Some of Mark Zuckerberg's mutual fund backers delivered a tough message on compensation for the leaders of Facebook Inc.
Fidelity Investments, led by its $98 billion Contrafund, was among those voting against the pay of the social media company's top leaders in a nonbinding contest at its annual meeting in June, its first since going public.
Securities filings show other funds voting against the pay included Legg Mason Capital Management Value Trust and Franklin Resources' Franklin Growth Fund.
While the funds' exact objection was not spelled out, one reason could be perks. Facebook Chief Executive Zuckerberg was paid $1.99 million in 2012, according to its proxy filing, much less than other executives, like Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, who received $26.2 million.
Yet ISS, the influential proxy adviser to institutional shareholders, recommended votes "against" the compensation. It questioned practices such as stock awards and the $1.2 million spent on Zuckerberg's personal use of aircraft in 2012.
Although shareholders backed Facebook's executive pay by a wide margin, the ballots cast by Fidelity - Facebook's largest outside shareholder and a longtime investor - show how dynamics have changed for Facebook now that it is a publicly traded firm, said Edward Hauder, a senior adviser at Exequity LLP, a Chicago-based executive compensation consulting firm.
Mutual fund managers, like Contrafund's William Danoff, may remain fans of the social media darling as an investment. But fund votes are generally controlled by separate departments that bring a cold policy analysis to proxy voting.
"It's just business," said Hauder.
A Facebook spokesman declined to comment.
The votes at Facebook are just one sample from a trove of material filed by asset managers this month.
Although big mutual fund firms dominate shareholder lists across the S&P 500, fund executives rarely discuss how they voted in particular proxy contests - making their annual filings a rare look under the hood.
At the same time, corporate shareholder meetings have heated up due both to shareholder discontent after the financial crisis and activist investors and labor groups conducting more aggressive campaigns. For instance, activists had urged a measure to require an independent chairman at JPMorgan Chase Co. which was not approved.
Filings for Fidelity's Contrafund and another well-known vehicle, Magellan, showed they voted against that measure, which would have split the roles of current chair and chief executive Jamie Dimon.
Activists also campaigned against the chairman of Occidental Petroleum Corp., Ray Irani, who did not win a majority of votes and stepped down from its board. BlackRock Inc.'s representative, Global Allocation Fund, voted against Irani and against the shareholder resolution at JPMorgan, but it also opposed three JPMorgan directors.
Fidelity spokesman Vincent Loporchio said the company would not comment on particular votes and said its funds vote according to company policy. As posted on the firm's website, the policy holds that Fidelity funds will "generally vote for proposals to ratify executive compensation unless such compensation appears misaligned with shareholder interests or otherwise problematic," taking into account factors such as whether a company has an independent compensation committee.
At its June 11 meeting, Facebook shareholders voted in favor of its compensation by 5.7 billion votes to 404 million votes.
Federal rules require large corporations to hold the non-binding "Say on Pay" votes, whose frequency is determined by shareholders. Facebook had recommended the votes be held once every three years.
As with the vote on pay itself, Facebook's position prevailed, with 5.6 billion votes in favor of voting once every three years, 14.9 million votes in favor of having the votes held once every two years, and 533.8 million votes in favor of an annual vote.
The Fidelity funds favored holding the vote annually.
(Editing by Linda Stern; Editing by Dan Grebler)
Get more glow and less shine with skin-clearing solutions from leading dermatologists
Oils produced by the body help keep skin healthy, but there can be too much of a good thing. Excess oil can lead to blemishes and acne flare-ups. “Fortunately, there are plenty of ways to cut down on oiliness,” Andrea Cambio, MD, medical director of Cambio Dermatology in Cape Coral, Florida, says. Clear complexion strategies range from over-the-counter cleansers to prescription lotions and cosmetic treatments.
Dermatologists agree that the most effective way to manage oily skin is to cleanse your face both morning and night. “Always use a gentle cleanser since harsh soaps can trigger the skin to increase oil production,” April Armstrong, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of California, Davis, says. Also, beware of the buff. A washcloth or buff puff can actually stimulate more oil secretion.
