Discussion:
Cancelling credit card bad for credit history ?
(too old to reply)
John Doe
2004-04-10 23:33:45 UTC
Permalink
Hello

Around Christmas last year, I applied for and got a Citibank credit card
that gives me 5% cash back for all purchases I make upto May 1, 2004. I
made full use of it and am very close to the maximum annual cash back I can
get on it.

A couple of weeks, they advertised for a new, similar offer, this time for
all purchases through October 1, 2004.

I'm considering cancelling the old account and applying for the new one.

I've heard cancelling credit card accounts is bad for one's credit history.

Is that true ?

Thanks.
s***@hotmail.com
2004-04-10 23:47:47 UTC
Permalink
Use the cash back to make minimum payments. BTW, do you know how much
the CEO makes in a single year?
Post by John Doe
Hello
Around Christmas last year, I applied for and got a Citibank credit card
that gives me 5% cash back for all purchases I make upto May 1, 2004. I
made full use of it and am very close to the maximum annual cash back I can
get on it.
A couple of weeks, they advertised for a new, similar offer, this time for
all purchases through October 1, 2004.
I'm considering cancelling the old account and applying for the new one.
I've heard cancelling credit card accounts is bad for one's credit history.
Is that true ?
Thanks.
John Doe
2004-04-11 00:28:35 UTC
Permalink
I don't believe in making minimum payments and borrowing the rest of the
balance at an exorbitant interest rate. I pay off my entire balance each
month.

I don't care much about what the CEO makes either.
s***@hotmail.com
2004-04-11 01:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Gerbils and hamsters don't care what the CEO makes either.
Post by John Doe
I don't believe in making minimum payments and borrowing the rest of the
balance at an exorbitant interest rate. I pay off my entire balance each
month.
I don't care much about what the CEO makes either.
J SKerry
2004-04-11 06:14:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.com
BTW, do you know how much
the CEO makes in a single year?
Why does it matter?
Andrew Hardy
2004-04-11 15:03:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.com
BTW, do you know how much
the CEO makes in a single year?
Why are you so green eyed about their salary?

Their job is to make the company profitable and provide dividends to the
stockholders. If they can't do it...they are fired. If they can, they
deserve every penny that they are paid. Lee Iacocca turned Chrysler around and
he EARNED his salary.
mike
2004-04-11 15:51:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Hardy
Their job is to make the company profitable and provide dividends to the
stockholders. If they can't do it...they are fired.
not often enough. rarely, in fact. most of the time, they take their golden
parachute, jump ship, and find another company.
George Grapman
2004-04-11 16:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by mike
Post by Andrew Hardy
Their job is to make the company profitable and provide dividends to the
stockholders. If they can't do it...they are fired.
not often enough. rarely, in fact. most of the time, they take their golden
parachute, jump ship, and find another company.
In reality the ones who usually get fired are the underlings who had no role
in the bad corporate decisions


--
To reply via e-mail please delete one c from paccbell
Rod Speed
2004-04-11 19:45:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Hardy
Post by s***@hotmail.com
BTW, do you know how much
the CEO makes in a single year?
Why are you so green eyed about their salary?
Maybe he considers what he's paid to be outrageous and unjustifiable.
Post by Andrew Hardy
Their job is to make the company profitable and provide dividends
to the stockholders. If they can't do it...they are fired.
Sometimes they are, often they aint.
Post by Andrew Hardy
If they can, they deserve every penny that they are paid.
Bullshit.
Post by Andrew Hardy
Lee Iacocca turned Chrysler around and he EARNED his salary.
And FAR more often some fool is paid heaps and delivers nothing.

Quite a bit of the time they are paid an immense
salary as they drive the company into the ground.
mike
2004-04-11 19:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Andrew Hardy
Lee Iacocca turned Chrysler around and he EARNED his salary.
dunno how involved he was with the making of the K-series cars, or their
minivan derivative, but *thats* what saved the company.
Post by Rod Speed
And FAR more often some fool is paid heaps and delivers nothing.
Quite a bit of the time they are paid an immense
salary as they drive the company into the ground.
like mike eisner, hiring executives from The Gap to run theme parks.
George Grapman
2004-04-12 01:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by mike
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Andrew Hardy
Lee Iacocca turned Chrysler around and he EARNED his salary.
dunno how involved he was with the making of the K-series cars, or their
minivan derivative, but *thats* what saved the company.
What saved them was government guaranteed loans.
Post by mike
Post by Rod Speed
And FAR more often some fool is paid heaps and delivers nothing.
Quite a bit of the time they are paid an immense
salary as they drive the company into the ground.
like mike eisner, hiring executives from The Gap to run theme parks.
--
To reply via e-mail please delete one c from paccbell
Bob Ward
2004-04-12 01:45:42 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 01:12:40 GMT, George Grapman
Post by George Grapman
Post by mike
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Andrew Hardy
Lee Iacocca turned Chrysler around and he EARNED his salary.
dunno how involved he was with the making of the K-series cars, or their
minivan derivative, but *thats* what saved the company.
What saved them was government guaranteed loans.
I disagree.

