Fidelity Investment fund opposes Facebook executive pay plan

Sina Science and technology news Beijing time of August 29, Facebookceo Mark Zuckerberg (Mark Zuckerberg) Some of the mutual fund supporters accuse Facebook executives of overpaid. Facebook, which held its first annual shareholder meeting after the IPO in June of this year, Fidelity Investments, a mutual fund that voted against the executive pay level of the social networking giant, is not binding. In addition to Fidelity Investment Group, other mutual funds that vote against the level of executive pay in Facebook include the Legg Mason Capital Management Value Trust and Franklin Resources (Franklin) 's Franklin Growth Fund, according to Securities regulatory documents ( Franklin substituting Fund). While these mutual funds do not indicate what specific objections are, one of the reasons for their objections may be the grant bonuses. According to proxy documents, Zuckerberg's revenue in 2012 was $1.99 million trillion, well below last year's top executives, such as COO Cherille Sandberg (Sheryl Sandberg), 26.2 million dollars. Independent department at the same time, ISS, an influential proxy consultancy, advises shareholders to vote against Facebook's executive compensation plan. ISS has raised questions about some of Facebook's pay-related practices, such as equity awards and Facebook's $1.2 million trillion in 2012 for Zuckerberg's personal use of aircraft. Edward Hauder, Senior Advisor to Exequity, a Chicago executive compensation consultancy, points out that while most shareholders support Facebook's executive compensation plan, as Facebook's biggest external shareholder and long-term investor, Fidelity Investment Group's negative vote shows How the momentum of Facebook has changed since becoming a public company. In terms of investing in Facebook, mutual fund managers such as Williams Danov, star fund manager of Fidelity Investment Group, may still be "fans" of the company. However, mutual fund votes are generally controlled by independent departments, which conduct a dispassionate policy analysis of the proxy vote. A Facebook spokeswoman declined to comment. JPMorgan's mutual fund manager filed a number of related documents this month, and the fund's vote against the Facebook annual shareholder meeting was only one of them. While large mutual funds dominate the S & P 500 index's shareholder list, fund executives rarely discuss how they will vote in a particular proxy contest, making their annual reports almost irrelevant. At the same time, companiesThe annual shareholder meeting in the industry has been heating up since, after 2008 years of financial crisis, not only have shareholders been dissatisfied with excessive executive pay, but also the ILO and activist investors are doing more active activities. For example, activist investors have urged JPMorgan to take steps to appoint an independent chairman, but failed to get approval. The two funds are opposed to JPMorgan's move to separate the CEO and Chairman positions of Dimon (Jamie Dimon), according to documents submitted by Fidelity Investment Group's Contrafund fund and another famous fund, Magellan. In addition, activist investors have voted against Ray Irani, chairman of the Western Oil Company (Occidental Petroleum), who left the company's board because he failed to win most of the votes. The allocation fund, a representative of the Barclays Group, voted against Ilani and voted against JPMorgan's shareholder proposals, while also opposing JPMorgan's three directors. Vincent Loporchio, spokesman for Ropperch Investment Group, said the group would not comment on specific votes and said the group's foundation would vote on corporate policy. Fidelity Investment Group said on its website that the group's policy is "to vote for a reasonable executive compensation plan as a whole, unless the compensation plan is inconsistent with shareholders ' interests or other issues", while also considering whether a company has an independent remuneration committee. At the annual shareholder meeting on June 11, Facebook shareholders voted 5.7 billion votes for their executive compensation plan, against 404 million votes. According to the U.S. federal government, large companies have to make non-binding "pay say" (Dour on Pay) vote. Facebook has suggested that the voting process should be held every three years. For the proposal, Facebook shareholders voted 5.6 billion votes in support of the two-year vote of 14.9 million, supporting the annual vote of 533.8 million votes. Fidelity Investment Group supports voting once a year. (Tangfeng)