Jan. 18 WSJ Op Ed By Mr. Bogle

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Locked
Topic Author
Dagwood
Posts: 1031
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:26 pm
Location: MD

Jan. 18 WSJ Op Ed By Mr. Bogle

Post by Dagwood »

Worth a read, definitely. The link is here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 40290.html
btenny
Posts: 5557
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:47 pm

Post by btenny »

Thanks
Pacific
Posts: 1417
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: Lost in the middle of the Pacific

Post by Pacific »

Outstanding!
User avatar
runthetrails
Posts: 593
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:51 pm
Location: Tennessee

Post by runthetrails »

Excellent -- in particular the bit about executive salaries which average 400x the average worker's pay, with little correlation to company performance.

I would love to see this graphic from the NYT (hurry while it is still free) brought up-to-date and charted alongside median pay for front-line white collar workers.
User avatar
Kenster1
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:50 pm

Post by Kenster1 »

I would get banned on this forum for ranting or complaining about excessive executive compensation.
:wink:
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Any overconfidence in your ability, willingness and need to take risk may be hazardous to your health.
Topic Author
Dagwood
Posts: 1031
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:26 pm
Location: MD

Post by Dagwood »

runthetrails wrote:Excellent -- in particular the bit about executive salaries which average 400x the average worker's pay, with little correlation to company performance.

I would love to see this graphic from the NYT (hurry while it is still free) brought up-to-date and charted alongside median pay for front-line white collar workers.
While he certainly references that trend, and it is troubling, I would be careful about that being your main takeaway, if you will. I think his points are larger than that.
User avatar
runthetrails
Posts: 593
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:51 pm
Location: Tennessee

Post by runthetrails »

Kenster1 wrote:I would get banned on this forum for ranting or complaining about excessive executive compensation.
:wink:
Might be worth it, though.
Alex Frakt
Founder
Posts: 11101
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:06 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Post by Alex Frakt »

Kenster1 wrote:I would get banned on this forum for ranting or complaining about excessive executive compensation.
:wink:
Jack didn't post it here. You can complain about anything you want somewhere else and we won't ban you. Besides, even if it had been posted here, since it would be a first offense, he'd get off with just a warning :-)
musbane
Posts: 393
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:14 am

Post by musbane »

Excellent. I agree with all of it.
Except... do we really want the IRS to start taxing assets within IRAs?
unclemick
Posts: 1318
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:18 am
Location: greater Kansas City

Post by unclemick »

Amen. My evil thoughts, having just double checked my -17% drop in dividends among my Nowegian widow stocks alone, should not be expressed here.

Although - like Timex - my Target Retirement took a licking but kept me retired - or some play on words like that. :D

All praise to Mr Bogle and his 'policy portfolio concept.'

heh heh heh - 8)
User avatar
Kenster1
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:50 pm

Post by Kenster1 »

Alex Frakt wrote:
Kenster1 wrote:I would get banned on this forum for ranting or complaining about excessive executive compensation.
:wink:
Jack didn't post it here. You can complain about anything you want somewhere else and we won't ban you. Besides, even if it had been posted here, since it would be a first offense, he'd get off with just a warning :-)
Well in that case -- Guys here's a LINK to Bogle's thoughts on the contentious Government healthcare issue.


Just kidding..... :oops: :P :oops:
Last edited by Kenster1 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Any overconfidence in your ability, willingness and need to take risk may be hazardous to your health.
carolinacasper
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:10 pm

Post by carolinacasper »

I didn't know Bogle was a regulation type guy.

For some reason, I thought he was a die-hard capitalist.
User avatar
Quidnam
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:11 am
Location: New York, NY

Post by Quidnam »

carolinacasper wrote:I didn't know Bogle was a regulation type guy.

For some reason, I thought he was a die-hard capitalist.
Those two concepts are not actually in opposition to one another. Bogle is a die-hard capitalist who recognizes the necessity of legal and institutional constructs in regulating capital markets -- they cannot function, or even exist, otherwise.

Certain other "die hard" capitalists seem predisposed to allow the system to run itself off a cliff, over and over again -- either in pursuit of short term gain, or to satisfy anti-government ideological purity.
unclemick
Posts: 1318
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:18 am
Location: greater Kansas City

Post by unclemick »

Even football needs refs. The ongoing arguement back and forth is always - how much?

That will never end - sort of a perpetual ying and yang.

heh heh heh - :wink:
Alex Frakt
Founder
Posts: 11101
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:06 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Post by Alex Frakt »

carolinacasper wrote:I didn't know Bogle was a regulation type guy.

For some reason, I thought he was a die-hard capitalist.
Milton Friedman wrote:There’s a common misconception that people who are in favor of a free market are also in favor of everything that big business does. Nothing could be further from the truth.
User avatar
Dan Moroboshi
Posts: 866
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:10 pm

Post by Dan Moroboshi »

Kenster1 wrote:
Alex Frakt wrote:
Kenster1 wrote:I would get banned on this forum for ranting or complaining about excessive executive compensation.
:wink:
Jack didn't post it here. You can complain about anything you want somewhere else and we won't ban you. Besides, even if it had been posted here, since it would be a first offense, he'd get off with just a warning :-)
Well in that case -- Guys here's a LINK to Bogle's thoughts on the contentioius Government healthcare issue.


Just kidding..... :oops: :P :oops:
DARN YOU, I clicked on it!!! :oops: *shakes fist*

The only thing that makes me angrier is this video of the head of the IRS stating that all tax-deferred retirement accounts (401k, 503c, IRAs) will be phased out starting next year.