If their product was not up to snuff, they could not have sold enough
of it to repay the government guaranteed loans - which they did.

What saved them was turning around the practices that were causing
them to fail in the marketplace previously.
Post by George Grapman
Post by mike
Post by Rod Speed
And FAR more often some fool is paid heaps and delivers nothing.
Quite a bit of the time they are paid an immense
salary as they drive the company into the ground.
like mike eisner, hiring executives from The Gap to run theme parks.
George Grapman
2004-04-12 02:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Ward
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 01:12:40 GMT, George Grapman
Post by George Grapman
Post by mike
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Andrew Hardy
Lee Iacocca turned Chrysler around and he EARNED his salary.
dunno how involved he was with the making of the K-series cars, or their
minivan derivative, but *thats* what saved the company.
What saved them was government guaranteed loans.
I disagree.
If their product was not up to snuff, they could not have sold enough
of it to repay the government guaranteed loans - which they did.
What saved them was turning around the practices that were causing
them to fail in the marketplace previously.
Absent the government guaranteed loans they would not have had the
opportunity.
Post by Bob Ward
Post by George Grapman
Post by mike
Post by Rod Speed
And FAR more often some fool is paid heaps and delivers nothing.
Quite a bit of the time they are paid an immense
salary as they drive the company into the ground.
like mike eisner, hiring executives from The Gap to run theme parks.
--
To reply via e-mail please delete one c from paccbell
mike
2004-04-12 02:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Grapman
Post by Bob Ward
What saved them was turning around the practices that were causing
them to fail in the marketplace previously.
which were crappy RWD carbureted gashogs.
Post by George Grapman
Absent the government guaranteed loans they would not have had the
opportunity.
and the govt bought or leased a boatload of K cars for govt work. even the
postal service was using aries wagons.
George Grapman
2004-04-12 02:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by mike
Post by George Grapman
Post by Bob Ward
What saved them was turning around the practices that were causing
them to fail in the marketplace previously.
which were crappy RWD carbureted gashogs.
Post by George Grapman
Absent the government guaranteed loans they would not have had the
opportunity.
and the govt bought or leased a boatload of K cars for govt work. even the
postal service was using aries wagons.
One thing bothered me about the loan and it was not the deal itself. Part of
the arrangement had Chrysler giving the government stock options. After the
loans were repaid (by the way, the government did not give money to the
company) the stock price was much higher than the option price and Chrysler
asked the government to not market the options. The government auctioned them
and a brokerage firm had the high bid. I thought it was wrong for Chrysler to
try to renege on the agreement.




--
To reply via e-mail please delete one c from paccbell
Bob Ward
2004-04-12 02:37:02 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 02:01:17 GMT, George Grapman
Post by George Grapman
Post by Bob Ward
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 01:12:40 GMT, George Grapman
Post by George Grapman
Post by mike
Post by Andrew Hardy
Lee Iacocca turned Chrysler around and he EARNED his salary.
dunno how involved he was with the making of the K-series cars, or their
minivan derivative, but *thats* what saved the company.
What saved them was government guaranteed loans.
I disagree.
If their product was not up to snuff, they could not have sold enough
of it to repay the government guaranteed loans - which they did.
What saved them was turning around the practices that were causing
them to fail in the marketplace previously.
Absent the government guaranteed loans they would not have had the
opportunity.
Granted - but the fact remains that they DID improve, and they DID
repay the loans. If they had not improved the product, the loans
would have only postponed their failure.
mike
2004-04-12 02:39:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Ward
Post by George Grapman
Absent the government guaranteed loans they would not have had the
opportunity.
Granted - but the fact remains that they DID improve, and they DID
repay the loans. If they had not improved the product, the loans
would have only postponed their failure.
IIRC, they paid the loans off early, too.
George Grapman
2004-04-12 02:45:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Ward
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 02:01:17 GMT, George Grapman
Post by George Grapman
Post by Bob Ward
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 01:12:40 GMT, George Grapman
Post by George Grapman
Post by mike
Post by Andrew Hardy
Lee Iacocca turned Chrysler around and he EARNED his salary.
dunno how involved he was with the making of the K-series cars, or their
minivan derivative, but *thats* what saved the company.
What saved them was government guaranteed loans.
I disagree.
If their product was not up to snuff, they could not have sold enough
of it to repay the government guaranteed loans - which they did.
What saved them was turning around the practices that were causing
them to fail in the marketplace previously.
Absent the government guaranteed loans they would not have had the
opportunity.
Granted - but the fact remains that they DID improve, and they DID
repay the loans. If they had not improved the product, the loans
would have only postponed their failure.
So we actually agree with each other.


