Big Funds support attack on Free Speech?

When Tech firms like PayPal start to get involved in censoring media outlets it is time for the owners to stand up and be counted. #Vanguard #Blackrock #StateStreet and other major fund managers cannot stand idly by and wash their hands of the critical debate about Free Speech. Investing cannot be just a numbers game, a sort of casino if you want to call it that. And management cannot be operating in a vacuum. Selling the shares is not an option either - first of all the mania for indexing makes it impossible for many funds to sell the shares. It is also a sign of cowardice not to stand up for the principles of a free society. The debate should also be about the responsibility major financial institutions have due to their control of the major media companies (in conjunction with a small clique of superrich individuals/families)
(25 Sept 2022)

Paypal cancelling the free speech union account shows we need a discussion about the control big tech giants have over british civil society

Blackrock's commitment to sustainability - on whose orders?

Pious intentions may be to investor's tastes but has Blackrock - or its self-mportant group of Sustainability experts - received any specific mandate from the investors whose money is at risk?
(24-July-2020)
Blackrock: our commitment to sustainability

Why your Fund Manager/Financial Adviser ignores You

No surprise, there is no proper structure - or even willingness - to incorporate the views of the real end investor/saver into the corporate policies of Fund Managers, Private Banks or other Financial Institutions. All talk about corporate governance is basically only so much (empty?) talk.
(26-August-2019)
Why isnt your mutual fund sticking up for you?

Anyone still thinks that investment fiduciaries should run Corporate Governance?

Who are the 90% that waved through Lloyds Bank CEO Horta-Osorio's pension? The missing link in the whole debate about corporate governance, and inequality in particular, is the lack of any control that real end investors - the man/woman on the street whose savings are at stake - have over the actions that fiduciaries (and fund managers do NOT own any shares!). And make one guess how fund managers associated with Lloyds Bank voted.
(18-May-2019)
Lloyds wins backing for CEO’s pension — but 10% of shareholders dissent

Amundi investors urged to vote against chief’s pay deal

Major problem for the whole governance debate: The 'Shareholders' as the Investment Management Firms and/or Banks are often mistakenly called are in reality nothing but fiduciaries for the real end investors. But they have disproportionate power over corporate policies - and therefore our whole economic (market? capitalist?) system. This is a relatively recent development - just remember that Fidelity was a comparative midget in terms of AuM just 45 years ago, and Blackrock was only founded in 1986. No one seems to have thought of introducing a mechanism that allows end investors - the real shareholders - to influence - let alone control - the governance policies that are exercised on their behalf by these fiduciaries. To add insult to injury directly or indirectly they pay their fiduciaries twice, once with any management fees and again for farming out governance to third parties, known as Proxy 'Advisers'. Not many savers are informed about the fees that are charged by these advisers and how their performance is measured. At best they provide a fig leaf for the fiduciaries and at worst the fees they receive are an outright waste of money as fund managers should be able to assess companies they invest in in a 360 degree fashion, not just if the price will go up or down in the next five minutes. So to conclude: would the great unwashed public agree to pay CEO's the sums they get paid these days? I think the answer should be obvious.
(11-May-2019)
Amundi investors urged to vote against chief’s pay deal

What purpose do Proxy Advisers serve?

One of the large Proxy Advisers seems to be more than happy to sign off on the compensation of Credit Suisse CEO Thiam. And many institutional investors are similarly content with his pay. But where does that leave the ordinary investor - the great majority is not holding CS shares directly but invests their savings via intermediaries who are really fiduciaries. But how do they insure that their investor's best interests are represented? This is the great deficiency in all the discussions about corporate governance - the real participants have no voice!
(10-April-2019)

Dual-class voting shares - are our Fiduciaries standing firm?

Canny insiders - with the help of advisers among investment banks - are steadily eroding shareholder rights. There is opposition but it is piecemeal and split. Reality is, if the major fiduciaries in the asset management business would get together and put their feet down this unhealthy development would be stopped very quickly. I would not go so far as to call these structures the biggest threat to financial markets but they are just one more factor behind the continuous increase in Inequality.
(27-Mar-2019)
Dual-class structures biggest threat to financial markets

'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)

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)

Why bonus limit is slap in the face of ordinary workers

Promising that the bonus for the few (aka ''Executives') will in the future be limited to 200% of salary is a slap in the face of ordinary workers. This compensation Apartheid is not justified by any business rationale and can only continue with the tacit support of the major fiduciaries that manage our money, be the banks, insurance companies or fund managers. Time for the regulators or politics to intervene?
(25-March-2018)
Another Cop-out by Persimmon (Paywall)

2017: A wasted Year in Corporate Governance

When stories such as these feature prominently in the very first days of the New Year one can only despair about the ineffectiveness of the Corporate Governance Crowd - be it in the Media, Academia, Politics or the Investment Community.
The CEO of Intel clears out most of his share holdings when supposedly he should already be aware of a security flaw in his flagship product.
Some (and I guess a large percentage) of British CEO's earn more in three days than the average worker.
Call it lack of moral fibre, lack of shame, failure of Capitalism or whatever, I go for the collective abrogation of responsibility by our fiduciaries in the Investment Industry, including useless free-riders in the so-called 'consulting world'.
Will 2018 be any better? I would not bet on it - but in the UK at least the wolf is at the door. Apres nous le deluge? seems to be the motto for many.

