. . . and T_J plays the Race Card So . . .how are you Liking Mr. Steele? Did you Talk to Mr Duke about his views . . . set him straight, did ya? Rocket River HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa
There weren't brains to begin with at any of these organizations. Anyway, this is what happens when you nationalize industries.
LOL! T_J owned People still have not realized the guy is a phony and has a very limited knowledge of Finance.
taking into consideration that these are huge multinational corporations, how bout you do a little research and get back to us on what the average salary is for executives for large companies across the globe.
You calling me a dumb MF would be akin to a r****d calling Einstein an idiot, especially on subjects morons like you know nothing about. I'm wondering if you were ever dropped on your head as a kid because I find it shocking any imbecile is idiotic enough to not grasp the gaping difference in concept of "having a say" and "having control." A 1 share shareholder out of 5.45 billion Citi shareholders "has a say" over executive compensation. A 1 share shareholder has absolutely **** when it comes to controlling power to set executive compensation. And to top it off, the US government is not even a common equity holder, meaning it doesn't have voting rights and henceforth no say at all given normal circumstances. Of course, the US government has a say. It sets laws and as it appears lately, could change them on a whim. It always has a say. The problem is that morons like you tried to spin it as normal corporate governance (which you know nothing about) instead of the usual expected federal arm-wringing. Comedy at its best.
Exactly - that's why I was talking about the worthlessness of the shareholder franchise earlier. Don't confuse Jobless_Jorge's ignorance of corporate governance and shareholder proposals with my feelings on the process - which tend to dovetail with Professor Bebchuck as far as shareholder voting goes. Actually you don't seem to know much about the underlying transactions or about capital structure in general. In certain cases (AIG) the Government obtained warrants which converted to common which gave them about 80% control, along with express conditions. I haven't looked at the underlying Citi deal documents but I would not be surprised if the voting structure were altered by them. Second, if you think preferred shareholders, typically ones who invest vast sums of capital to keep the company from going under - don't have a say in corporate governance, you need to really have your dumb MF head examined. I've worked on several litigations where the preferred shareholders obtain seats on the board and other means of control in exchange for their investment - I mean duh, why engage in the transaction otherwise. it also owns the companies you dumb MF. When you invest tens of billions in equity in a company to keep it from going under, and when your investment dwarfs that of any other owner, you own the company in any reasonable sense of the word. I guess a communist tool box MF would want to deny corporate owners the right to say how their businesses are run. I give you a TRIPLE PATHETIC score and declare internet victory over PRCbot BORG MIND 7 of 9 again.
The Conquistador reduced to playing Sancho Panza to MFW's Don Qui Zhou Te I give you quadruple PATHOS and negative 45 callbacks.
im not really saying its right or wrong. but i think i have read on here in the past that the difference in pay that a CEO or top executive makes in relation to other workers in a company has changed a lot over the last few decades. why does the top get such a larger piece of the pie then everyone else compared to the past?
i mean sam has done a nice job, but if you're still confused, just google for a good student's corporations outline.
There's many theories on why executive comp is so out of whack with reality and a lot of papers on it. I think one factor is that, as businesses have gotten larger over the last few decades and their profits increase exponentially, the amount of senior managers stays largely the same, or at least doesn't expand at the same pace. Since they're the ones deciding who gets the comp - it's a pretty predictable outcome that they decide to give themselves most of it.