If a basic facial cleanser doesn’t cut oiliness, try a product that includes an acid such as benzoyl peroxide, salicylic acid, glycolic acid, or beta-hydroxy acid. “Many products containing these acids are marketed as acne facial care products. They’re great for people with acne, but they’re also fine for people whose problem is just oily skin,” Armstrong says. “Since some of these ingredients can be irritating, buy a small size to see how your skin responds. People often have to try several products before they find the one that works best for them.” Wash with warm water, not hot, because temperature extremes can irritate skin.
Dermatologists are divided on whether the oil-reducing properties of toner are legitimate. “I’m not a big fan of astringent toners because they tend to irritate the skin and can lead to more oil production,” Cambio says. “Still, if people like using them, I recommend applying toners only on oily areas of the skin, such as the forehead, nose, and chin. Avoid using them on areas that tend to be dry or you’re likely to create dry patches on your skin.”
That’s advice worth remembering for all your skin care regimens. “There’s a myth that some people have dry skin, some people have oily skin. In fact, most people have combination skin, oily in some places, dry in others,” Ellen Marmur, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, says.
Pads medicated with salicylic acid, glycolic acid, or other oil-cutting acid ingredients are another beauty routine option. “Medicated pads are a favorite among my patients with oily skin,” Marmur says. “You can carry them in your purse and use them on the run to freshen up your skin and remove excess oil.”
Cosmetic blotting papers offer a great option for removing oil because they don’t dry out your skin. “Patients with oily skin really love blotting paper because it’s convenient and easy to use,” Armstrong says. Apply it to oily areas, such as forehead, nose, and chin. Don’t scrub your skin with the sheet of blotting paper. Instead, simply press it against the oily area long enough to absorb oil, usually 15 to 20 seconds. Some blotting papers are lightly powdered, which further reduces shine.
Masks and Clays
Applying masks and clays to the skin helps draw out oils and cleanses pores, but there is also concern for over drying. “My advice is to apply them only to problem areas and use them only occasionally,” Rebecca Kazin, MD, director of Johns Hopkins Cosmetic Center, says. She suggests limiting masks and clays to really big events such as a wedding, a birthday dinner, or a big presentation.
“People who have oily skin often steer clear of moisturizers, worrying that they’ll make their skin look even shinier,” Kazin says. That’s a bad idea. “Even oily skin needs to be moisturized to look its best,” she says. To avoid an oily sheen, choose an oil-free moisturizer. Vary the amount you apply depending on whether the area tends to be dry or oily.
“Traditional sunscreens can pose a problem for people with oily skin since they tend to go on pretty thick and can block pores,” Armstrong says. Even so, protecting skin from ultraviolet radiation is absolutely essential. Sunscreen gels are less likely than creams and lotions to make your skin look oily, and there are a variety of new oil-free products for oily skin. Some of the newest products, including facial powders, offer enough protection to ward off sun damage in most situations.
Adapt your facial regimen
How oily your skin appears can vary season by season, week by week, even day by day. “Oil production is influenced by hormones, by mood, even by the weather,” Cambio says. “For example, some people have problems with oily skin only in the summer when they’re sweating.” It’s important to be aware of how your skin varies so that you can adjust your regimen accordingly. “You may need cleanser with glycolic acid or beta-hydroxy acid every day during the summer but only now and then during the winter,” Kazin says. “That’s important to know since overusing these products can cause skin to dry out.”
Talk to your dermatologist
If over-the-counter products aren’t enough to help you manage oily skin, talk to your dermatologist. Lasers and chemical peels can help reduce oiliness and improve the overall look of your skin. Creams laced with tretinoin, adapalene, or tazarotene can also help by altering pores and reducing oiliness. “Since these products can be irritating, it’s best to use them only on oily areas and only as often as you really need it,” Kazin says.
It’s worth remembering that oil production is a normal part of healthy skin. “People with naturally oily skin tend to have fewer wrinkles and healthier looking skin,” Marmur says. So don’t go overboard in your efforts. Remove excess oiliness when you need to look your best, but be careful to preserve your skin’s natural anti-aging mechanism.
Despite being an evolutionary dead end, one ant species rebels against the tyranny of another.
