Has the Great Awakening Begun.................?

I

Igor The Terrible

Guest
Absolutely amazing. After decades of getting hosed and reamed reamed,
the light bulb finally is beginning to flicker. Heads should have
rolled years ago; not now when the majority of America is up to its
ass in debt. Not to mention, having enough money in their IRAs for
their retirement--coming soon.

As I have said before, there isn't a thing wrong with America's
economy that flattening Wall Street wouldn't solve. They, the Fed and
the federal government are at the root of the problem thanks to
unchecked corruption and mismanagement over the years. Don't even get
me started on their F I N E policy-making!!!!





Calls Against Big CEO Pay Grow Louder
Saturday April 12, 4:49 am ET
By Joe Bel Bruno, AP Business Writer
Shareholders Want 'Say on Pay' in Push Against Excessive CEO
Compensation


NEW YORK (AP) -- Wall Street's high-rolling CEOs live a lifestyle that
would make Hollywood movie stars jealous -- penthouse apartments,
private jets, and paychecks tipping $60 million a year.
Corporate boards in recent years have rubber-stamped generous bonus
packages for an elite set of executives, a reflection of a go-go stock
market and soaring profits. Now, as the credit crisis roils Wall
Street and decimates stock prices, shareholders are demanding a voice.

Fund managers and individual investors alike are campaigning for a
"say on pay" rule giving shareholders a vote on executive compensation
at major corporations, especially America's biggest banks. This is the
latest salvo in the battle against Wall Street's exorbitance, and this
time it appears shareholders might stand a chance.

Timothy Smith, a senior vice president at Boston-based Walden Asset
Management, nearly pulled off a "say on pay" resolution at Goldman
Sachs Group Inc.'s annual meeting Thursday. The proposal garnered 43
percent of the vote, despite strong recommendations for its rejection
from Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein and the investment bank's board.

"To us it appears that Wall Street has a severe rash, to which its
boards, made up of corporate members, respond 'you scratch my back,
and I will scratch yours," said Smith, whose firm owns 65,000 shares
of Goldman Sachs.

Indeed, most boards these days are hand-picked by management and
typically include executives from other companies. Goldman's board has
former top executives from Sara Lee Corp., Medtronic Inc., Colgate-
Palmolive Co. and Allstate Corp.

They might find the latest push on compensation difficult to ignore.
Shareholders who voted in favor of "say on pay" represented a wide
swath of big institutional investors, like mutual funds, foundations,
and pensions.

Smith complimented Blankfein for navigating Goldman Sachs for the most
part clear of the credit crisis, which has cost global banks nearly
$200 billion in write-downs and led to the implosion of Bear Stearns
Cos. However, he said -- "as owners of this company" -- shareholders
should have a seat at the board.

Blankfein, who took home about $54 million in 2007, rejected the
proposal, saying he didn't want anyone "less sophisticated and have
less understanding" of the financial industry making decisions on pay.
Goldman's top five executives were paid about $250 million total last
year, including cash bonuses, stock awards and other compensation,
according to the company's proxy statement.

"This would create a feedback loop. It would create a cloud, a
constraint, a limitation on decisions that have been at the heart of
what a board has done," he said at the company's annual meeting.

He likely hasn't seen the last of Smith, and CEOs across every
industry are facing similar challenges as companies hold their annual
meetings throughout April and May.

Some 100 companies -- from General Electric Corp. to Wal-Mart Stores
Inc. -- will be voting on "say on pay" proposals, but the odds might
not be in shareholders' favor. The average level of support for 51 say-
on-pay-type resolutions in 2007 was 43 percent, according to
RiskMetrics Group.

But shareholder-sponsored proposals rarely pass on the first vote and
can sometimes take a few years before they catch on.

"These sort of proposals take about three to four years to gain
acceptance," said Rich Ferlauto, director of corporate governance and
pension investments at the American Federation of State County and
Municipal Employees. "Goldman is one of a few companies that have done
a good job in the middle of this credit crisis, but that's not to say
shareholders shouldn't have a general right to ratify a compensation
program as a check and balance system."

