All the proposals we have filed, even if they are not directly pay-related, have been targeted at companies that have problematic pay practices. We think that undeserved executive compensation is probably the best indicator of a board that isn't accountable to its shareholders.
Disclosure is necessary but insufficient to restrain pay.
Elections aren't structured in a way that gives shareholders a voice. The big theme is to hold boards and directors more accountable.
In the past they blew us off, and now they're talking.
Increased costs are being borne because they are filling huge deficiencies in the regulatory approach.
That was the first flexing of shareholder muscle and that shareholders were emphasizing the importance of splitting those roles.
The amount of shareholder wealth that has been transferred from shareholders to CEOs has doubled in the past 10 years.
The only leverage we have for bad pay is embarrassment.
The rules are necessary but not sufficient.
The symptom was executive pay being non-aligned with shareholder interests and our response was to create an accountability mechanism for directors.
These small regulatory costs are nothing compared to the damage that was done by WorldCom and Enron.
We think that no mutual fund has actually met the gold standard yet in terms of aggressively rooting out pay that's not deserved.
We were looking for greater transparency, and this moves in the other direction.
Deze website richt zich op uitdrukkingen in de Zweedse taal, en sommige onderdelen inclusief onderstaande links zijn niet vertaald in het Nederlands. Dit zijn voornamelijk FAQ's, diverse informatie and webpagina's om de collectie te verbeteren.
Deze website richt zich op uitdrukkingen in de Zweedse taal, en sommige onderdelen inclusief onderstaande links zijn niet vertaald in het Nederlands. Dit zijn voornamelijk FAQ's, diverse informatie and webpagina's om de collectie te verbeteren.