CEO pay: Shareholders get a (little) say

Silly intrusion. Don't shareholders elect the board of directors that make such decisions?
 
Nice to see this. Shareholders own the company- and most if not any issue, in theory, could be brought before shareholders for a vote. We also vote for Board members- so board members have an interest in doing what shareholders want.

I don't mind if Immelt makes $10MM a year- as long as it was tied to performance
 
If board members design outrageous CEO pay then the shareholders fire the board. This proposal has no teeth so it is a silly intrusion and another reason to take your HQ someplace else.
 
Businesses leaving California could teach us a thing or two about government intrusion in business.
 
Our current economic condition could teach us a thing or two about de-regulation and the absence of government intrusion in business.
 
I would argue that a huge portion of our current economic problems are tied to Fannie and Freddy's implosion. And I would argue further that this was driven by the government happily backing mortgages for people who had no earthly business being approved for a non-secured credit card, let alone a loan on a six figure house.

When the government tells the lenders that there's no risk, sign them all up - we'll back it for you...what the hell do you expect the lenders to do? Especially when lenders who balked were given not so veiled threats about being painted as racist redliners.

It was government intrusion posing as regulation that ****** this economy up, not its lack. Sensible regulatory practices are necessary, but when people like the utterly corrupt and incompetent Barney Frank use the bureaucracy for their own purposes everything gets ****** up.
 
yes Freddie and Fannie were the problem and yes Sangre's point about lenders being threatened by charges of redlining is correct. I worked for citi back in the late 90's and I remember our execs worrying about that. I even remember a few companies, Associates for sure, having to defend themselves on shows like 60 minutes.

However, regulation is necessary. Without it corporations would run all over consumers. Without the rules in place consumers have no case. BUT, government doesn't need to be DOING the business. Government doesn't need to be the bank, the auto manufacturer, the insurer, the healthcare provider etc. they simply set the rules to protect citizens and consumers from corporations.

Government should set the rules and then allow business to find ways to work within the rules to seek profit.

In the case of CEO pay what I want from government is not to determine CEO pay but to simply etablish regulations that make the actions of the board of directorssubstantially more transparent to not just shareholders, but all stakeholders.
 
I'm not sure what regulating CEO pay has to do with regulating the financial district. There's a very small percentage of people that believe we should have zero regulation in place - I think it's safe to say that almost all of us understand that a market has to have some regulations in order to be truly effective. The fact is that you can't have a free market without equal access to information, and companies have to be required to operate in a way that keeps them at least transparent enough so that others in the market can make informed choices.

Having siad that, "regulation" and "deregulation" are not jsut across the board terms that always mean the same thing and are applicable in the same way in all fields. The biggest issue I've been hearing about is the massive increase in red tape and regulation that is and will be required of small businesses in wake of the health care changes and other legislation that's been passed in the last couple of years. I think when people talk about deregulating, a lot of times that's what they're referencing.
 
wrt healthcare, we really screwed the pooch a long time ago when we established a de facto relationship between our jobs and our insurance. Health insurance should be purchased by consumers directly and not part of a compensation package by employers (and that should be the same for government workers as well). Its only when consumers are directly responsible for healthcare choices will the healthcare debacle right itself. Sure the employers ability to bargain in large blocks has some benefit, but I believe there is a larger benefit to having individuals be responsible for purchasing their own policies. They would shop it based on their individual needs and it would be portable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top