At last Shareholders speak-Barclays Bank

At last Shareholders speak-Barclays Bank

Author
Discussion

crankedup

Original Poster:

25,764 posts

242 months

Sunday 29th April 2012
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
heppers75 said:
So I am a Barclays shareholder and bought a reasonable sum of shares in early 2009 and I have zero problem with the way the company is ran. I have seen my shareholding basically double in value over the period I have held them and I have had some dividend return on them also.

Also this is a business paying its Chief Exec <1% of its profit, can someone PLEASE for the love of god tell me what is wrong with that?
What's wrong with it is that Bob Diamond is hugely successful, and I'm not, so rather than face up to the fact that he deserves to earn tonnes more than me, I reserve the right to bh and moan about it like an spoilt brat.
In my case I find it abhorrent that the employees of this particular bank are taking three times more in remuneration packages then is being distributed to shareholders. That is quite clearly wrong and it has to be corrected.

crankedup

Original Poster:

25,764 posts

242 months

Sunday 29th April 2012
quotequote all
RYH64E said:
heppers75 said:
SO just how is the remuneration package of the man that was not in charge at that point and has been in charge through a period where the share price and profits have increased something that should be moaned about? Surely he is doing exactly that job he is being very handsomely remunerated for is he not?
You could have said exactly the same about the man in charge up to the point in 2007 when everything went wrong.

I'm not comfortable with employees being paid huge sums without having the risk that shareholders carry. I have no problem with business owners earning whatever they can, especially those who risk their own money (like me...).
Indeed, and there lies a rub, people who risk their own capital and succeed are to be applauded, if they then go on to reap huge rewards then good for them, I have absolutely no problem with that. Its employees that are raiding company profits and self rewarding on an epic scale that is simply unsustainable both financially and politically, to say nothing of morals.

crankedup

Original Poster:

25,764 posts

242 months

Sunday 29th April 2012
quotequote all
heppers75 said:
RYH64E said:
heppers75 said:
A very laudable post sir, I will however I am afraid to say ask the question again but perhaps do so slightly more directly.

Do any of your 10 employees get paid a wage and or wage + bonus that equals say a single digit percentage of your profit?
Of course, my turnover and profits are very modest in the grand scheme of things so salaries and bonuses represent a very large percentage of both turmover and profit.

Let me ask you a question, do you think that the bank executives in post leading up to the crash of 2007/2008 were worth the salary and bonuses they were paid in the preceding years?
Which was always going to be the answer, so therefore what I do not understand is that why is that a formula you are happy to propagate but not support?

As for your question - By and large yes, they were employees of businesses that were posting profits that sustained their remuneration. Did those people at those points make good decisions no they did not and I believe it is why they are no longer in those positions. Much like I suspect if one of your sales folks failed to perform you would get rid of him/her but by the same token I do not think you would hold his/her sucessor responsible for his/her predecessors mistakes - or would you? As you do seem to be doing that with regards to this argument.
I feel you are missing one vital ingredient in your counter points. We are in a very different world now, post 2008. The irksome point is that for those at the top of the tree very little has changed regarding remunerations, it is this 'we are alright mate' attitude accepting self rewarded overblown packages that is not acceptable to the vast majority of the society we live in. The party is over and the sooner its realized from the top the better for all. The real bosses of Barclays have spoken and the employees need to react in the manner expected by shareholders. At long last Insurance Company bosses are now voicing serious concerns over excessive bankers pay, the ball is rolling and will gather momentum rapidly.

heppers75

3,135 posts

216 months

Sunday 29th April 2012
quotequote all
So sorry chaps you still are not addressing the point where this thread started and as far as Barclays is concerned I am afraid the facts are unassailable and they are: -

1 - It never took a penny of bail out money
2 - It has consistently posted good profits
3 - Executive pay is and has always been even in the leanest of years a tiny fraction of a percentage of its profits.

If any of those above conditions were not met I would have all the sympathy in the world for the arguments being made and I would be banging the drum with you.