Every summer, a pitched battle of wills unfolds within the acorns and hollowed-out twigs of the Northeastern United States. A dark, bulbous-headed ant called Protomognathus americanus invades these tiny abodes and plucks the pearly brood of ants in the genus Temnothorax.
The pilfered offspring return with the raiders to their nests, then hatch and grow up to become live-in slaves, tasked with the feeding and care of their slothful masters and their masters’ brood.
Because the lives of these ant slaves are so hopeless — they have no chance to reproduce, after all — scientists long assumed they would find no benefit in rebellion. “They are an evolutionary dead end,” explains biologist Tobias Pamminger of the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz in Germany.
Which is why Pamminger and his colleagues were puzzled by the insidious ways they saw slaves turning the tables on their masters. The slaves will just stop feeding and cleaning the young ants in their care, leading them to die. Sometimes, a group of slaves will incite an all-out revolt and dismember the young in a gruesome game of tug-of-war. Now, in a multiyear survey across four Northeastern states, Pamminger has found that about 60 percent of the slave-reared brood in the care of the slave species die, compared with just 20 percent of the young in free-living colonies. Rebellion is real.
And this observation squares with evolution after all. While mutinous slaves may not be able to save themselves, by rebelling they can reduce the number of slave masters who prey on nearby relatives. After spending five years working with and studying the “oppressed,” Pamminger says it’s good to know that resistance isn’t futile.
Individuals most intent on committing suicide are often the least likely to admit it. But soon, their blood may do the talking for them.
Molecules in the blood appear to indicate an individual’s current degree of suicidal intent, according to a study of bipolar patients in Indiana. Although the study’s small sample of just nine Caucasian men makes the findings preliminary, the results could lead to a breakthrough in creating the first quantitative and objective tool for establishing an individual’s suicide risk.
The study focused on subjects diagnosed with bipolar disorder and thus considered at high risk for suicide — previous studies have suggested that one of every three bipolar-diagnosed individuals will attempt suicide. Over the course of multiple visits every three to six months, subjects provided blood samples and also received assessments of their mental state at the time, including suicidal intent and suicidal ideation, or preoccupation with suicide. From one visit to the next, subjects’ suicidal intent and ideation levels ranged from low to high.
Analyzing the subject’s samples, researchers identified 41 enzymes and proteins whose levels appeared to fluctuate based on the degree of suicidal risk at the time. The molecules, or biomarkers, were discovered through a process known as convergent functional genomics, which involves amplifying the DNA in a blood sample to look for genetic evidence of the molecules’ presence.
Expression of an enzyme called SAT1 in particular was elevated when suicidal intent and ideation were high. SAT1 has previously been associated with suicidal intent, anxiety and mood disorders.
To compare the expression of SAT1 and other biomarkers in suicidal subjects with individuals who had committed suicide, researchers obtained postmortem samples from nine suicide completers, some of whom had a history of mental illness. Researchers discovered that SAT1 expression in all cases was significantly elevated, and was higher in suicide completers than in living subjects with suicidal thoughts.
While SAT1 and some other biomarkers were elevated when suicidal intent or ideation was high, other biomarkers, such as the protein CD24,decreased when the living subjects were assessed as highly suicidal. CD24 levels were also lower in the postmortem samples when compared to samples from subjects assessed as having low suicide risk.
Although SAT1 displayed the strongest correlation between gene expression and risk, five other biomarkers remained associated with suicidal intent or ideation after the team performed additional rigorous statistical testing. The team also identified four biomarkers, including SAT1, for which a high baseline level may indicate a general predisposition to having suicidal intent and ideation, even if the subject is not currently suicidal.
Researchers involved in the study, published today in Molecular Psychiatry, note that development of an objective tool such as a biomarker blood test is crucial since suicidal individuals often will not disclose their intent due to fears of being stigmatized, hospitalized or thwarted. Clinicians today typically rely on an assortment of subjective tests and observation to determine risk of suicide, but these methods are often imprecise and poorly predictive. Today’s published findings are the first to suggest the feasibility of a predictive test to assess an individual’s suicide risk—and thus, hopefully, save some lives.
