Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Goldman Board Rejects Shareholder Demands on Pay

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 09:30 PM
Original message
Goldman Board Rejects Shareholder Demands on Pay
Edited on Mon Mar-01-10 09:54 PM by depakid
Source: Reuters

- Goldman Sachs Group Inc's (GS.N) board has rejected demands from shareholders that the firm investigate recent compensation awards, recoup excessive compensation and reform pay practices.

Wall Street's dominant bank, criticized for paying billions of dollars in bonuses soon after the taxpayer bailout of the banking industry, reported the board's decision in a regulatory filing on Monday.

Goldman reported the shareholder demands last year and said at the time that its board was considering them. The firm did not name the shareholders who made the demands.

Goldman could not be immediately reached for comment.

Read more: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/03/01-6
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. Sorta like bush's 'who cares what you think' & cheney's fuck you
Then they all get cranky and accuse us of class warfare.

Fucking monsters. They hate America, they hate people, they hate the planet. Money is their only goal. And they kill the goose that lays that egg, the middle class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faygo Kid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Don't forget Bunning's "tough shit."
Monsters is too kind a term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. I hope this story doesn't die off, this could garner some much deserved attention.
I hope we learn the names of the shareholders making the demands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
4. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imnKOgnito Donating Member (132 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
5. Hmmm And here I thought...
publicly owned companies were responsible to their shareholders. Isn't that what we hear when they're screwing everyone else in the pursuit of profits?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Does that mean shareholders-stockholders aren´t really the owners?
Could that mean that they´ve lied to us all that time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imnKOgnito Donating Member (132 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Would they lie to us for their own profit?
Say it ain't so!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WarhammerTwo Donating Member (113 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #5
19. From a very old "MySpace" Blog:
Edited on Tue Mar-02-10 12:48 AM by WarhammerTwo
Circa August 2008

And, y'know, when the opportunity to stop crap like this from happening arises, a good chunk of us do not act.

See, I own stock. Not a lot, mind you. Most of it came from my dad. It was given to him as part of a buy-out from AT&T to get him to retire and then he gave it to me. I do not like the stock market. It's gambling and I do not like to gamble. I see that gambling failing miserably in my company's 401K plan. No matter what stock they offer, it's all tanking right now so there goes my so-called "investment". Anywho, outside of the 401K stuff and the stuff my dad gave me, that's all the stock I own. regardless, because I own stock, every year I get a prospectus from the companies of which I own shares. Everyone who owns stock get these. Inside the prospectus are details regarding where the company is going, what plans they're making, what board members they want to add on, et cetera, et cetera, so on and so forth. What is also in there, more often than not, are proposals put forth by everyday, run-of-the-mill joes like you and I, trying to bring the high and mighty corporate executives down to earth. Anyone who owns stock can submit proposals. I don't know what regulations, if any, there are before they get presented in the prospectus, but for the most part, if you own stock, you can make a proposal. The thing that sucks is that if you work for that company and submit a proposal that goes against the CEO or Board, you're exposing yourself.

Anywho, these folks often bring up proposals to limit CEO pay or having compensation packages put up to a vote by shareholders or eliminating company perks like a private helicopter ride for the CEO's daily commute. Almost always, the Board recommends the rest of the shareholders vote against these proposals as it limits their ability to stay competitive to bring in the best and brightest CEOs to lead the company. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Y'know, frankly, if a guy isn't willing to move for his new job as CEO that you gotta fly that son of a monkey's disowned uncle in at $3500 a pop (one way), then how committed is he really to turning the company around? A good CEO that really CARED about the company he worked for would look at the finances and say, "Cripes! Over three thousand dollars for the helicopter to get me here? Well, seeing as how we don't have enough money to provide bagels and coffee to our employees during morning meetings, maybe we'll shit can the helicopter to save a few bucks. I'll suck it up and move." And if uprooting the family isn't something you want to do, then DON'T TAKE THE EFFING JOB!

