Citigroup shareholders reject fat executive pay package

[Recursion]

Source: USA Today

At its annual meeting Tuesday, 55% of the bank's shareholders voted against the pay packages granted to Citigroup's top executives, including CEO Vikram Pandit's $15 million for last year and $10 million retention pay.

The vote is advisory and won't force the bank to change its pay practices, but it did send a powerful message of discontent to Citi's leadership.

"This vote is historic," said Eleanor Bloxham, CEO of The Value Alliance, a board advisory firm. "None of the Wall Street firms have received this kind of a review yet."

Wall Street's massive compensation packages have raised the ire of shareholders for years, especially when they appear to have little relation to the performance of specific executives.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/story/2012-04-18/citigroup-executive-pay-shareholders/54377436/1

---

It's a start. See also Yglesias on this.

[harun]

1. And if the Atlas shrugs, so will we.

[loudsue]

2. It's a good start, but I sure hope it catches on across the board!

Fast!

[Recursion]

3. We didn't get where we are overnight

and we won't get out of where we are overnight either. This is part of a longer-term social change that Dodd-Frank is helping to usher in. Come to think of it, if companies really were responsive to rank-and-file shareholders, that would be a step closer to actual socialism than anything in the world today.

[doc03]

6. I just voted against the GE exective pay package last week and against

Retaining Sam Nunn on the board. But 106 shares can't change Wall Street.

[marshall gaines]

10. me 2

me too!! but i doubt it

[tsuki]

4. The votes are non=binding.

So, more right along. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Recursion]

9. Like I said, we didn't get where we are overnight

and we won't get back to where we were (or rather, where we should be) overnight either. This is (hopefully) the beginning of a larger social change. Corporations' boards acted differently in the 50's and 60's, and hopefully we can get them to act differently in the 20's and 30's, if we start now.

[BadgerKid]

12. All it takes is a shareholder proposal

to vote on retaining board members. I wonder if this has ever been tried.

[lonestarnot]

5. Wow and it even made the fucking news!

[Lawlbringer]

7. *sigh* While historic, these bigwigs repeatedly miss the point.

Somehow, this will trickle all the way down to those of us working at the very bottom of the totem pole.

[siligut]

8. Shareholder proposals

I receive proxy voter sheets. Usually at the end of the list of proposals are the shareholder proposals. Directors invariably recommend we shareholders vote against our own proposals. For example, on the Dupont proxy vote: you are to vote for, against or abstain on a proposal requesting an executive compensation report, the directors recommend you vote against it I wonder why

[dmosh42]

11. Why pay big salaries for parasites and crooks!

[raouldukelives]

13. So the people promoting & profiting from climate change.

Don't want higher pay for the person in charge of creating it for their benefit. Makes sense to me.

[sarcasmo]

14. The shareholders have the power to make the compensation packages stop.

[tularetom]

15. I get these proxies in the mail all the time

Up until now they go directly into the shredder. But lately I've been voting online, almost always in opposition to the slate of directors and any resolutions that affect executive pay.

Not sure how much you have to say if you hold the shares inside a fund. My guess is the fund directors actually exercise the proxy for you.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

16. Thank you Barney Frank

It was Frank/Dodd that required votes like this. They are non-binding but at least they let the board of directors know how the shareholders feel.

[high density]

17. I don't own a lot of individual stocks

But I do own one small bank stock and voted against the executive compensation packages, even though it will do no good. The base pay for the CEO wasn't too ridiculous I thought, but the total compensation ballooned that by 300%. You and I are expected to save for retirement from our measly base pay while all of these big shots get huge base pay and then huge contributions to pension plans.

Citigroup getting this sort of response means that a lot of institutional investors actually voted against the executive compensation package-- that's rather amazing. Rich people voting that other rich people should rethink their compensation policies.

[christx30]

18. I dont understand

how they can get into a job, run the company into the ground, and expect to get millions. From public relations disasters like fees (Wells Fargo is going to charge a 55 cent fee for blinking in a branch) at banks to companies that fold as fast as Superman on laundry day, this is why the economy got trashed. They lay off millions of people to pay for this crap and that makes me sick.