--
To reply via e-mail please delete one c from paccbell
Bob Ward
2004-04-13 02:11:14 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 02:45:38 GMT, George Grapman
Post by George Grapman
Post by Bob Ward
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 02:01:17 GMT, George Grapman
Post by George Grapman
Post by Bob Ward
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 01:12:40 GMT, George Grapman
Post by George Grapman
Post by mike
Post by Andrew Hardy
Lee Iacocca turned Chrysler around and he EARNED his salary.
dunno how involved he was with the making of the K-series cars, or their
minivan derivative, but *thats* what saved the company.
What saved them was government guaranteed loans.
I disagree.
If their product was not up to snuff, they could not have sold enough
of it to repay the government guaranteed loans - which they did.
What saved them was turning around the practices that were causing
them to fail in the marketplace previously.
Absent the government guaranteed loans they would not have had the
opportunity.
Granted - but the fact remains that they DID improve, and they DID
repay the loans. If they had not improved the product, the loans
would have only postponed their failure.
So we actually agree with each other.
Have you retracted your statement that the government loans were what
saved Chrysler? If so, we are in agreement.
George Grapman
2004-04-13 02:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Ward
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 02:45:38 GMT, George Grapman
Post by George Grapman
Post by Bob Ward
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 02:01:17 GMT, George Grapman
Post by George Grapman
Post by Bob Ward
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 01:12:40 GMT, George Grapman
Post by George Grapman
Post by mike
Post by Andrew Hardy
Lee Iacocca turned Chrysler around and he EARNED his salary.
dunno how involved he was with the making of the K-series cars, or their
minivan derivative, but *thats* what saved the company.
What saved them was government guaranteed loans.
I disagree.
If their product was not up to snuff, they could not have sold enough
of it to repay the government guaranteed loans - which they did.
What saved them was turning around the practices that were causing
them to fail in the marketplace previously.
Absent the government guaranteed loans they would not have had the
opportunity.
Granted - but the fact remains that they DID improve, and they DID
repay the loans. If they had not improved the product, the loans
would have only postponed their failure.
So we actually agree with each other.
Have you retracted your statement that the government loans were what
saved Chrysler? If so, we are in agreement.
No am saying that absent the loan guarantees Chrysler would not have been able to
create the products that rescued the company. Maybe we still disagree.


--
To reply via e-mail please delete one c from paccbell

SpammersDie
2004-04-11 20:17:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Andrew Hardy
Post by s***@hotmail.com
BTW, do you know how much
the CEO makes in a single year?
Why are you so green eyed about their salary?
Maybe he considers what he's paid to be outrageous and unjustifiable.
Then he can use his shareholder influence to pressure the board to do
something about it. If he doesn't like the results, nobody's forcing him to
hold his citibank stock.

If he's not a shareholder, then he's not paying their salary so what he
thinks about it is as is important as what I think about his salary - i.e.
not at all.
Rod Speed
2004-04-11 20:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Andrew Hardy
BTW, do you know how much the CEO makes in a single year?
Why are you so green eyed about their salary?
Maybe he considers what he's paid to be outrageous and unjustifiable.
Then he can use his shareholder influence to
pressure the board to do something about it.
Nope, because his shareholding can never
matter a damn to anyone, the board in spades.
Post by SpammersDie
If he doesn't like the results, nobody's
forcing him to hold his citibank stock.
Sure. And he's welcome to make snide remarks
about the CEO's salary if he chooses to too.
Post by SpammersDie
If he's not a shareholder, then he's not paying their
salary so what he thinks about it is as is important
as what I think about his salary - i.e. not at all.
Just as true if he is a shareholder too.
SpammersDie
2004-04-11 23:41:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Andrew Hardy
BTW, do you know how much the CEO makes in a single year?
Why are you so green eyed about their salary?
Maybe he considers what he's paid to be outrageous and unjustifiable.
Then he can use his shareholder influence to
pressure the board to do something about it.
Nope, because his shareholding can never
matter a damn to anyone, the board in spades.
Not if a sufficient number of shareholders think like he does.

If he's the only one out of the millions that have money staked in the
company that thinks the CEO is getting overpaid, then he deserves to be
ignored. Someone out there will happy enough to pay him to take his stake
off his hands.
Rod Speed
2004-04-11 23:49:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Andrew Hardy
BTW, do you know how much the CEO makes in a single year?
Why are you so green eyed about their salary?
Maybe he considers what he's paid to be outrageous and unjustifiable.
Then he can use his shareholder influence to
pressure the board to do something about it.
Nope, because his shareholding can never
matter a damn to anyone, the board in spades.
Not if a sufficient number of shareholders think like he does.
Even a number of individual shareholders will never amount to
a hill of beans to the board. Its the institutional shareholders
and funds that own their shares that matter to them, because
it will always be them that own the vast bulk of the shares
with an operation like shittybank.
Post by SpammersDie
If he's the only one out of the millions that have money
staked in the company that thinks the CEO is getting
overpaid, then he deserves to be ignored.
Even if all the individual shareholders all feel that the
CEO is being grossly overpaid, they'll STILL be ignored.

The reality with an operation like that is that the only option
open to individual shareholders in an operation like that is
to sell their shares if they dont like some policy detail.
Post by SpammersDie
Someone out there will happy enough to
pay him to take his stake off his hands.
Indeed. And thats the only option actually available to an individual shareholder.