I digress. The point is, the prospectus usually has proposals in there to fix these sorts of shenanigans. So, you take your proxy and vote either "for" or "against" the proposals. Each share of stock you own represents one vote. Like, I said, the Board usually advises you to vote "against" any shareholder proposal to hold them accountable. Big surprise. Want to know a bigger surprise? If you don't vote. If you just throw the prospectus and proxy away, 9 times out of 10, that means your votes automatically default to vote according to the Board's recommendations.

See, if a guy submits a proposal which states "We should get rid of the company helicopter. It costs too much to maintain in tough financial times especially with the lack of products lined up in our pipeline over the next two quarters," the Board counters, saying, "The Board recommends shareholders vote AGAINST this proposal as the helicopter has proven to be an invaluable and essential asset in day-to-day business operations. This would also severely limit the Board's ability to attract high-caliber executive talent to our company putting us at a severe disadvantage with our competitors." Now if you get your prospectus and say, "Oh, I don't have the time to read it," or, "I just don't care what happens to the company," or maybe, "It's all a bunch of corporate mumbo-jumbo that I don't understand," and you never read it or throw it out or whatever, then you, in most cases, are voting against the proposal to get rid of the helicopter. If you own 150 shares of stock, that's 150 votes that side with the Board to keep the helicopter right where it is.

This is what my father did. For all the years that he owned stock. he never read them. He never voted. And then he would complain that the company is being mismanaged and that it's being run into the ground. His apathy contributed to the poor performance of the company. By not voting, he ending up voting along with the Board's wishes. This is how the executives maintain the majority. This is why all the things we see wrong with corporations that we complain about never change. That's what dad did. Until I told him what I'm telling you. Now he votes. Now he's making a difference. Now, you can too. If you own stock, read the prospectus. Read the shareholder proposals. Vote on your proxy. And tell others you know all about this and why it's important. This type of crap with the pensions (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121761989739205497.html?mod=hpp_us_pageone)? We can stop it. We can change it. All we have to do is vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scooter24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 03:08 AM
Response to Reply #5
24. The problem is that the public owns such a small percentage of the company
The largest amount of voting stock, 48%, is controlled by the 200+ group of Goldman managing partners. 22% is owned by the non-partner employees. 18% controlled by retired partners and two long-term institutional investors.

So even if someone was to push a referendum at the shareholder's meeting, it would take a miracle to get the votes to pass it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proletariatprincess Donating Member (527 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
6. and they all say they serve their stockholders.....
so much for so called corporate democracy. I remember being advised by a banker that only way unions would ever have any effect on american style capitalism was to become stockholders and have voting shares. Ha. The Boards of crony capitalists control everything and only call stockholder meetings when all the votes are accounted for in advance.
My union found that out the hard way. All our members held stock and we organized to have a say in the annual meeting. It made no difference whatsoever. Our Delegation was only given lip service although it represented hundreds of thousands of shares of AT&T stock.
American style capitalism is beyond redemption.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scottsoperson Donating Member (224 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
7. goldman sachs gets welfare
scott
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
8. What do you think it is, a democracy? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scottsoperson Donating Member (224 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. the one with most invested gets the most votes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imnKOgnito Donating Member (132 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. So you agree
The US Citizenry should have the most votes in this case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scooter24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #12
26. Only 12% of Goldman is up for global retail on the market.
Goldman's partners and non-partner employees control 70%. Retired partners own about 18%.

So that leaves about 12% available for the public to buy into.

I highly doubt anyone is going to find enough votes among the controlling 88% who are willing to vote against their bonuses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WarhammerTwo Donating Member (113 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #10
20. EXACTLY!
See my response to Post #5
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imnKOgnito Donating Member (132 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #20
27. Except in your response you omit the important details
In regards to this case, it never says they brought it up for a vote with shareholders, just that the board considered the recommendations of the shareholders that brought up the issue. In regards to your fine explanation previously you neglect to note that a controlling interest of the stock is about 99.999% of the time owned by those guaranteed to vote with the board, ensuring that the common shareholder won't affect the outcome. And finally, once again specifically regarding this case, Goldman Sachs would no longer exist as a company if not for the bailout of AIG and Goldman themselves by the US Government, which makes us all shareholders. I don't recall getting to vote on this particular agenda item, do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rapier09 Donating Member (209 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
13. O Lord

I fail to see how this Company is going to last much longer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShockediSay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
14. Arrogant & entitled is how they act
Goldman and those whose votes they buy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
15. Wait, I thought a corporation's first duty was to their SHAREHOLDERS
Isn't that what we were told endlessly while we questioned their lack of morals and ethics towards the public good?