In a movie captured by a NASA satellite today, a comet is seen hurtling toward the sun. And just as the streaking icy object is making its final death plunge, the sun lets loose with an explosion of many millions of tons of material from its outer atmosphere.
To the casual eye, it might appear that the comet crashed into the sun, triggering the coronal mass ejection, or CME. That’s exactly what I thought when I watched the movie.
To check it out for yourself, first have a look at the screenshot at the top of this page. Note the starting position of the comet at lower right. (Also note that the bright disk of the sun is blacked out so details won’t be overshadowed.)
Now, click on the image to watch the movie, which consists of images captured by NASA’s SOHO spacecraft starting yesterday (UTC) and continuing into today.
What do you see?
The comet plunges toward the sun, and just when it disappears at the black disk, a bright eruption of material takes place.
Cause and effect, right?
Well, I knew that looks could be deceiving. So I used Twitter to ask some solar experts whether the comet had crashed into the sun, causing a CME. Below is the response I got from the Solar Physics Department of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, home of a comet program:
I’ve had black holes on the brain lately.* There’s been a flurry of related research announced lately, even the discovery of black hole-like vortexes in the Atlantic Ocean, and astronomers are keenly watching as a gas cloud is ripped apart by the monster black hole at the center of our galaxy. All of which has prompted me to think about the odd simplicity of how black holes work.
The irony is that black holes are also among the most puzzling objects in the universe, because theorists understand so little about their insides. What happens to the information that is lost when objects fall across the event horizon? What happens to the laws of physics at the singularity in the center? Can black holes create wormholes across space and time? Those internal oddities are so incomprehensible that Albert Einstein did not believe that black holes were a real physical possibility. Which makes it a little confusing to read articles about how Einstein might have been wrong about how black holes work, since he didn’t think they worked at all.
But on the outside, mass, spin, and charge tell you everything there is to observe about a black hole. Practically speaking, most black holes probably have very little net charge, so you could plausibly pare the list to mass and rotation. Even rotation has little impact if you are considering a black hole from a great distance–which, for your sake, I certainly hope you are. Viewed from afar, then, a black hole is a one-attribute object. Mass is the one and only thing you need to know.
Which brings me to another profoundly strange and simple thing about black holes. For an ordinary sphere–a bowling ball, for example–the mass increases as the cube of the radius. If one bowling ball is twice the diameter of another it will weigh eight times (2 cubed) as much. The rule breaks down a bit for large objects like planets, but in a very straightforward way. Their incredible bulk compresses their insides, so as planets get more massive their interiors tend to get more dense, assuming you are making an apples-to-apples comparison of the same type of planet. Some planets around other stars have masses several times that of Jupiter, but they are similar in size because of this gravitational squishing.
Black holes do something completely different, however. Their radius increases in direct proportion to the mass. Double the mass of a black hole, and its diameter doubles as well. (I’m using the event horizon–the point-of-no-return that defines the shape of the black hole–as its “surface” in this discussion.) The math of calculating the diameter of a black hole could not be easier. A black hole with the mass of the sun has a diameter of about 6 kilometers, or 4 miles. Want to know the diameter of the black hole at the center of the Milky Way? Based on the motions of stars circling around it, the black hole has a mass of 3.6 million suns. Just multiply 4 x 3.6 million and you’ve got your answer: It is 14 million miles wide.
The direct relationship between size and mass has a funny effect. The more massive a black hole is, the less dense it is–and the dropoff happens rapidly, as the square of the radius. (Again, I’m using the event horizon to define the surface of the black hole.) A solar-mass black hole crams the sun’s entire 865,000-mile-wide bulk into that 4-mile wide sphere, corresponding to a density 18 quadrillion times the density of water. It’s a staggering number. The black hole at the center of the Milky Way has a mass of 3.6 million suns, which means its density is (3.6 million x 3.6 million) times lower. That translates to about 1,400 times the density of water–still very high, and more than 100 times the density of lead, but no longer so incomprehensible.