Your original aint. The board will just make an obscene gesture in his
general direction if he attempts to 'pressure' the board on that and
might at most politely inform him that he is welcome to sell his shares.
SpammersDie
2004-04-11 23:57:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Andrew Hardy
BTW, do you know how much the CEO makes in a single year?
Why are you so green eyed about their salary?
Maybe he considers what he's paid to be outrageous and unjustifiable.
Then he can use his shareholder influence to
pressure the board to do something about it.
Nope, because his shareholding can never
matter a damn to anyone, the board in spades.
Not if a sufficient number of shareholders think like he does.
Even a number of individual shareholders will never amount to
a hill of beans to the board. Its the institutional shareholders
and funds that own their shares that matter to them, because
it will always be them that own the vast bulk of the shares
with an operation like shittybank.
I don't recall excluding institutional shareholders in my "Not if a
sufficient number of shareholders..." sentence. Or any other part of my
posts for that matter.

What you say is true. But it doesn't rebut any argument I made.
Rod Speed
2004-04-12 00:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Andrew Hardy
BTW, do you know how much the CEO makes in a single year?
Why are you so green eyed about their salary?
Maybe he considers what he's paid to be outrageous and unjustifiable.
Then he can use his shareholder influence to
pressure the board to do something about it.
Nope, because his shareholding can never
matter a damn to anyone, the board in spades.
Not if a sufficient number of shareholders think like he does.
Even a number of individual shareholders will never amount to
a hill of beans to the board. Its the institutional shareholders
and funds that own their shares that matter to them, because
it will always be them that own the vast bulk of the shares
with an operation like shittybank.
I don't recall excluding institutional shareholders in my
"Not if a sufficient number of shareholders..." sentence.
Even you must have noticed that they aint posting here much.
Post by SpammersDie
Or any other part of my posts for that matter.
What you say is true. But it doesn't rebut any argument I made.
Bullshit. The reality for an individual posting here is that
there is no possible way to 'can use his shareholder
influence to pressure the board to do something about it'

The ONLY option is to sell his shares.
SpammersDie
2004-04-12 02:19:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Andrew Hardy
BTW, do you know how much the CEO makes in a single year?
Why are you so green eyed about their salary?
Maybe he considers what he's paid to be outrageous and unjustifiable.
Then he can use his shareholder influence to
pressure the board to do something about it.
Nope, because his shareholding can never
matter a damn to anyone, the board in spades.
Not if a sufficient number of shareholders think like he does.
Even a number of individual shareholders will never amount to
a hill of beans to the board. Its the institutional shareholders
and funds that own their shares that matter to them, because
it will always be them that own the vast bulk of the shares
with an operation like shittybank.
I don't recall excluding institutional shareholders in my
"Not if a sufficient number of shareholders..." sentence.
Even you must have noticed that they aint posting here much.
No fuck. So? Their posting activity of lack thereof doesn't change the
meaning of a sentence.

You got caught attacking a strawman. Period.
Rod Speed
2004-04-12 02:24:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Andrew Hardy
BTW, do you know how much the CEO makes in a single year?
Why are you so green eyed about their salary?
Maybe he considers what he's paid to be outrageous and
unjustifiable.
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Then he can use his shareholder influence to
pressure the board to do something about it.
Nope, because his shareholding can never
matter a damn to anyone, the board in spades.
Not if a sufficient number of shareholders think like he does.
Even a number of individual shareholders will never amount to
a hill of beans to the board. Its the institutional shareholders
and funds that own their shares that matter to them, because
it will always be them that own the vast bulk of the shares
with an operation like shittybank.
I don't recall excluding institutional shareholders in my
"Not if a sufficient number of shareholders..." sentence.
Even you must have noticed that they aint posting here much.
No fuck. So? Their posting activity of lack thereof doesn't change the
meaning of a sentence.
You got caught attacking a strawman. Period.
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.

You clearly told HIM to 'use his shareholder influence
to pressure the board to do something about it'

The most they would ever do is tell him that he's always welcome
to sell his shares if he doesnt like the salary the CEO gets.
Albert
2004-04-12 01:55:38 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:24:43 +1000
"Rod Speed" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Post by Rod Speed
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
Hey, I thought that piece of troll boilerplate was reserved for me.
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of
thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible,
because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
Rod Speed
2004-04-12 03:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert
Post by Rod Speed
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
Hey, I thought
Obvious lie.

Even you should be able to snipe your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
Albert
2004-04-12 11:28:10 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:05:16 +1000
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Albert
Post by Rod Speed
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
Hey, I thought
Obvious lie.
Even you should be able to snipe your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
My only predicament is that I am being harassed by an illiterate troll
who snips without indication. A pox on you and your house.

P.S. Give a little thought to some newer insults. You're getting
boring.
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of
thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible,
because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
Rod Speed
2004-04-12 19:21:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Albert
Hey, I thought
Obvious lie.
Even you should be able to snipe your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
My only predicament is that I am being harassed
Another obvious lie.