However they are all met and all that has been heard in contrary position to the actual pretty simple and logical facts above is quasi communist rhetoric and very petty envious comments about amounts of money involved.

10 Pence Short

32,880 posts

216 months

Sunday 29th April 2012
quotequote all
crankedup said:
I feel you are missing one vital ingredient in your counter points. We are in a very different world now, post 2008. The irksome point is that for those at the top of the tree very little has changed regarding remunerations, it is this 'we are alright mate' attitude accepting self rewarded overblown packages that is not acceptable to the vast majority of the society we live in. The party is over and the sooner its realized from the top the better for all. The real bosses of Barclays have spoken and the employees need to react in the manner expected by shareholders. At long last Insurance Company bosses are now voicing serious concerns over excessive bankers pay, the ball is rolling and will gather momentum rapidly.
You could always hire a guy prepared to do the job for £500,000 a year. The chances are your shares would soon be worth sweet FA.

FFS, Barclays are one of those companies being seemingly well managed at a time when many are failing to provide value. If you're not prepared for those delivering that good management to be remunerated in line with the industry (the free industry, not that pot-of-st publicly bailed out rubbish), then I really don't know how you reconcile the concept of holding stocks at all?

heppers75

3,135 posts

216 months

Sunday 29th April 2012
quotequote all
crankedup said:
In my case I find it abhorrent that the employees of this particular bank are taking three times more in remuneration packages then is being distributed to shareholders. That is quite clearly wrong and it has to be corrected.
Erm is that even factually accurate?

I believe that there are billions of Barclays shares in circulation see here... http://reports.barclays.com/ar11/governance/direct... if you look in the table towards the bottom the four major holders have the best part of 3bn shares which equates to about 23% looking at the same table.

So that means just for those shareholders alone at 6p dividend they have had £180m no?

Or have I messed up my maths somewhere (I have form for that FYI!)?

If indeed I have not cocked up then the payout to shareholders VASTLY exceeds Executive pay.

Edited by heppers75 on Sunday 29th April 12:43

RYH64E

7,960 posts

243 months

Sunday 29th April 2012
quotequote all
heppers75 said:
So sorry chaps you still are not addressing the point where this thread started and as far as Barclays is concerned I am afraid the facts are unassailable and they are: -

1 - It never took a penny of bail out money
2 - It has consistently posted good profits
3 - Executive pay is and has always been even in the leanest of years a tiny fraction of a percentage of its profits.

If any of those above conditions were not met I would have all the sympathy in the world for the arguments being made and I would be banging the drum with you.

However they are all met and all that has been heard in contrary position to the actual pretty simple and logical facts above is quasi communist rhetoric and very petty envious comments about amounts of money involved.
Not sure what is quasi communist about arguing that the employees should be paid less and the capitalist shareholders retain more of the profit? Quite the opposite I would say.

The same arguments made today to justify senior employee pay in the banking sector were made last time round, in the lead up to 2008 when the banks nearly went bust, who's to say it will work out different this time round?


heppers75

3,135 posts

216 months

Sunday 29th April 2012
quotequote all
RYH64E said:
heppers75 said:
So sorry chaps you still are not addressing the point where this thread started and as far as Barclays is concerned I am afraid the facts are unassailable and they are: -

1 - It never took a penny of bail out money
2 - It has consistently posted good profits
3 - Executive pay is and has always been even in the leanest of years a tiny fraction of a percentage of its profits.

If any of those above conditions were not met I would have all the sympathy in the world for the arguments being made and I would be banging the drum with you.

However they are all met and all that has been heard in contrary position to the actual pretty simple and logical facts above is quasi communist rhetoric and very petty envious comments about amounts of money involved.
Not sure what is quasi communist about arguing that the employees should be paid less and the capitalist shareholders retain more of the profit?
Have I not one post below demonstrated that is already the case?

Unless my post below is wrong and happy for someone to pitch up with the facts to prove it but supposing it is correct the shareholders are already paid many many more times than the Execs.

