'Ghost Revenue' to boost bonuses - what next?

How greedy top Executives can be is illustrated by the latest ruse that is exposed in this article. Are our fiduciaries in the Asset Management - and their hired hands, the Proxy Advisers - up to the task of reigning in excessive pay? Do they even care? And how to make them face up to their responsibility? (15-May-2018)
Companies are using ghost-revenue to calculate executive bonuses (Marketwatch)

With Chairs like these there is no hope for reform of Exec Pay

Yes, it must be VERY hard! Poor lady, having to chair three (!!) remuneration committees and still not have any understanding of the underlying cause of excessive 'executive' compensation is nothing to be proud of. Who are these 'executives' that deserve such special treatment? The new aristocracy as they certainly expect favoured treatment that is different from the lower classes, the workers to you and me. Time and again Pro
Gov argues that there is no rational reason to pay top management well to do a job and then heap extra 'rewards' on them if they do the job they are supposed to do. If you have an incentive plan give every employee a proportional stake, no ifs and buts. Anything else is just cheap PR or evading the real problem. (7 May 2018)

Reforming executive pay is harder than it should be (FT Pay wall)

Who shall police executive Pay?

The problem is that the 'Shareholders' the headline refers to are only fiduciaries for the REAL shareholders. They latter are systematically disenfranchised, by political decision, regulation and the self-interested activities of the intermediaries - to save cost, have a simpler life. So the first step - before demanding legislation - would be to empower the real investors, take power away from fund managers and proxy advisers. Anyone with a serious interest to improve governance should contact us. (9 May 2018)

Are Shareholders the right people to police executive pay? (FT, Paywall)

Apple, - time for SRI Investors to step up

Is SRI Investing only a slogan to put into marketing brochures? Or should investors take a closer look at questionable practices at firms they hold a stake in? If they are pledging allegiance to long-term investing it is the latter. Vanguard, State Street, Fidelity, show your true colours!
(3-May-2018)
Apple faces complaints - BBC