Reams of your puerile attempts at insults any 3 year
old could leave for dead, flushed where they belong.
The Real Bev
2004-04-12 19:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Albert
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Albert
Hey, I thought
Obvious lie.
Even you should be able to snipe your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
My only predicament is that I am being harassed
Another obvious lie.
Reams of your puerile attempts at insults any 3 year
old could leave for dead, flushed where they belong.
You're not really here for the frugality, are you?
--
Cheers,
Bev
-------------------------
The bear joke was better.
Rod Speed
2004-04-12 21:05:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Real Bev
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Albert
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Albert
Hey, I thought
Obvious lie.
Even you should be able to snipe your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
My only predicament is that I am being harassed
Another obvious lie.
Reams of your puerile attempts at insults any 3 year
old could leave for dead, flushed where they belong.
You're not really here for the frugality, are you?
Wrong. I choose to take a dump on fools like that that
mindlessly troll about stuff as unimportant as spelling.

You get to like that or lump that.
SpammersDie
2004-04-12 02:48:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Andrew Hardy
BTW, do you know how much the CEO makes in a single year?
Why are you so green eyed about their salary?
Maybe he considers what he's paid to be outrageous and
unjustifiable.
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Then he can use his shareholder influence to
pressure the board to do something about it.
Nope, because his shareholding can never
matter a damn to anyone, the board in spades.
Not if a sufficient number of shareholders think like he does.
Even a number of individual shareholders will never amount to
a hill of beans to the board. Its the institutional shareholders
and funds that own their shares that matter to them, because
it will always be them that own the vast bulk of the shares
with an operation like shittybank.
I don't recall excluding institutional shareholders in my
"Not if a sufficient number of shareholders..." sentence.
Even you must have noticed that they aint posting here much.
No fuck. So? Their posting activity of lack thereof doesn't change the
meaning of a sentence.
You got caught attacking a strawman. Period.
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
If you can't comprehend the simple difference between "shareholder" and
"individual shareholders only" in a sentence, that's not my problem to fix.
Post by Rod Speed
You clearly told HIM to 'use his shareholder influence
to pressure the board to do something about it'
The most they would ever do is tell him that he's always welcome
to sell his shares if he doesnt like the salary the CEO gets.
If enough other shareholders wimp out the same way (or they happen to think
the CEO deserves his salary), yes, that's as far as he'll get.. And since
you apparently have a reading comprehension problem when it comes to that
word "shareholder", that *includes* institutional holders (which in turn
have to answer to their own shareholders or stakeholders.)

Is that your excuse for not speaking up? Fine, that's probably your excuse
for not voting too. Count yourself lucky that dumping your stock (or just
sitting and griping uselessly about the CEO's pay) is a lot easier than
moving to another country cause you don't like who got elected to president.
Rod Speed
2004-04-12 03:03:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Andrew Hardy
BTW, do you know how much the CEO makes in a single year?
Why are you so green eyed about their salary?
Maybe he considers what he's paid to be outrageous and
unjustifiable.
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Then he can use his shareholder influence to
pressure the board to do something about it.
Nope, because his shareholding can never
matter a damn to anyone, the board in spades.
Not if a sufficient number of shareholders think like he does.
Even a number of individual shareholders will never amount to
a hill of beans to the board. Its the institutional shareholders
and funds that own their shares that matter to them, because
it will always be them that own the vast bulk of the shares
with an operation like shittybank.
I don't recall excluding institutional shareholders in my
"Not if a sufficient number of shareholders..." sentence.
Even you must have noticed that they aint posting here much.
No fuck. So? Their posting activity of lack thereof doesn't change the
meaning of a sentence.
You got caught attacking a strawman. Period.
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
If you can't comprehend the simple difference between "shareholder" and
"individual shareholders only" in a sentence, that's not my problem to fix.
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
You clearly told HIM to 'use his shareholder influence
to pressure the board to do something about it'
The most they would ever do is tell him that he's always welcome
to sell his shares if he doesnt like the salary the CEO gets.
If enough other shareholders wimp out the same way (or they happen
to think the CEO deserves his salary), yes, that's as far as he'll get..
Thats all he and any other individual shareholders that agree with him will ever get.
Post by SpammersDie
And since you apparently have a reading comprehension problem when
it comes to that word "shareholder", that *includes* institutional holders
(which in turn have to answer to their own shareholders or stakeholders.)
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.

You clearly told HIM to 'use his shareholder influence
to pressure the board to do something about it'
Post by SpammersDie
Is that your excuse for not speaking up? Fine, that's probably your excuse
for not voting too. Count yourself lucky that dumping your stock (or just
sitting and griping uselessly about the CEO's pay) is a lot easier than
moving to another country cause you don't like who got elected to president.
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.

