CitiGroup shareholder revolt: golden-rule capitalism

A shareholder revolt at banking giant CitiGroup that rejected a pay package for top executives marks a chance for a healthier relationship between investors and managers. It might also reduce the nation's income inequality.

Mark Lennihan/AP Photo
A proposed pay package for Vikram Pandit, CEO of CitiGroup, and other bank executives was rejected by company shareholders in a nonbinding vote April 17.

The American election campaign isn’t the only arena now trying to define what is “fair” on the issue of income inequality.

On Tuesday, shareholders of the giant banking firm CitiGroup shocked management with a vote that disapproved of a proposed pay package for top executives.

The vote’s real message?

Pay must be tied to a manager’s performance, especially in ensuring a company’s long-term health.

The shareholder revolt is a welcome measure of corporate democracy aimed at reining in Wall Street’s myopic drive for short-term earnings and for executive bonuses unhinged from individual merit.

For too long, Washington has assisted such practices with tax rules and other policies that favor management over shareholders and that encourage executives to be paid for a focus on quarterly financial results at the expense of a corporation’s well-being over time.

Those policies changed in a small way with a provision in the 2010 Dodd-Frank law that requires companies to put their pay practices to a shareholder vote at least every three years. This “say on pay” rule allows only an advisory vote by shareholders. But at least it may lessen the asymmetry between managers and shareholders.

Much more can be done by both Congress and states to shift power to shareholders who invest in a company for the long haul and who want control over performance pay to achieve that. Stock options, for instance, should be allowed to be exercised only after a long period of company growth.

This market approach, aimed at deferring compensation over years, would be better than government control of executive pay aimed at reducing income inequality in the United States.

“Congress generally has not done a good job where [it has] tried to determine what is the appropriate level of compensation a publicly held company should provide its senior management,” said Treasury Security Timothy Geithner last month.

The basic idea is to help investors and managers view a company as a mutual commitment to each other and the welfare of the firm – and less as a contest between competing self-interests. Otherwise, either party could damage the company by excessive behavior, such as demanding bonuses not tied to creating value over time. Think of banker Henry F. Potter in the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life.”

Also, under this “golden rule” capitalism, the kind of financial risk taking practiced by Wall Street executives in the run-up to the 2007-09 financial crisis might have been lessened. 

The glue that binds investors to managers must be more self-enforcing, like a curved archway that connects their interests into a greater good.

Votes in coming shareholder meetings of America’s public corporations may do as much for reducing income inequality as any election for US president or Congress.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.