Bank of New York Mellon Corp. and Morgan Stanley both rejected
proposals this past week. But there are companies whose shareholders
have a say on compensation, such as Verizon Communications Inc.,
Blockbuster Inc., Apple Inc., and Aflac Inc.

The idea has also become a populist hot button for politicians --
especially for Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton.

Obama demanded during a stop in Indianapolis Friday that company
shareholders have a say in executive pay, and he wants Congress to
pass legislation that would require it.

"This isn't just about expressing outrage," Obama said. "It's about
changing a system where bad behavior is rewarded so that we can hold
CEOs accountable, and make sure they're acting in a way that's good
for their company, good for our economy, and good for America, not
just good for themselves."
 
"The owners of this country count on the fact that Americans will
probably remain wilfully ignorant of the big Red White Blue dick
that's being jammed up their assholes every day. Because the owners of
this country know the truth, it's called the American Dream, because
you have to be asleep to believe it."

George Carlin on who really controls America--

watch the whole video
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=935607276
 
On Apr 12, 5:11 am, Igor The Terrible
<igor_the_terri...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:

the ignorant, stupid reagan democrat is still alive, well, and
kicking. if this panic started in say, august 2006, instead of august
2007, i think then that the reagan democrats(middle class
conservative,a oxymoron)would be more aware of his/her surroundings.
instead, we see that hunger pangs have not exceeded wedge issues yet.
the DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP COUNCIL dog and pony act called the
clintons, can still ram a wedge issue into the scene with ease, and
with the help of the corporate conservative press.
the DLC is the traditional ally of the criminal empire known as the
republicon party, everything the dog and pony act does, is in concert
with the criminal empire. shillary says mcnutjob is more patriotic,
and a better leader than obama, and mcnutjob gets lots of corporate
press airtime agreeing with her. yet, the middle class will still vote
shillary.
by the time the election happens this fall, we will be well on our
way to a severe recession, if not a flat out depression, but the
election will be over by then, then the reagan democrat will have been
fooled again. if its shillary vs. mcnutjob, we may well see mcnutjob
win vs. shillarys DLC dog and pony act, and the clintons will still
win no matter what. just look a their tax returns and you will know
why. plus it will be another nail biting election, mcnutjob 50.2%, vs.
shillarys 49.8%, with a almost divided congress. which means 8 more
years of laissez-faire conservative free market corporate plunder.
of if its obama vs. mcnutjob, the DLC dog and pony act shillary, will
have weakened obama to the point where the independents, youth, and
minorities will be severely disillusioned, and obama(if he is telling
the truth) does not get the congress that he will need for change.
thus, the plutocracy wins again thanks to the DLC.
 
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 03:11:17 -0700 (PDT), Igor The Terrible wrote:

>Fund managers and individual investors alike are campaigning for a
>"say on pay" rule giving shareholders a vote on executive compensation
>at major corporations, especially America's biggest banks.


>Some 100 companies -- from General Electric Corp. to Wal-Mart Stores
>Inc. -- will be voting on "say on pay" proposals, but the odds might
>not be in shareholders' favor. The average level of support for 51 say-
>on-pay-type resolutions in 2007 was 43 percent, according to
>RiskMetrics Group.


It's proxy season around here. Plenty of reading material.

When I see a "say on pay" stockholder proposal, I always vote in
favor.

I also like the separate CEO and chairman proposals like they've done
for decades in Europe.

>Bank of New York Mellon Corp. and Morgan Stanley both rejected
>proposals this past week. But there are companies whose shareholders
>have a say on compensation, such as Verizon Communications Inc.,
>Blockbuster Inc., Apple Inc., and Aflac Inc.


I just got my Aflac proxy with the "say on pay" question. Murphy's Law
indicates that the companies who propose it don't really need it. It's
the ones that fight it tooth and nail that need it.

Fortunately, Dennis Kozlowski is in the slammer and Bob Nardelli is
off applying his management skills to Chrysler.

>"This isn't just about expressing outrage," Obama said. "It's about
>changing a system where bad behavior is rewarded so that we can hold
>CEOs accountable, and make sure they're acting in a way that's good
>for their company, good for our economy, and good for America, not
>just good for themselves."


It's not the first thing that makes me like Barack Obama and/or detest
John McCain.
 
Back
Top