You clearly told HIM to 'use his shareholder influence
to pressure the board to do something about it'

The most they would ever do is tell him that he's always welcome
to sell his shares if he doesnt like the salary the CEO gets.
SpammersDie
2004-04-12 03:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Andrew Hardy
BTW, do you know how much the CEO makes in a single year?
Why are you so green eyed about their salary?
Maybe he considers what he's paid to be outrageous and
unjustifiable.
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by SpammersDie
Then he can use his shareholder influence to
pressure the board to do something about it.
Nope, because his shareholding can never
matter a damn to anyone, the board in spades.
Not if a sufficient number of shareholders think like he does.
Even a number of individual shareholders will never amount to
a hill of beans to the board. Its the institutional shareholders
and funds that own their shares that matter to them, because
it will always be them that own the vast bulk of the shares
with an operation like shittybank.
I don't recall excluding institutional shareholders in my
"Not if a sufficient number of shareholders..." sentence.
Even you must have noticed that they aint posting here much.
No fuck. So? Their posting activity of lack thereof doesn't change the
meaning of a sentence.
You got caught attacking a strawman. Period.
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
If you can't comprehend the simple difference between "shareholder" and
"individual shareholders only" in a sentence, that's not my problem to fix.
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
You clearly told HIM to 'use his shareholder influence
to pressure the board to do something about it'
The most they would ever do is tell him that he's always welcome
to sell his shares if he doesnt like the salary the CEO gets.
If enough other shareholders wimp out the same way (or they happen
to think the CEO deserves his salary), yes, that's as far as he'll get..
Thats all he and any other individual shareholders that agree with him will ever get.
Post by SpammersDie
And since you apparently have a reading comprehension problem when
it comes to that word "shareholder", that *includes* institutional holders
(which in turn have to answer to their own shareholders or
stakeholders.)
Post by Rod Speed
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
You clearly told HIM to 'use his shareholder influence
to pressure the board to do something about it'
Post by SpammersDie
Is that your excuse for not speaking up? Fine, that's probably your excuse
for not voting too. Count yourself lucky that dumping your stock (or just
sitting and griping uselessly about the CEO's pay) is a lot easier than
moving to another country cause you don't like who got elected to president.
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
You clearly told HIM to 'use his shareholder influence
to pressure the board to do something about it'
The most they would ever do is tell him that he's always welcome
to sell his shares if he doesnt like the salary the CEO gets.
Was there a single new piece of text in that mess of a reply? Oh yeah, one
whole line (which still contains no original thought so I'm not going to
repeat myself attacking it.)

Ok, I'll make you *one* concession - it is indeed useless for YOU to ever
try to speak up as a shareholder even if you were the 100% shareholder
because you have the persuasive skills of the average rutabaga. So for you
specifically, I will agree wholeheartedly with you. Just dump your shares. I
wouldn't want you advocating any position I hold in any stock holding I'd
happen to own.

I simply don't hold such a low opinion of the rest of the investing world.
Rod Speed
2004-04-12 03:37:30 UTC
Permalink
Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
SpammersDie <***@y.yyy> desperately attempted to
bullshit its way out of its predicament in message news:J1oec.17908$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
and fooled absolutely no one at all. As always.
Victor Smith
2004-04-11 21:43:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Andrew Hardy
Post by s***@hotmail.com
BTW, do you know how much
the CEO makes in a single year?
Why are you so green eyed about their salary?
Maybe he considers what he's paid to be outrageous and unjustifiable.
Then he can use his shareholder influence to pressure the board to do
something about it. If he doesn't like the results, nobody's forcing him to
hold his citibank stock.
If he's not a shareholder, then he's not paying their salary so what he
thinks about it is as is important as what I think about his salary - i.e.
not at all.
Bullshit. Shareholders don't pay CEO salaries. Joe Blow consumers
pay them. Anytime you lay down a buck for a product, the CEO gets a
cut. The bigger the CEO cut, the more comes out of your pocket.
Simple economics.
WTF, you think money grows on trees?

--Vic
SpammersDie
2004-04-11 23:38:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Victor Smith
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Andrew Hardy
Post by s***@hotmail.com
BTW, do you know how much
the CEO makes in a single year?
Why are you so green eyed about their salary?
Maybe he considers what he's paid to be outrageous and unjustifiable.
Then he can use his shareholder influence to pressure the board to do
something about it. If he doesn't like the results, nobody's forcing him to
hold his citibank stock.
If he's not a shareholder, then he's not paying their salary so what he
thinks about it is as is important as what I think about his salary - i.e.
not at all.
Bullshit. Shareholders don't pay CEO salaries. Joe Blow consumers
pay them.
Double bullshit. Joe Blow traded his money in exchange for product. The
money belongs to the company at the time it's paid out as salary rather than
kept as profit and shareholders own the company so they're the first persons
on the chain that can actually do any complaining.

I can just as easily use your so-called logic to claim that Joe Blow doesn't
pay for the CEO's mansion - Joe Blow just passes the cost on to his employer
in the form of higher salary demands - and on and on so you'll never get an
answer as to who pays the salary.
Post by Victor Smith
Anytime you lay down a buck for a product, the CEO gets a
cut. The bigger the CEO cut, the more comes out of your pocket.
And so you think the company's gonna give customers a price break if they
cut the CEO's salary.