Edited by heppers75 on Sunday 29th April 14:00

speedy_thrills

7,760 posts

242 months

Sunday 29th April 2012
quotequote all
I don't see anything wrong with either side of this, the executives are in a free market and can try and get the maximum remuneration possible (and if they're not happy they can always leave). The shareholder prerogative is to keep costs down including the cost of executive remuneration.

My experience is that it's rare I see remuneration move in line with share price so I'm inclined to take the savings. IMO as a guide diligent shareholder should vote against say-on-pay at least half of the time, it isn't usually hard to identify which half either.

RYH64E

7,960 posts

243 months

Sunday 29th April 2012
quotequote all
heppers75 said:
Have I not one post below demonstrated that is already the case?

Unless my post below is wrong and happy for someone to pitch up with the facts to prove it but supposing it is correct the shareholders are already paid many many more times than the Execs.

Edited by heppers75 on Sunday 29th April 14:00
Would these be the same shareholders who (using your figures, can't be bothered to check) who would have seen the value of their 3bn shares fall from over £20bn to about £6bn in 4 years? Who should be grateful for a dividend of 3% which is less than the UK inflation rate? And pay someone who has invested nothing but his time £17.7m for achieving an RoE of 6.6%?

Here's a quote from the FT (not the Guardian) http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cb055910-9048-11e1-8cdc-...

'The Barclays row has been brewing for weeks, after the bank’s 2011 executive pay plans revealed Bob Diamond, chief executive, and Chris Lucas, finance director, had been awarded annual bonuses close to the maximum defined by the bank even though the share price slumped by a third, dividends stagnated and profits fell.'

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Sunday 29th April 2012
quotequote all
crankedup said:
In my case I find it abhorrent that the employees of this particular bank are taking three times more in remuneration packages then is being distributed to shareholders. That is quite clearly wrong and it has to be corrected.
Shareholders are paid out of net profit. Money required to pay the wages bill was never part of net profit, it was part of the cost of running the business. If shareholders feel that they can increase their profit by squeezing pay, that's their gamble to take, but it isn't some kind of moral issue of entitlement.

I'm sure there are plenty of businesses in which the pay bill is considerably larger than the amount the shareholders receive, there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

I suspect that you object to some people being very much richer than others and the rest of your argument exists solely to justify that point of principle.

RYH64E

7,960 posts

243 months

Sunday 29th April 2012
quotequote all
heppers75 said:
Erm is that even factually accurate?

I believe that there are billions of Barclays shares in circulation see here... http://reports.barclays.com/ar11/governance/direct... if you look in the table towards the bottom the four major holders have the best part of 3bn shares which equates to about 23% looking at the same table.

So that means just for those shareholders alone at 6p dividend they have had £180m no?

Or have I messed up my maths somewhere (I have form for that FYI!)?

If indeed I have not cocked up then the payout to shareholders VASTLY exceeds Executive pay.

Edited by heppers75 on Sunday 29th April 12:43
Here's another quote for you:

'In 2011, Barclays paid out £2.15 billion in bonuses to staff - three times more than the £730 million it paid out in dividends.'

http://www.myfinances.co.uk/savings/2012/04/29/bar...

heppers75

3,135 posts

216 months

Sunday 29th April 2012
quotequote all
RYH64E said:
heppers75 said:
Erm is that even factually accurate?

I believe that there are billions of Barclays shares in circulation see here... http://reports.barclays.com/ar11/governance/direct... if you look in the table towards the bottom the four major holders have the best part of 3bn shares which equates to about 23% looking at the same table.

So that means just for those shareholders alone at 6p dividend they have had £180m no?

Or have I messed up my maths somewhere (I have form for that FYI!)?

If indeed I have not cocked up then the payout to shareholders VASTLY exceeds Executive pay.

