Index Providers need Regulation

Removing a company from an Index after it has been suspended from trading for 50 (!!) days, they must be joking! Index providers (esp FTSE, MSCI, S&P) must be controlled, by investment community or by regulators.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/30/msci-warns-chinese-companies-with-suspended-shares-they-could-get-dropped-from-the-emerging-markets-index.html

Two top Wall St chiefs enjoy $314m share bonanza

So how are the two guys going to support efforts to reign in Executive Compensation? They will not even try, so pseudo 'Fiduciaries' like these (and they are among the largest of them) need to be stripped of their voting power. Let them play the market but not supervise the corporations. More often than not they just are just renting the shares - there is no proper intent of taking the responsibilities of ownership, all governance efforts are purely cosmetic. Jamie Dimon in particular should not rattle on about the problems the USA face, he should just look in the mirror: HE IS PART OF THE PROBLEM!
(22-July-2017)
Two top Wall St chiefs enjoy $314m share bonanza

Will Private Equity Eat Itself?

Not woried about the industry as long as the existing model is not corrected by politics and regulators. Heads I win, tails you loose benefits the promoters, excessive executive compensation shielded from the public's (and ultimate investor's) oversight, what a wonderful world, for the few!
(7-July-2017)
Will Private Equity Eat Itself?

Exec Pay: another dead end

Scrapping performance targets and making CEO's and senior executives long-term shareholders sound like a neat solution to the problem of excessive pay and short-termism. It may help to reduce the latter but still leaves open the all-important question: How high should executive compensation be in the first place. And the corporate governance crowd is silent (or complacent? or both?)
(6-July-2017)