Right, sure, in your fantasy world. The company will book the savings as
profit and continue to charge whatever the market bears.
s***@hotmail.com
2004-04-12 02:52:12 UTC
Permalink
YES or go out of business.
Post by SpammersDie
And so you think the company's gonna give customers a price break if they
cut the CEO's salary.
SpammersDie
2004-04-12 03:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Post by SpammersDie
And so you think the company's gonna give customers a price break if they
cut the CEO's salary.
YES or go out of business.
Why? The customers were paying the higher price before - why would they stop
paying the higher price now?

Price of the product will be driven by supply and demand of the product and
the actions of competitors. None of which will change just because a CEO's
paycheck changed. (Not to mention even a CEO's typical salary gets thinned
out pretty damn quick when you amortize it across all the units sold by a
typical company. How much of a price savings per unit do you realistically
expect?)
George Grapman
2004-04-12 03:12:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by SpammersDie
Why? The customers were paying the higher price before - why would they stop
paying the higher price now?
Price of the product will be driven by supply and demand of the product and
the actions of competitors. None of which will change just because a CEO's
paycheck changed. (Not to mention even a CEO's typical salary gets thinned
out pretty damn quick when you amortize it across all the units sold by a
typical company. How much of a price savings per unit do you realistically
expect?)
I work in sales and want to share a secret with you. Other than monopolies that
control essentials the customer determines the price. The customer has the
choice of accepting the price or not buying.
People are also surprised to learn how many businesses with negotiate pricing
if it is done politely. That $1500 tv might be available for $50 less.When your
credit card is about to expire call the bank and ask for a higher rate. When a
hotel quotes a price ask if they have anything cheaper.


--
To reply via e-mail please delete one c from paccbell
SpammersDie
2004-04-12 03:34:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Grapman
Post by SpammersDie
Why? The customers were paying the higher price before - why would they stop
paying the higher price now?
Price of the product will be driven by supply and demand of the product and
the actions of competitors. None of which will change just because a CEO's
paycheck changed. (Not to mention even a CEO's typical salary gets thinned
out pretty damn quick when you amortize it across all the units sold by a
typical company. How much of a price savings per unit do you
realistically
Post by George Grapman
Post by SpammersDie
expect?)
I work in sales and want to share a secret with you. Other than monopolies that
control essentials the customer determines the price. The customer has the
choice of accepting the price or not buying.
People are also surprised to learn how many businesses with negotiate pricing
if it is done politely. That $1500 tv might be available for $50 less.When your
credit card is about to expire call the bank and ask for a higher rate. When a
hotel quotes a price ask if they have anything cheaper.
I'm not disagreeing with any of that.

I just don't see what that has to do with what the number on the CEO's
paycheck is that particular week.
George Grapman
2004-04-12 03:44:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by SpammersDie
Post by George Grapman
Post by SpammersDie
Why? The customers were paying the higher price before - why would they
stop
Post by George Grapman
Post by SpammersDie
paying the higher price now?
Price of the product will be driven by supply and demand of the product
and
Post by George Grapman
Post by SpammersDie
the actions of competitors. None of which will change just because a
CEO's
Post by George Grapman
Post by SpammersDie
paycheck changed. (Not to mention even a CEO's typical salary gets
thinned
Post by George Grapman
Post by SpammersDie
out pretty damn quick when you amortize it across all the units sold by
a
Post by George Grapman
Post by SpammersDie
typical company. How much of a price savings per unit do you
realistically
Post by George Grapman
Post by SpammersDie
expect?)
I work in sales and want to share a secret with you. Other than
monopolies that
Post by George Grapman
control essentials the customer determines the price. The customer has the
choice of accepting the price or not buying.
People are also surprised to learn how many businesses with negotiate
pricing
Post by George Grapman
if it is done politely. That $1500 tv might be available for $50 less.When
your
Post by George Grapman
credit card is about to expire call the bank and ask for a higher rate.
When a
Post by George Grapman
hotel quotes a price ask if they have anything cheaper.
I'm not disagreeing with any of that.
I just don't see what that has to do with what the number on the CEO's
paycheck is that particular week.
Nothing, but someone in the thread mentioned high prices.


--
To reply via e-mail please delete one c from paccbell
Victor Smith
2004-04-13 00:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by SpammersDie
Post by Victor Smith
Bullshit. Shareholders don't pay CEO salaries. Joe Blow consumers
pay them.
Double bullshit. Joe Blow traded his money in exchange for product. The
money belongs to the company at the time it's paid out as salary rather than
kept as profit and shareholders own the company so they're the first persons
on the chain that can actually do any complaining.
Oh yeah? I'll see your bullshit and raise you 5 bullshits more.
<snipped devastating rebuttal that might get my ass fired>

--Vic
Paula Green
2004-04-11 08:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Doe
Hello
Around Christmas last year, I applied for and got a Citibank
credit card
Post by John Doe
that gives me 5% cash back for all purchases I make upto May
1, 2004. I
Post by John Doe
made full use of it and am very close to the maximum annual
cash back I can
Post by John Doe
get on it.
A couple of weeks, they advertised for a new, similar offer,
this time for
Post by John Doe
all purchases through October 1, 2004.
I'm considering cancelling the old account and applying for
the new one.
Post by John Doe
I've heard cancelling credit card accounts is bad for one's
credit history.
Post by John Doe
Is that true ?
Thanks.
Canceling a credit card in and of itself isn't necessarily bad
for your credit score but repeated openings and closings of
accounts don't help. Generally the longer you've had the same
credit card the better as it shows stability. Of course, paying
your bills on time helps greatly.