So, who are they responsible to NOW?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. It's all about management and their bonuses.
Inevitable when you split ownership and control. Control is great - you spent nothing and can give yourself everything!






Adam Smith was against corporations, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkeye-X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
17. Wonder if the shareholders will have the right to fire the entire board
Edited on Tue Mar-02-10 12:29 AM by Hawkeye-X
and replaced with progressives who will then dismantle Goldman Sucks.

Hawkeye-X
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
18. Is this a criminal violation of their fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders?
Edited on Tue Mar-02-10 12:38 AM by grahamhgreen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earcandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
21. Pull your support from this renegade company who uses your money against your wishes. dump them now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlingBlade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 01:38 AM
Response to Original message
22. Tough Shit Shareholders
Now lets run out and give these pricks another billion why don't we
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frank Booth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 01:42 AM
Response to Original message
23. Of course they do.
How dare the shareholders have the gall to question their masters about their compensation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scooter24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 03:11 AM
Response to Original message
25. Nobody has enough votes to make any change outside of the board.
A massive 48% of the company is controlled by the group of 200+ managing partners.

Roughly 22% is owned by the non-partner employees.
18% is controlled by retired partners and two long-term institutional investors (one bank, one private school foundation controlling over 45 million shares)

That leaves about 12% of the company up for purchase from retail customers on the market.

Even if someone was to push a vote at the shareholder's meeting, the largest block, the company, parnters, and employees, still make up about 88% of the voting stock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #25
29. As my lawyer told me 40 years ago, "You would never be a minority
partner in anything."

All retail folks should simply get out, sell, leave them to it.

It's not like their stock has done well. From the 200s in 2007 to the 150s now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 06:37 AM
Response to Original message
28. ROFL. What makes you think in the Age of Totalitarianism that the Aristocracy would listen to a
Edited on Tue Mar-02-10 06:40 AM by tom_paine
bunch of filthy upstart Plebs telling them how much they can skim off the top?

The utter powerlessness of the American Subject Populace, we Plebians, is becoming more and more obvious.

Sadly, the only "antidote", given the statistical and behavioral psyhcology of 21st Century Inverted Totalitarianism America, is through the Teabaggers/Patriot Movement (or whatever organization Corn-Pone Hitler folds them into), who are already taking over the dominant narrative and rewriting history in a way that must make Hitler and Goebbels smile down in hell.

So, we have two choices, given the current status and psychology of our Empire: finish transforming into Neofeudalism dominated by the Far-Right Corporate Aristocracy, or the explosion of Ultra-RW "Populism", like they had in 1933 Germany.

Each choice has it's own ironies. Neofedualism will be less violent, but terribly terribly bankrupt. 1933 Teabagger Totalitarianismshould probably see an economic uptick just as it did the first time around, but I wouldn't want to be a Liberal, Atheist, Environmentalist, Black, or Gay when the Oath Keepers get around to cleansing your block.

Yeah, they'll keep their oaths, all right Just like they did in 1930s and 1940s Germany. :rofl:

We're getting closer now. Are the outlines clear enough yet, or is denial too strong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. Some people will never get the shock and awe until it's knocking on their door or unzipping the tent
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomThom Donating Member (752 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
31. So what is the difference: the money goes to the stock holders or
the employees. The real problem is that a company can make this kind of money and not create anything. What kind of an economy do we have when a hand full of people can take home this kind of money while the working guy can't even break even, afford to send their kids to college, pay for health care, buy a house or retire comfortably? This is obscene we should tax this situation out of existence, roll back the tax cuts, set the rates at pre-Reagan levels. Earnings on stocks should be taxed at a rate high than the hourly worker pays.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC