Only if you're a bit stupid or deliberately misinterpreting what I actually write. I'm merely celebrating that shareholders seem to have remembered that they can vote no to executive remuneration, whatever the reasons that should be their right.
First casualty of "boardroom spring"
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
Only if you're a bit stupid or deliberately misinterpreting what I actually write. I'm merely celebrating that shareholders seem to have remembered that they can vote no to executive remuneration, whatever the reasons that should be their right.
Aviva have been horrendously run. There's never been such a clear cut example of a board of directors who were in charge across a whole decline, where the finger can really be clearly pointed at them. They don't have real excuses they can fall back on.
Revenue is down significantly, as is profit, yet they've given themselves a 90% pay rise over the period...
This is hopefully the tipping point where shareholders will see the sense in doing it. However I'm not yet convinced the government can sit on their hands. Broadly speaking I like the government to stay out of things, but if board room pay and golden parachutes etc don't end then it's clear that action is needed.
Shareholders just want the best man for the job, they don't care if it costs 1mil or 10 mil for a company with billions of turnover. However they should care if someone turns up and writes themselves a package that means they'll get between 8.5mil and 9.5mil depending on how things go...
Revenue is down significantly, as is profit, yet they've given themselves a 90% pay rise over the period...
This is hopefully the tipping point where shareholders will see the sense in doing it. However I'm not yet convinced the government can sit on their hands. Broadly speaking I like the government to stay out of things, but if board room pay and golden parachutes etc don't end then it's clear that action is needed.
Shareholders just want the best man for the job, they don't care if it costs 1mil or 10 mil for a company with billions of turnover. However they should care if someone turns up and writes themselves a package that means they'll get between 8.5mil and 9.5mil depending on how things go...
Caporegime
CEO of large multi-billion pound company is refused pay rise and is sacked. Shares in said company rise as a result. The now fired CEO laughs as his severance contains £millions worth of shares.
Oh, then I apologize unreservedly, I thought you were banging the drum of political envy, you should be more clear with your posting style. I'd also forgot that shareholders no longer have the right to vote on company performance. Is there a petition I can sign to support the status-quo?
'Boardroom Spring'? I mean, really? You're wasted on here you could write for the guardian
Soldato
Do they even care they have made millions and will walk directly to next CEO post after splendid golden handshake.
I'm perfectly clear in what I post, it's not my fault if people read what they want to in my posts and not what I actually write.
Oh and lol, I must have forgotten that CEOs resigning after shareholders voted down their pay packages has been an everyday occurrence over the last two decades.
Soldato
to be honest Scorza I never think they never really forgot, its just that until recently due to the 'recession' most companies were seeing their share prices rise exponentially therefore shareholders saw no reason to vote against the completely insane remuneration packages that were put forward for the CEO and board execs.
The only reason we see stories like this are for media glorification. Share holders have been turned over board members in the past when companies post badly and will continue to do so in the future. Its just now it makes an appealing headline for a news slow day as the press can see how the readers would relate directly to a story like this.
Put another way if this story was printed 10 years ago during the boom years and aviva posted bad results and the board got turned over, no one would have bat an eyelid at this.
I don't agree with the massive raises these guys see anyway wheter the company is doing well or not, its simply extravagance that is not needed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18414152
Look at who has just had his pay package voted down by shareholders - none other than serial tax avoider and chum of David Cameron - Sir Martin Sorrell.
Look at who has just had his pay package voted down by shareholders - none other than serial tax avoider and chum of David Cameron - Sir Martin Sorrell.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
So basically, he sacked a load of people.