Edited by heppers75 on Sunday 29th April 12:43
Here's another quote for you:

'In 2011, Barclays paid out £2.15 billion in bonuses to staff - three times more than the £730 million it paid out in dividends.'

http://www.myfinances.co.uk/savings/2012/04/29/bar...
So you are discounting the fact it employs nearly 150k people and £2bn works out to £13k per employee then? Does not seem excessive to me for a business with the vast levels of profit it has. After all as a shareholder I would be the first one to say that the staff who make the money need to be taken care of first and foremost and as long as not to the exclusivity of myself as a shareholder I am happy as larry.

Also you do seem to like to dilute your argument when a counter point is made, we were up until recently talking about executive pay and now you seem to have lumped in every employee to try and assist in making your point.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Sunday 29th April 2012
quotequote all
otolith said:
martin84 said:
Well nobodies worth £2million irrespective of what they've done, we've already covered that.
Seems to me that everything else you have to say is just window dressing for that bit of dogma.
Exactly spot on. Because Martin84 isn't worth buttons, he thinks no one else should be. By attacking people on far more than he is, he doesn't have to deal with the difficult question about why he can't command that kind of salary.

As stated, pure envy. It's a bit sad really.

heppers75

3,135 posts

216 months

Sunday 29th April 2012
quotequote all
RYH64E said:
heppers75 said:
Have I not one post below demonstrated that is already the case?

Unless my post below is wrong and happy for someone to pitch up with the facts to prove it but supposing it is correct the shareholders are already paid many many more times than the Execs.

Edited by heppers75 on Sunday 29th April 14:00
Would these be the same shareholders who (using your figures, can't be bothered to check) who would have seen the value of their 3bn shares fall from over £20bn to about £6bn in 4 years? Who should be grateful for a dividend of 3% which is less than the UK inflation rate? And pay someone who has invested nothing but his time £17.7m for achieving an RoE of 6.6%?

Here's a quote from the FT (not the Guardian) http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cb055910-9048-11e1-8cdc-...

'The Barclays row has been brewing for weeks, after the bank’s 2011 executive pay plans revealed Bob Diamond, chief executive, and Chris Lucas, finance director, had been awarded annual bonuses close to the maximum defined by the bank even though the share price slumped by a third, dividends stagnated and profits fell.'
So again you avoided the question and plumped for rhetoric and another speech. Are you sure you are not in politics?

crankedup

Original Poster:

25,764 posts

242 months

Sunday 29th April 2012
quotequote all
heppers75 said:
So sorry chaps you still are not addressing the point where this thread started and as far as Barclays is concerned I am afraid the facts are unassailable and they are: -

1 - It never took a penny of bail out money
2 - It has consistently posted good profits
3 - Executive pay is and has always been even in the leanest of years a tiny fraction of a percentage of its profits.

If any of those above conditions were not met I would have all the sympathy in the world for the arguments being made and I would be banging the drum with you.

However they are all met and all that has been heard in contrary position to the actual pretty simple and logical facts above is quasi communist rhetoric and very petty envious comments about amounts of money involved.
You earlier mention your business ethos by the reward packages within your own company and those that you know. For my part I have acknowledged, indeed agree with the bonus culture of reward for extra performance. Also I strongly believe in the M@S business culture of shared ownership. What I do not agree with is the self reward over large rewards witnessed in many Corporations and banks, more so when it is ahead of shareholder distribution. You seem to over look the issue of shareholders rights and continually use the 'envy' which is frankly tiresome and not relevant.
Further more, although Barclays did not directly receive 'bail out' money this is not relevant to the debate, although I would assume Barclays along with almost all other banks befitting indirectly from the RBS bail out.
We are never going to agree on this subject but I will suggest that my argument seems to sit with a huge part of the media and society in general, not forgetting that the Insurance Companies are now becoming involved by uttering their disquiet thoughts over reward packages. This is simply shareholders of Insurance Companies now getting involved.

crankedup

Original Poster:

