bank to change its pay practices"

usually it's in board members best interests to listen to shareholders, or, you know... get voted off the board.

/"None of the Wall Street firms have received this kind of a review yet."
//is this a new thing? how can this be the first? that is the real news here
 
2012-04-18 12:55:01 PM  

Rent Party: cameroncrazy1984: Serious Black: Petit_Merdeux: From another article (that I can't link to since it's the Financial Times):

Some 55 per cent of shareholders either went against the plan or abstained at Citi's annual meeting in Dallas in a non-binding vote on Tuesday.

So WTF does that mean?

It means that Citigroup's board of directors can give their shareholders the bird and jack up the CEO's outlandish pay even more.

Because it's smart to piss off your shareholders

If shareholders are limited to advisory votes, why on Earth would anyone give a shiat if they were pissed off or not?


Funny, because mass lay-offs, stupidly short-sighted business decisions and liquidation of profitable sections of many companies are done as a nod to "shareholders". Why is this any different?
 
2012-04-18 12:55:05 PM  

shaunmark: 14.9 million is not even 1% of 1 penny to these guys.


Yeah, it's like $14.9 million.
 
2012-04-18 12:55:57 PM  

TyrantII: cameroncrazy1984: Serious Black: Petit_Merdeux: From another article (that I can't link to since it's the Financial Times):

Some 55 per cent of shareholders either went against the plan or abstained at Citi's annual meeting in Dallas in a non-binding vote on Tuesday.

So WTF does that mean?

It means that Citigroup's board of directors can give their shareholders the bird and jack up the CEO's outlandish pay even more.

Because it's smart to piss off your shareholders

Majority shareholders, CEO's and BOD's are usually all Ivy League frat brothers. It's why compensation is a giant circle jerk to funnel cash out of public companies into private bank accounts. Socialism for the rich, it's what they teach at HBS.


this. the rich and connected keep each other rich and connected. who buys this crap that we're a meritocracy?
 
2012-04-18 12:55:57 PM  
msnbcmedia.msn.com

Always keeping the brown man down!
 
2012-04-18 12:56:31 PM  
Citigroup investors think their vote means something here?

I guess they were stupid enough to buy stock in Citigroup.

Board's gonna laugh at the rubes and do whatever the fark they want.
 
2012-04-18 12:57:14 PM  
 
2012-04-18 12:57:45 PM  
Maybe the first Wall Street firm, but not the first company. Same thing happened with Jacobs Engineering over a year ago.
 
2012-04-18 12:58:03 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Because it's smart to piss off your shareholders


The non-binding vote was only 55% against the compensation package, so really, they only have to worry about pissing of 6% of their shareholders. They rest can piss off. Nothing will change.

/cynical & jaded.
 
2012-04-18 12:59:04 PM  

MadHatter500: arcas: Since this was a non-binding vote, I'm surprised the board of directors isn't flat-out ignoring it.

Because there's another measure on the ballot each time that is binding:

We aprove the following (list) for membership on the board [ ] Yes to all [ ] No to all [ ] Yes to all except:________

Next time the board might not get reelected.

Generally any non-board initiated proxy question gets 15% or less... Anything above about 25% the board better at least appear to be paying attention to because it could bite them in the ass.


Plus there's usually a blurb at the end of each voting segment that says "The Board STRONGLY RECOMMENDS you vote YES to this statement" (or words to that effect). Which in short-term speak means "We're going to do this with or without your consent, but enjoy the illusion of having a voice."

/Actually owns Citigroup stock
//Waiting for it to improve.
///Will likely be waiting until...oh...next couple decades or so...
 
2012-04-18 01:00:14 PM  
Take a look at the Board of Directors membership. Tell me you've heard of even one person in this group of lightweight rubber-stamps.

Franz B. Humer Chairman, Roche Holding Ltd
Robert L. Joss, Ph.D. Professor of Finance Emeritus & Former Dean, Stanford University Graduate School of Business
Michael E. O'Neill Chairman, Citigroup Inc.
Vikram Pandit Chief Executive Officer / Citigroup Inc
Lawrence R. Ricciardi Senior Advisor, IBM Corporation, Jones Day & Lazard Freres & Co.
Judith Rodin President, Rockefeller Foundation
Robert L. Ryan Chief Financial Officer, Retired, Medtronic Inc.
Anthony M. Santomero Former President, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
Joan E. Spero Senior Research Scholar / Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs
Diana L. Taylor Managing Director, Wolfensohn Fund Management, L.P.
William S. Thompson, Jr. Chief Executive Officer, Retired, Pacific Investment Management Company (PIMCO)
Ernesto Zedillo Director, Center for the Study of Globalization & Professor in the Field of International Economics and Politics, Yale Univ.
 
