Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs To Allow Shareholders' Vote On Execs Pay

Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase & Co will soon join Citigroup and Bank of America Corp in allowing shareholders to vote on executive compensation, the Wall Street Journal said, citing people familiar with the matter.

Last year's Dodd-Frank financial reform law requires a say-on-pay vote at least three years at most big U.S. companies.

Other companies that already have recommended shareholders' vote on the executive pay are Monsanto Co, Tyco International, Toll Brothers Inc, the newspaper said.

Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan are expected to recommend an annual vote in their coming filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, WSJ said, citing people familiar with the matter.

The banks were not immediately available for comment.

(Reporting by Megha Mandavia; Editing by Jon Loades-Carter)

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

Comments

[Raccoon1]

09:58 AM on 04/04/2011

So, the owners want a say in how the employees are paid. Revolutionary!!

[altohone]

11:59 PM on 04/03/2011

Silly me thinking shareholders own Wall Street. That's just the myth they sell whenever they want to claim damages to all of us owners for evil regulations.

[the964kid]

03:35 PM on 04/03/2011

If shareholders have any sense they will tie executive salary much much closer to stock performance.

[Raccoon1]

10:00 AM on 04/04/2011

.....long term stock performance. A lot of the problem with the way things are working now is that execs can do weird things that are good for the short term (upon which their bonuses are based) that are harmful to the company in the long term (which they care nothing about).

[the964kid]

10:10 AM on 04/04/2011

Agreed.

[nothingchanges]

11:33 AM on 04/03/2011

It would be interesting (to say the least) to see how much these people would be compensated if their jobs were "put out to bid" like any construction contract.

Set the minimum requirements, advertise, then have a public bid opening. That's true capitalism. It will never happen, not in America.

[RTIII]

11:26 AM on 04/03/2011

How the subject being voted on is constructed _matters._

I think it should be multiple choice, from zero to the current level.

Best would be if shareholders got a chance to put the specifics on the ballot to be decided. For example:

"Shall the corporation's bylaws be amended to include a standard formula setting the chief executives pay to be not more than 20 times the median pay at the company?"

Otherwise, if it's just yes / no, it's so much window-dressing.

[dayzee10]

11:06 AM on 04/03/2011

They will let them vote on it but that doesn't mean they have to count the votes!!

[walstir]

08:17 PM on 04/02/2011

Shareholder vote confidence or non-confidence in the business every time they buy or sell shares.

[RTIII]

11:27 AM on 04/03/2011

Separate issue.

[walstir]

01:35 PM on 04/03/2011

How so? If you do not like the compensation levels or any other aspect of the way management is running the business; then you vote with your feet by taking your money out. If you don't like the way banks are run, you vote by moving your money to a credit union. If you don't like the way Walmart treats its female employees; then you shop somewhere else. Which do you think will have the bigger impact - a 25% vote at a shareholders meeting against current compensation levels; or 25% of the stockholders selling their shares?

[Raccoon1]

10:01 AM on 04/04/2011

......and invest it in another company that is doing the same thing?

[walstir]

11:14 AM on 04/04/2011

No two snowflakes are the same. Evolution occurs when even small differences become the basis of selection.

[ACMSinc]

01:38 PM on 04/02/2011

We may finally have more democratic busneses in America

[Seabee 1]

12:30 PM on 04/02/2011

Smoke and mirrors.

[builderman55]

11:11 AM on 04/02/2011

Talk about a needed reform!! Make any pay beyond their salary delay until 5 years after they leave the company to be sure they made decisions that were in the long-term interests of the company. Too much corporate policy is built on short-termprofits to enrich stockholders.

[blackranger]

10:14 AM on 04/02/2011

Since most stockholders are "funds" and other instruments that do not give individuals the option of the vote (maybe they will let you sign a proxy), this is all for show. Corporations are run by their boards, and if you look at who is on their boards, you would see that many of the same people serve on multiple boards. It is the same old theory that rich people know best for everyone. Take your money out of wall street, put it into a small bank on your main street!! You might see less profit (MAYBE) on your retirement funds, but you will see your main street economy get a lot stronger. You also have a better chance of keeping your job, since the big boys are global now and could care less about you.

[CLamb]

11:25 PM on 04/01/2011

Why didn't the legislature and governor of Delaware do this when they created Goldman Sachs? Why should the Federal government be cleaning up after them?

[Scruffyboo2]

10:06 PM on 04/01/2011

How about minimum wage ... let 'em get a taste of the real world.

[bkerensa]

09:33 PM on 04/01/2011

All shareholders should get to vote on executive pay instead of letting executives decide their own multi-million dollar salaries and perks.

[mikestoz]

05:26 PM on 04/01/2011

Its about GD time. I cannot see how shareholders are getting pennies on the dollar in dividends while these CEO and top execs are voting themselves huge bonuses'. If I were a stockholder in these bank stocks, I would demand that no executive make more than 30x the average salary and make up the rest in bonuses' , IF AND ONLY IF the company does well.