The velocity of change on this issue is tremendous. It's definitely spreading quickly.

It's always so sad because you love those Horatio Alger stories, and then someone rises up that high and falls so far. Ultimately, this is about ethics, and no amount of drive is going to save you if your ethics are so bad and you're not going to abide by the law.

It's ridiculous. Part of being a citizen is paying taxes.

As ratios go, that's actually pretty low; we're talking in the less than 10 percent range, which is where we want companies to be nowadays.

There were definitely some that went closer to saying, 'Don't blame me,' as opposed to saying, 'This is the process,' ... I think that probably should set off more red flags as the language got stronger.

A lot of corporate boards felt it was a good idea for public companies to have standards limiting board service in place.

This is particularly the case if a dissident is seeking control of the board or a substantial number of seats - an alternative strategy and plan for creating value at the company is going to be a key element of our evaluation.

This is not a right-left, Republican-Democrat, man-woman, old-young issue. Everybody thinks, with some very limited exceptions, that CEOs are overpaid, and because of that, shareholders aren't getting adequate bang for their buck.

Sovereign has a lot of bridges to build with institutional investors. It's going to take time to repair their image.

Boards, frankly, are just getting up to speed in many instances on what they've done in the past and are really just starting to exhibit some control over the pay practices. It's going to be a gradual process.