http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=1a51e8d8-8c45-4320-b8ee-e4473c3691a7>1=33002 Nuns outraged by Goldman Sachs 4 orders of nuns have submitted a challenge over the way the bank pays its executives. You've really hit a low point when you get called out by nuns. That's what's happening to Goldman Sachs (GS), a firm that, coincidentally, describes itself as doing "God's work." Four orders of nuns are all investors in Goldman Sachs, and have sent the bank a formal challenge over the excessive ways the bank compensates employees, The Guardian reports. Goldman's top five employees received $69.5 million last year. The nuns -- Sisters of Saint Joseph of Boston, Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia and the Benedictine Sisters of Mt. Angel -- have asked that shareholders demand the board review the company's executive compensation policies. They also want a report of that review by October.
What true effect will this have? Someone could also challenge the pay and use of donations by another organization that has not been taxed as a bussiness for a very long time. This is nothing more than envy. The players in the poverty industry are doing nothing more than casting aspersions at their competition. Some one should open up the books at the See and see what deals got inked for the last 1500 years. There might be some shockers in acctual books. Akuma
Dear Lloyd, The good news is we have enough money for the new convent, the bad news is, it's in your pocket. Peace be with you. Sister Marymountme.
So you think these nuns are ballers? Their upset because they want a bigger yacht? I see your point about The Church, but I wouldn't lump that criticism on nuns, or priests necessarily.
What? sell the stock of a company generating so much revenue the executives get to split up billions of tax payer bailout money? Why would a shareholder do that? Regarding corporate governance... from wikipedia Acting bona fide Directors must act honestly and bona fide ("in good faith"). The test is a subjective one, and directors must act in what they consider is in the interests of the company, not what a court might consider to be those interests.[25] However, the directors may still be held to have failed in this duty where they fail to direct their minds to the question of whether a transaction was in the best interests of the company.[26] Difficult questions can arise when treating the company too much in the abstract. For example, it may be for the benefit of a corporate group as a whole for a company to guarantee the debts of a "sister" company,[27] even though there is no ostensible "benefit" to the company giving the guarantee. Similarly, conceptually at least, there is no benefit to a company in returning profits to shareholders by way of dividend. However, the more pragmatic approach illustrated in the Australian case of Mills v Mills (1938) 60 CLR 150 normally prevails: "[directors are] not required by the law to live in an unreal region of detached altruism and to act in the vague mood of ideal abstraction from obvious facts which must be present to the mind of any honest and intelligent man when he exercises his powers as a director."