25,764 posts

242 months

Sunday 29th April 2012
quotequote all
10 Pence Short said:
crankedup said:
I feel you are missing one vital ingredient in your counter points. We are in a very different world now, post 2008. The irksome point is that for those at the top of the tree very little has changed regarding remunerations, it is this 'we are alright mate' attitude accepting self rewarded overblown packages that is not acceptable to the vast majority of the society we live in. The party is over and the sooner its realized from the top the better for all. The real bosses of Barclays have spoken and the employees need to react in the manner expected by shareholders. At long last Insurance Company bosses are now voicing serious concerns over excessive bankers pay, the ball is rolling and will gather momentum rapidly.
You could always hire a guy prepared to do the job for £500,000 a year. The chances are your shares would soon be worth sweet FA.

FFS, Barclays are one of those companies being seemingly well managed at a time when many are failing to provide value. If you're not prepared for those delivering that good management to be remunerated in line with the industry (the free industry, not that pot-of-st publicly bailed out rubbish), then I really don't know how you reconcile the concept of holding stocks at all?
Your completely missing the point, this tired out old nonsense of having to pay top money for the best is simply common sense. However that top money is now completely out of control and this is even acknowledged by some top business people. Why should owners (shareholders) sell their stock because they rate the remuneration packages as excessive. For me its long over due that a complete top down review is now taking place.

heppers75

3,135 posts

216 months

Sunday 29th April 2012
quotequote all
crankedup said:
You earlier mention your business ethos by the reward packages within your own company and those that you know. For my part I have acknowledged, indeed agree with the bonus culture of reward for extra performance. Also I strongly believe in the M@S business culture of shared ownership. What I do not agree with is the self reward over large rewards witnessed in many Corporations and banks, more so when it is ahead of shareholder distribution. You seem to over look the issue of shareholders rights and continually use the 'envy' which is frankly tiresome and not relevant.
Further more, although Barclays did not directly receive 'bail out' money this is not relevant to the debate, although I would assume Barclays along with almost all other banks befitting indirectly from the RBS bail out.
We are never going to agree on this subject but I will suggest that my argument seems to sit with a huge part of the media and society in general, not forgetting that the Insurance Companies are now becoming involved by uttering their disquiet thoughts over reward packages. This is simply shareholders of Insurance Companies now getting involved.
It sits with the media and society because it is fuelled by the politics of xxxx (insert word you find tiresome) as it is an ugly ethos that has become very pervasive in society at large. Maybe it is a modern version of a peasants revolt or the French Revolution I know not but like it or not it exists.

As for Exec distribution coming ahead of shareholders, Exec distribution has been demonstrated to be fractional percentages of profit and shareholders have had 6%, that would seem to be the very oposite of what you are saying no?

RYH64E

7,960 posts

243 months

Sunday 29th April 2012
quotequote all
heppers75 said:
As for Exec distribution coming ahead of shareholders, Exec distribution has been demonstrated to be fractional percentages of profit and shareholders have had 6%, that would seem to be the very oposite of what you are saying no?
6%? Your earlier figures, which I haven't checked, was £0.06 per share?

crankedup

Original Poster:

25,764 posts

242 months

Sunday 29th April 2012
quotequote all
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
In my case I find it abhorrent that the employees of this particular bank are taking three times more in remuneration packages then is being distributed to shareholders. That is quite clearly wrong and it has to be corrected.
Erm is that even factually accurate?

I believe that there are billions of Barclays shares in circulation see here... http://reports.barclays.com/ar11/governance/direct... if you look in the table towards the bottom the four major holders have the best part of 3bn shares which equates to about 23% looking at the same table.

So that means just for those shareholders alone at 6p dividend they have had £180m no?

Or have I messed up my maths somewhere (I have form for that FYI!)?

If indeed I have not cocked up then the payout to shareholders VASTLY exceeds Executive pay.

Edited by heppers75 on Sunday 29th April 12:43
Your sums are different to what I have read, however I must confess and now realize that the distribution is 27% of profit. The shareholders are not screaming from the roof tops for no good reason.