2012-04-18 01:00:26 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Serious Black: Petit_Merdeux: From another article (that I can't link to since it's the Financial Times):

Some 55 per cent of shareholders either went against the plan or abstained at Citi's annual meeting in Dallas in a non-binding vote on Tuesday.

So WTF does that mean?

It means that Citigroup's board of directors can give their shareholders the bird and jack up the CEO's outlandish pay even more.

Because it's smart to piss off your shareholders


These people don't care who they piss off. They make their money off the government bailing them out because they'll take the economy down if they fail.

Economic terrorism is the wave of the future.
 
2012-04-18 01:00:39 PM  

Anenu: This reminds me of a story where the President of Nintendo personally halved his pay due to the failure of some product or other. And people wonder why America is doing as well as it is.


Because Japan is doing awesome.

Serious Black: cameroncrazy1984: Serious Black: Petit_Merdeux: From another article (that I can't link to since it's the Financial Times):

Some 55 per cent of shareholders either went against the plan or abstained at Citi's annual meeting in Dallas in a non-binding vote on Tuesday.

So WTF does that mean?

It means that Citigroup's board of directors can give their shareholders the bird and jack up the CEO's outlandish pay even more.

Because it's smart to piss off your shareholders

Presumably, their shareholders were pissed off before now. It didn't seem to stop the board then.


If they were pissed, why do they still own the stock? Some people might hold restricted stock, but other than that if you're an investor of fund manager and are pissed at the company, why are you holding the stock? Sell it and buy something you like.

If all the pissed off investors (owners) voted with their feet this stock would plummet and the BOD would get the message.
 
2012-04-18 01:00:59 PM  

SableTigre: At least it's starting to go in the right direction....


Let's hope for more. Shareholders being so removed from actual corporate decisionmaking is one reason we're in the shiathouse we're in.
 
2012-04-18 01:01:45 PM  

farkityfarker: and just $128,741 in 2009

How can a person subsist on such a paltry salary?


When did hating the rich turn into hating the middle class? in Manhattan, where this guy is required to live for his job, that's like 65th percentile.
 
2012-04-18 01:02:20 PM  

TyrantII: Majority shareholders, CEO's and BOD's are usually all Ivy League frat brothers. It's why compensation is a giant circle jerk to funnel cash out of public companies into private bank accounts. Socialism for the rich, it's what they teach at HBS.


Having dealt with my share of HBS people, this.
 
2012-04-18 01:05:19 PM  

Lost_in_Oregon: Take a look at the Board of Directors membership. Tell me you've heard of even one person in this group of lightweight rubber-stamps.

Franz B. Humer Chairman, Roche Holding Ltd
Robert L. Joss, Ph.D. Professor of Finance Emeritus & Former Dean, Stanford University Graduate School of Business
Michael E. O'Neill Chairman, Citigroup Inc.
Vikram Pandit Chief Executive Officer / Citigroup Inc
Lawrence R. Ricciardi Senior Advisor, IBM Corporation, Jones Day & Lazard Freres & Co.
Judith Rodin President, Rockefeller Foundation
Robert L. Ryan Chief Financial Officer, Retired, Medtronic Inc.
Anthony M. Santomero Former President, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
Joan E. Spero Senior Research Scholar / Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs
Diana L. Taylor Managing Director, Wolfensohn Fund Management, L.P.
William S. Thompson, Jr. Chief Executive Officer, Retired, Pacific Investment Management Company (PIMCO)
Ernesto Zedillo Director, Center for the Study of Globalization & Professor in the Field of International Economics and Politics, Yale Univ.


LOL! Who would you want to be on the BoD? Celebrities?

"Anthony Santomero, former Pres of Philadelphia Fed? Never heard of the guy. Call David Hasselhoff and see if he's available."
 
Displayed 50 of 150 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report