Skip to comments.Citigroupís Chief Rebuffed on Pay by Shareholders
Posted on 04/18/2012 7:18:55 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny
In a stinging rebuke, Citigroup shareholders rebuffed on Tuesday the banks $15 million pay package for its chief executive, Vikram S. Pandit, marking the first time that stock owners have united in opposition to outsized compensation at a financial giant.
(Excerpt) Read more at dealbook.nytimes.com ...
That being said, I love the fact that shareholders might start fighting back against the scratch-your-back thieving that's been going on at large corporations.
If you start the company, I don't care what you draw as a salary, but these outlandish pay packages for executives who had nothing to do with the founding of the company is completely irresponsible.
Vikram Pandit took no salary for 3 years.
“Vikram Pandit took no salary for 3 years.”
He’s free to look for employment elsewhere.
His boss said no to his pay demands.
I like it.
Good news. Mutual funds (which typically hold, as groups, most voting shares) have long needed to grow a pair.
So? Sounds like his problem to me.
And his compensation package was $15 million last year.
>> That being said, I love the fact that shareholders might start fighting back against the scratch-your-back thieving that’s been going on at large corporations.
Shareholders are the ultimate governing mechanism in a corporation.
Too bad more of them don’t get educated, and get involved, and take their responsibility seriously. Most don’t even bother to vote.
(Note the obvious parallels between what is wrong in some corporations, and what is wrong in many of our governments at every level.)
About the only thing I agree with the OWS vermin is executive pay.
I have no problem with paying a CEO $15 million IF he can prove every year that he saved or increased revenues to a company by a minimum of $150 million. The company is better off and so are the employees and stock holders. However this is not the case.
When I was Director of Engineering for a very large firm every engineer had to document savings, increased production, reduced waste, new business greater than 10X their yearly salary. This was done every year.
This company eventually went bankrupt (twice) after it was acquired and the majority stock holder died and his useless son took over. Even when the company was losing over $300 million per year the Board of Directors would give him a $6 million bonus each year. WTF. Why should anyone running a company that is losing money (by greater amounts each year) be given a bonus? They should be given the boot.