Perhaps you should find out your credit scores and make your
decision based in part on how high they are. If your FICO is at
800 then what the heck, get the new card. If it's at 500 you'd
best rethink. Oh, if you're planning on buying a house or a new
car or something where you need your credit at its highest, then
take that into consideration as well.

If you do cancel the current card, do it in writing and make
sure it's listed on your credit report as being closed per your
request as that looks better than if Citibank initiated the
closing.

Paula
J SKerry
2004-04-11 12:11:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paula Green
Canceling a credit card in and of itself isn't necessarily bad
for your credit score but repeated openings and closings of
accounts don't help. Generally the longer you've had the same
credit card the better as it shows stability. Of course, paying
your bills on time helps greatly.
Perhaps you should find out your credit scores and make your
decision based in part on how high they are. If your FICO is at
800 then what the heck, get the new card. If it's at 500 you'd
best rethink. Oh, if you're planning on buying a house or a new
car or something where you need your credit at its highest, then
take that into consideration as well.
If you do cancel the current card, do it in writing and make
sure it's listed on your credit report as being closed per your
request as that looks better than if Citibank initiated the
closing.
Paula
You can get dinged on a credit score for having too many unused credit
card accounts. I closed a bunch of them oh, about 10 years ago. Only
have 4 Visas and 2 Mastercards now. Only use one actively.
Shawn Hearn
2004-04-11 13:26:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Doe
Hello
Around Christmas last year, I applied for and got a Citibank credit card
that gives me 5% cash back for all purchases I make upto May 1, 2004. I
made full use of it and am very close to the maximum annual cash back I can
get on it.
A couple of weeks, they advertised for a new, similar offer, this time for
all purchases through October 1, 2004.
I'm considering cancelling the old account and applying for the new one.
I've heard cancelling credit card accounts is bad for one's credit history.
Is that true ?
It depends. If you are applying for a mortgage, the more available
credit you have, and the less debt you maintain, the better. If you
are not going to apply for a mortgage or other large loan. If you go
apply for another credit card a few months later, the other credit
card company might turn around and say you already have too much credit,
or it might not.
Tracy
2004-04-11 19:12:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shawn Hearn
It depends. If you are applying for a mortgage, the more available
credit you have, (snip) the better.
Up to a certain extent. But they also consider what would happen if
you *used* all of that available credit, so having too much available
credit can count against you.
lgreene
2004-04-11 21:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Doe
Hello
Around Christmas last year, I applied for and got a Citibank credit card
that gives me 5% cash back for all purchases I make upto May 1, 2004. I
made full use of it and am very close to the maximum annual cash back I can
get on it.
A couple of weeks, they advertised for a new, similar offer, this time for
all purchases through October 1, 2004.
I'm considering cancelling the old account and applying for the new one.
I've heard cancelling credit card accounts is bad for one's credit history.
Is that true ?
Thanks.
I've never heard that that might be true, but you might try talking to an
account manager, explaining that this new offer is available, and is there
anything that can be done for an existing customer? Very often there can
be.

I am paying nothing for the extra time on my cell phone that is advertised
as starting at 7pm instead of 9pm because i've been with my carrier for a
long time, have never been late on a payment, and I asked nicely.

Chances are, though, if you pay off your balance every month, they may not
give you the offer...you're costing the company money.

But, if you don't ask.......
Bob Ward
2004-04-11 23:14:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by lgreene
I am paying nothing for the extra time on my cell phone that is advertised
as starting at 7pm instead of 9pm because i've been with my carrier for a
long time, have never been late on a payment, and I asked nicely.
Chances are, even though you asked nicely, they also extended your
contract for another year or two - cellular providers are good at
extending you for any requests for changes to your services.
lgreene
2004-04-12 22:31:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Ward
Post by lgreene
I am paying nothing for the extra time on my cell phone that is advertised
as starting at 7pm instead of 9pm because i've been with my carrier for a
long time, have never been late on a payment, and I asked nicely.
Chances are, even though you asked nicely, they also extended your
contract for another year or two - cellular providers are good at
extending you for any requests for changes to your services.
Sorry, wrong answer. I don't have a contract with Sprint...haven't once I
fulfilled my original contract about 5 years ago.

Having worked in telcomm for 20 years, and wireless for 2 of them, I am not
a stupid woman regarding telcomm.

aditionally, with the advent of portability, you will see fewer and fewer
companies requiring contracts...people just won't stand for it.
Tracey
2004-04-12 02:27:11 UTC
Permalink
I'm considering cancelling the old account and applying for the new one.=
It might be worthwhile to call them and ask if they will extend this new
offer onto your existing card. I don't know if it will work, but it doesn't
hurt to ask.
Loading...