(warning: video may cause murderous, seething, apoplectic rage)
grok87
Posts: 9311
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:00 pm

Re: Jan. 18 WSJ Op Ed By Mr. Bogle

Post by grok87 »

raymondalombardo wrote:Worth a read, definitely. The link is here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 40290.html
Thanks for posting it. Fans of the Mr. Bogle's article might be interested in the work of Nell Minow et al at the Corporate Library

http://blog.thecorporatelibrary.com/
Nell Minow wrote: January 18, 2010
Financial Executive Magazine: The Year of the Shareholder

Paul Sweeney has an excellent article in Financial Executive Magazineas a part of its special issue on what's ahead for 2010. Provocatively entitled "Will 2010 Be the Year of the Shareholder," it opens:

A constellation of forces is coalescing to give investors more clout over such thorny issues as executive pay, the composition and election of corporate boards, board transparency and responsiveness to shareholder concerns....In addition, continued shareholder outrage at overly generous pay packages to top executives — often at poorly performing companies — is further tilting the balance of power.

While Sweeney predicts some pushback from corporate executives, who argue that these pay packages are necessary for retention and to provide incentives,

even a respected source such as the executive search firm Spencer Stuart urges boards of directors to recognize that much governmental and shareholder scrutiny is deserved. “The perceived — or, in some cases, real — disconnect between company performance and executive compensation is fanning the flames of shareholder discontent,” Spencer Stuart notes in its comprehensive 2009 survey on the state of corporate boards. “In light of these pressures,” the report adds, “boards need to be sure they are operating as effectively as possible and have good governance practices in place.”

Sweeney quotes Hye-Won Choi, the head of corporate governance at TIAA-CREF, on the impact of the rule change that eliminates automatic votes in favor of board candidates. “The end of discretionary broker voting means that management can no longer expect elections to be routine. It will level the playing field. Now the vote will be a clearer expression of shareholder sentiment.” And he notes that even before this rule change went into effect, the percentage of votes against directors has been rising.

Through August 2009, 9.8 percent of unopposed director nominees had at least 20 percent of shares voted against them or withheld, a 78-per- cent increase above the 5.5 percent figure in 2008. The percentage of directors with a majority of shareholders registering opposition to their candidacy tripled, to 0.6 percent in 2009 compared with 0.2 percent in 2008. It may seem a tiny number, but amounts to 84 director nominees at 49 companies.

Sweeney predicts a rise in shareholder resolutions on compensation, governance, and climate change.

The proxy season, in combination with significant congressional legis- lation and additional SEC rule making, could make the year 2010 among the most historic in the annals of corporate governance. The consultancy Spencer Stuart puts it this way: Events this year “could potentially reshape the corporate governance landscape as dramatically as Sarbanes-Oxley. And just as with SOX, it may take several years before the full impact of the changes becomes apparent.”

Nell Minow - Editor
RIP Mr. Bogle.
User avatar
Lbill
Posts: 4997
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:25 pm
Location: Somewhere between Up and Down

Post by Lbill »

It's interesting and ironic that Bogle's well-expressed angst about the state of capital markets provides one of the best arguments around for NOT buying-and-holding stocks anymore.
"Life can only be understood backward; but it must be lived forward." ~ Søren Kierkegaard | | "You can't connect the dots looking forward; but only by looking backwards." ~ Steve Jobs
unclemick
Posts: 1318
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:18 am
Location: greater Kansas City

Post by unclemick »

Lbill wrote:It's interesting and ironic that Bogle's well-expressed angst about the state of capital markets provides one of the best arguments around for NOT buying-and-holding stocks anymore.
Yep - as a 'lumper' how do I sort out the good guys vs the bad guys if I tend to buy whole indexes - including the good, the bad and the ugly to paraphrase - er so to speak.

heh heh heh - :?:
bb
Posts: 326
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:04 pm

Post by bb »

Lbill wrote:It's interesting and ironic that Bogle's well-expressed angst about the state of capital markets provides one of the best arguments around for NOT buying-and-holding stocks anymore.
I am not sure that is a correct statement. Bogle is stating speculation
is resulting in high stock turn over. Index funds have low turn over.
Topic Author
Dagwood
Posts: 1031
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:26 pm
Location: MD

Post by Dagwood »

Alex Frakt wrote:
carolinacasper wrote:I didn't know Bogle was a regulation type guy.

For some reason, I thought he was a die-hard capitalist.
Milton Friedman wrote:There’s a common misconception that people who are in favor of a free market are also in favor of everything that big business does. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Great point. Big businesses often behave in very anti-capitalist / free market ways, if it suits the goal of keeping them big and everyone else small.
User avatar
Kenster1
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:50 pm

Post by Kenster1 »

Bogle video interview here on Fox Business today (1/19):

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3972426/ ... t_id=87247

He supports the new bank tax proposed by the President --- taxpayers should not “cover the grotesque mistakes made by these bankers.”
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Any overconfidence in your ability, willingness and need to take risk may be hazardous to your health.
the intruder
Posts: 990
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:12 pm

Post by the intruder »

Kenster1 wrote:Bogle video interview here on Fox Business today (1/19):

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3972426/ ... t_id=87247

He supports the new bank tax proposed by the President --- taxpayers should not “cover the grotesque mistakes made by these bankers.”
But the tax will be used to payoff loans to Fannie, Freddie, AIG, GM, GMAC and Chrysler who owe $120B to the government which is unlikely to be recovered, while the banks have paid off their loans with interest and stock warrants. Even Barney Frank says he cant justify requiring banks to pay the tax which will just be passed on to consumers as higher fees.
Locked