This whole topic goes back to the point rimrocker made when this whole thing started. These guys aren't the talent people are making them out to be. my brother in law was an investment banker in the nineties. he's smart, he's very hardworking, a couple of years i think he brought in seven figures. he has a law degree from a top notch law school he isn't a genius the way some of you guys worship these wall street guys, especially the ones who did nothing but make a bunch of money on a bunch of worthless subprime mortgages is hysterical. these guys salaries are tied to the economy, when the economy is roaring they make a lot of money. but because they make a lot of money doesn't not mean they're brillant. yes, some of them obviously are, but lets not act like these guys are not replacable.
The key difference is that your wife isn't really an equityholder of the company whose options she holds and hence has no voice. The warrants are annexed to the preferred stock that UST owns in AIG and can be exercised without subsequent payment (as your wife would if she exercised her option) on the theory that the bailout money constituted consideration. Same pecking order except for the fact that they would control 80% of the common shares - which puts them on another plane. Anyway despite the fact that they haven't, AIG has acknowledged that they are the majority shareholder and own 80% of the company....because to pretend otherwise would be a ridiculous fiction. And of course as the board is a fiduciary of the shareholders, for a board NOT to consider the interests of it's 80% owner would be inviting a lawsuit. Or your 80% shareholder. Same difference in this occasion. SINGLE PATHETIC WORD SCORE Yeah, but the common's can't take any of these actions without 66.7% approval of this class of preferred shares - that, my friend, is called veto power. Oh - well ok then. Well since the commons are in control, I imagine these common shareholders will simply band together, amend the bylaws and/or issue new shares and warrants, and force these preferred shareholders out. Oh wait, they can't - because they gave the preferred shareholders veto power over such actions, in return for their company not going under. That's what happens when you give others control of your company. The others beign the UST. - uh - you do know that this is from the Citigroup-UST SPA right, and that that's a standard clause in all SPA's - but let me get this straight, you are saying that the Government's stock purchase in Citi is unlawful according to the terms of the Citigroup-UST stock purchase agreement? Again, I'd like to see some, uh, authority on this novel theory. Anyway, if you could identify some sections of the Del. Ch. code about this, or some case law in Del. Ch. or Del. Supreme that says that it's not within the Business Judgment Rule for a board to consider the wishes of it's majority owners, you'd get my attention. DOUBLE PATHETIC WORD SCORE Still undefeated at net-combat. I love me some me.
The problem is that these guys are making a bunch of money when the economy isn't doing well. On a related point to what you are saying I do find it odd how you can have people who get upset about unions are absolutely defending the right of executives to earn as much as possible. Shouldn't all workers, no matter management or labor, be able to maximize their compensation? Also if unions are distorting the market what about the massive compensation that executives get?
How about I have a paintball gun and we see if you can kick it out of my hand before I tag you in the facemask a few times with it.
I signed up the other day for some personal training sessions at the regular gym and I am just going to get the trainer (chick) to hold the thai pads for me for an hour. So maybe my retirement from kumite's was premature. If I can kick misty's ass (who I outweigh by 40 lbs and who has a few amateur fights under her belt, unfortunately she trains with the incredibly lame Tiger Schulmann and not the incredibly cool Phil Nurse) . . . you might be next.
I'm damn near 50, fat, and increasingly creaky, but I'll take both of you on anytime, anyplace as long as it's within easy driving distance for me. I don't have any fancy training like you boys, but I did play high school football in Texas and I've read a few physics books, so that should even things up.
You can bring your gun and Sho'nuff Fisher but its going to end like this: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MBlTsHsr5Ig&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MBlTsHsr5Ig&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> I got THE GLOW!
one of the greatest films ever made. you seen the sequel? thank you for posting that. as far as the maximum wage goes? i'm against it ideologically. but i'm also ideologically against bailouts. if they take federal $$, sorry but the rules change.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qjtbhmQhsXg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qjtbhmQhsXg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
What does it mean has, could? In the case of AIG, it "could," but didn't. In the case of Citi or BoA or JPM, it even "can't." The fundamental question is this, strip of the governmental identity, Barack Obama the average guy, as a shareholder, "could" he individually, as a non-majority shareholder, set executive compensation?
If he had contributed 45B+ of capital to buy the special class of preferred shares, created for him to buy to keep the company from going under - the answer is a resounding yes. If he had not and only owns a small amount of shares, he would have to go through the shareholder proposal process I outlined a few days ago, where his chances for success are bleak.
You're still missing the point. Yes the government hasn't imposed a salary cap. Nobody is saying that it has. The argument you are having with Sam is whether it can. Both of you agree that it can.
Didn't even know there was one. I'm going to have to do some digging at the video store to see if they can find it.
