Mark Haines

Mark Haines RIP

by Ivan Osorio on May 25, 2011

in Culture, Video, Zeitgeist

Like other regular viewers of CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street,” I was saddened to learn that Mark Haines, the show’s longtime co-host, passed away unexpectedly last night. I’ll miss watching him on weekday mornings. I always enjoyed his direct, no-nonsense approach to interviews. Indeed, this morning, Haines’s CNBC colleague Joe Kernen said that one of the most valuable things he learned from him was not to relent when an interviewee tried to evade a question. That doggedness provided some memorable on-air moments, including this one. It gets really interesting at 4:50.

My full blog post on the above interview is here.

Barney Frank Asked about Executive Pay Curbs; Throws Tantrum

by Ivan Osorio on June 11, 2009

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) appears to be working in tandem with the Obama administration on making executive pay subject to shareholder votes. That seems fair enough; shareholders deserve some say over companies in which they have a stake. However, as CNBC “Squawk on the Street” host Mark Haines noted in an interview wiht Rep. Frank this morning, the nature of such ownership complicates things.

As Haines noted, many public company shares are in the hands of large institutions — he mentioned mutual funds specifically — not “mom and pop” owners saving for their retirement. Those funds invest their assets on behalf of somebody else, namely individual investors, who are removed from corporate shareholder decision making by virtue of going through sucn an intermediary. What was surprising to Haines making this point was Rep. Frank’s reaction. He did not address this specific point, got agitated, and ended the interview.

This begs the question: What role does Barney Frank  envision for institutional investors in corporate decision making? One large category of institutional investor comprises union pension funds, which, as Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Hudson Institute notes, are seriously underfunded, in part due to union bosses using those funds to advance political causes that do nothing to increase shareholder value. The fact that the unions that control these funds are major donors to Democratic politicians make that question awkward, but especially worth asking.

Video below. The interesting part begins at 4:50. (Thanks to Margaret Griffis for the CNBC video.)