That's just great. No it really is. Think the shareholder franchaise was worthless? The government had plenty of time to change it. Great of you to wait until after the fact. Actually I'm well aware of the terms of the AIG AND Citi deals. Guess what, convertible preferred is still preferred. Last time I checked, the government had NOT exercised its option to convert to common shares. And in order to have the same voting rights as common shareholders, you'd actually have to, um, convert. No dumb ****. There is a reason I said "under normal circumstances." The simple fact that your idiocy didn't know or bother to google is that the vast majority of preferred shares are non-voting. As a matter of fact, many companies outright don't allow voting for preferred. Of course, everything is negotiable and there are certain cases in which a shareholder could wring limited voting concessions from, which is what the government wrung from AIG and Citi. Which is actually why in my original post I clearly stated that the shares the government received had "almost no voting rights." And why engage in the transaction? That's just hilarious. Um, let's see, typically MUCH higher dividend payment than common shareholders and priority in the pecking order in case of liquidations? More question dodging from SammyFisher, how cute. Yes the government is an owner. Is it a majority owner? Did it assemble enough votes to tell Ed Liddy and Vikram Pandit "OK, you'll be paid this much." Did it even call a vote? Last time I checked, it didn't do either. So in effect, by my count, it bypassed and therefore violated 8.14 billion of common share voting rights. The government doesn't have a controlling stake in either company but is acting as if it does and morons like spinmaster Sam is here trying to portray it as proper corporate governance. Hilarious. But I'm sure in the next post I'll have to explain again the difference between "owner" and "controlling owner." This part is even funnier, especially in light of the above. I recall being called by Ottomotan of being a "toe the line brainwashed Commie" AND a "robber baron capitalist" and cringed at the obvious contradiction. I didn't think that there are morons like you who could one-up him by doing so in the same sentence. Comedy at its best. And of course, somehow the government bypassing a ownership vote is somehow "denying the corporate owners the right to say how their businesses are run." Hilarious. Btw, you know who else bought large stakes in Citi after the troubles started? Abu Dhabi, not as big, but $7.5 billion is significant. Al-Waleed personally also ponyed up quite a bit of dough and now owns about 5%. Maybe they should get to set Vikram's compensation, no? Fully addressed above. I find it funny that you claim ownage Sammy, when you don't even own your anus any more. Sammy did nothing more than make a fool out of himself.
Go back and read my post my ignorant amarillo friend - power within a corporation is allocated by state corporate statutes, in most cases by Delaware for various reasons. Many would argue that there's a bit of a corrupt bargain between Delaware leg & courts to set statutes as lenient for management as possible in order to attract franchise taxes and filing fees in a sort of "race to the bottom scenario" Signs point to no, because you'd realize the treasury doesn't just own "convertible preferred" in AIG - it owns warrants equivalent to 80% of the company. Warrants are NOT the same as preferred stock - unlike preferred stock, the warrants are more like options, and can be exercised at any time, As AIG expressly acknowledged its press release that the UST was the majority shareholder, and agreed to a huge number of conditions just to be able to receive the bailout (including but not limited to terminating Willumstad, limiting the new CEO salary to 1$) - only a complete and total ass-tard would argue that "the UST doesn't really own AIG!" - which brings us to...ah....you. Uh, yeah, when you have warrants to buy 80% of the company which you can exercise at any time, for any reason, you think you have to actually "convert" to exercise control? See, I don't need to google that, despite what you might have read on investopedia, mandarin edition, this is explicitly not true in Citibank's case as specified by the SPA and contrary to your claims Hence your curbstomping. Almost none? I guess you didn't read it, only a veto over most transactions is all as well as the right to seats on the board. Yes, it is a majority owner, that's why Citi does what it says. Why do you think it didn't buy that jet last week? Because it's majority owner and largest shareholder told it not to. Oh really? Please please I beg you to look up Citigroup bylaws and the DGCL and tell me how the government is "violated common share voting rights" - Please support this with citations where necessary? I BEG YOU TO DO THIS. I BEG YOU. If you did, you'd probably be reading from reference material that I wrote. You're welcome for rendering you into a pile of hot and sour dung. Again. What is your obsession with "gaping butthole" and "anus" type references - especially regarding other males (namely me). It's pretty gross. Sends a lot of signals too. Signals that you are gay. Gay and into having sex with men. In the buttocks, specifically the anal sphincter. Which I am ok with - be proud and loud. Just not in my anus, ok?