Who asks the REAL Investor for his opinion on Pay?

All very well for the Investment Association to claim that 'Investors' hold cards for AGM season. But apart from the fact that the season is basically over the big question remains: how much - if any - influence do the real end investors that the article refers to ("those of us who ....through pensions and savings are (trying) to get the best possible return on their hard-earned money") have with respect to corporate governance, and the most critical and topical issue, that of (excessive) executive pay?

Tired old cliches on Exec Pay

UK bosses need high pay to be competitve with US pay? That might be so, but then it is high time that someting is done about pay over there. Ban investment in non-compliant companies (a task for the Index providers if they would not just be chasing $$$ but be responsible, or is talk of socially-responsible investing just that?) or thrown USA out of WTO (again, social dumping parallel, just in reverse). All 'Fiduciaries' that do not put their weight behind reform should be excluded from soliciting investors. And please spare us the comparison with sports or media people, soccer and copyright regulation are also crying out for reform!
Drastic, but do you have an alternative that could work?
(6-August-2017)

Saudi Aramco IPO - suitable for Widows and Orphans?

Does it really matter where the listing takes place? The more important question must be - given the negligable influence of public shareholders, the uncertainty over the future energy scenario and the huge political risk surrounding the Middle East region, including Saudi Arabia itself, can regulators allow this IPO to end up in the portfolios of savers and pensioners? Of course, the financial intermediaries and Saudi Arabia's oligarchy would laugh all the way to the bank!
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/saudi-aramco-2018-ipo-plans-slowed-over-where-to-list-2017-06-14

Mutual Funds Have Power to Increase Corp Transparency

As Pro Gov never tires to say - the largest 20-30 Investment Fiduciaries have it in their hand to control, change and supervise Corporate Governance in all Listed Companies. Their stakes allow them to assert de-facto control of all shareholder votes. Even the ever-growing 'Private' Equity industry is only private in name only as nearly all their money is provided by ordinary savers.
Mutual Fund Companies Have Significant Power to Increase Corporate Transparency

CEO's manipulate Politics to feather their nest

No surprise, the greedy clique populating the C-Suite in major corporations is abusing access to top-level politicians to feather their nest. But it would be so easy to neutralize this: CEO's are a tiny minority, just the 1000 top execs are facing tens of millions of ordinary workers and savers. So why can exec pay grow to ever more absurd levels? A major factor is the lack of voice that the many have with respect to their financial assets. While they provide the chips for the financial casino their 'fiduciaries' are either inept, don't care or are in cahoots with the CEO's they are investing the funds of their clients in. That the same CEO's are in charge of the companies that provide a major part of their assets under management (pension funds) aggravates the situation. So what is the solution? Political intervention? Or giving the real end investor a deciding voice with respect to how fiduciaries exercise their proxy votes on their behalf?
As C.E.O. Pay Packages Grow, Top Executives Have the President’s Ear

UAL: gormless Board will probably do Nothing

At least Wells Fargo threw the book at the CEO when the abusive practices came to light. It will be interesting to see how UAL's Board handles this incident, or the large holders (Vanguard, State Street, Blackrock, you know the culprits) of the shares that basically control most of the large public companies. Unfortunately the Board is beholden to the CEO and not really responsible to the Fiduciaries (fake owners). If it would this incident should get immediate and public attention.
Video surfaces of man being dragged from overbooked United flight

No 'credible link' between executive salary and performance

Also morally corrupt, fake economic theory, discriminatory! Shame on Investment Fiduciaries (Banks, Funds etc) that allow this grotesque abuse of power!
MPs: No 'credible link' between executive salary and performance - Business Insider

Santander employs staff on contracts that guarantee just 12 hrs work a year

Deplorable? certainly, but that would include regulators, government 'experts' (SRI/ESG) in the 'Ficuciaries' that invest on our behalf. Hear no evil, see no evil? And the CEO sitting there by the grace of Nepotism is fawned on by the gullible Media.
(27-Mar-2017)
Santander employs staff on contracts that guarantee just 12 hours work a year

Shareholder Proxies Could Be the New Regulators

A step in the right direction. But the great majority of votes are cast by Fiduciary Investors (Pension and Mutual Funds, Asset Managers, Private Banks, Insurance Firms and Sovereign Wealth Funds), often relying on input from Proxy Advisers that are responsible to no one. So this is not going to move the Corporate Governance needle that much until there are ways that the real end investor can control how these Fiduciaries cast the votes on his behalf.
Fair Game: Shareholder Proxies Could Be the New Regulators