Other black holes are much more massive than the central one in our galaxy, though, which means they are also much puffier. The galaxy M87 contains a monster black hole that astronomers have measured as having the mass of 6.6 billion suns. Its density is about 1/3,000th the density of water. That is similar to the density of the air you are breathing right now!
Now to the most mind-blowing part. If you keep going to higher masses, the radius of the black hole keeps growing and the density keeps shrinking. Let’s examine the most extreme case: What is the radius of a black hole with the mass of the entire visible universe? Turns out that its radius is…the same as the radius of the visible universe. Almost as if the entire universe is just one huge black hole.
Want to know what life looks like inside a black hole? Look around. You’re soaking in it.
* If you ask my wife she’ll tell you I’ve had black holes on the brain for at least as long as we’ve been married, but that’s a whole other story.
The apple of Newton's eye and the focus of Einstein's work, gravity is weaker than you probably think and weirder than you probably imagined.
1. Star Wars' Obi-Wan Kenobi said the Force “surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.” He could have been talking about gravity. Its attractive properties literally bind the galaxy together, but it also “penetrates” us, extending physically through us, keeping us bound to Earth.
2. Unlike the Force, with its dark and light sides, gravity has no duality; it only attracts, never repels.
3. NASA is trying to develop tractor beams that could move physical objects, creating an attractive force that would trump gravity.
4. Passengers on amusement park rides and the International Space Station experience microgravity — incorrectly known as zero gravity — because they fall at the same speed as the vehicles.
5. Someone who weighs 150 pounds on Earth would — if it were possible to stand on Jupiter — weigh a whopping 354 pounds on the enormous gas giant. Larger masses have greater gravity.
6. To leave Earth’s gravitational pull behind, an object must travel 7 miles a second, our planet’s escape velocity.
7. Gravity is by far the weakest of the four fundamental forces. The other three are electromagnetism; weak nuclear force, which governs how atoms decay; and strong nuclear force, which holds atomic nuclei together.
8. A dime-size magnet has enough electromagnetic force to overcome all of Earth’s gravity and stick to the fridge.
9. An apple didn't hit Isaac Newton in the head, but it did make him wonder if the force that makes apples fall influences the moon’s motion around Earth.
10. The apple in Newton’s eye led to the first inverse square law in science, F = G * (mM)/r2. This means an object twice as far away exerts a quarter of the gravitational pull.
11. Gravity’s inverse square law also means the reach of gravitational attraction is technically infinite. Whoa.
12. Gravity’s other definition — meaning something weighty or serious — came first, originating from the Latin gravis, or “heavy.”
13. The force of gravity accelerates everything at the same rate, regardless of weight. If you dropped balls of the same size but different weights from a rooftop, they would hit the ground at the same time. The heavier object’s greater inertia cancels out any speed it might have over the lighter object.
14. Einstein’s general theory of relativity was the first to treat gravity as a distortion of space-time, the “fabric” that physically embodies the universe.
15. Anything with mass warps the space-time surrounding it. In 2011, NASA’s Gravity Probe B experiment showed Earth tugs on the universe around it like a wooden ball spinning in molasses, exactly as Einstein predicted.
16. When distorting the space-time around it, a massive object sometimes redirects light that passes through it, just as a glass lens does. Gravitational lensing can effectively magnify a distant galaxy or smear its light into a strange shape.
17. The “Three-Body Problem,” determining all the patterns three objects orbiting each other could take if influenced only by gravity, has puzzled physicists for 300 years. So far they’ve found only 16 types of solutions — 13 of them just discovered this March.
18. Although the other three fundamental forces play nice with quantum mechanics — the science of the very small — gravity is stubbornly incompatible with it; quantum equations break down if they try to include gravity. How to reconcile these two completely accurate but opposing descriptions of the universe is one of physics’ biggest questions.
19. To understand gravity better, scientists are looking for gravitational waves, ripples in space-time that result from things like black holes colliding and stars exploding, according to Amber Stuver, a physicist at Louisiana’s Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO).
20. Once LIGO researchers successfully detect gravitational waves, they’ll be able to use them to see the cosmos as never before. “Every time we’ve looked at the universe in a new way,” Stuver says, “it revolutionized our understanding of the universe.” Talk about heavy.