At last Shareholders speak-Barclays Bank

[crankedup]

Soovy said:

crankedup said:

it is a tiny minority which may agree with the views held by most on this forum and perhaps you should ask yourselves why that is.

Perhaps because a lot of people on here are well educated and actually understand the issues because they work in the City, rather than being ranting spittle flecked devotees of student politics?

If shareholders don't like the decisions of Barclays RemCo then perhaps they should just sell their shares? But they don't. Perhaps you should ask yourself why that is.

Looks like you have run out of a justified argument, if you 'understand the issues' and you are 'rather well educated' because you work 'in the city' I can now understand that you actually live in a bubble away from real society. You are the type of person that most of the U.K. is riling against, explain just why you think owners of a Company should sell and walk away when they are dissatisfied with certain aspects of management within that company? Sorry but you display all of the arrogance and misunderstanding of how business should work. Shareholders are now speaking up and demanding change, the 1980's - 90's are over and those in the city who are used to self reward need to adjust or move out.

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

In summary I would also suggest that it is a tiny minority which may agree with the views held by most on this forum and perhaps you should ask yourselves why that is.

I am actually genuinely interested in your take on why that is?

For the most part the people I know with whom I have had this discussion with most those that agree tend to do so from a position of knowledge and understanding of how companies work, have experience in doing so themselves and will have at least a rudimentary understanding of the banking industry.

For those that tend to disagree they will freely admit they don't know and have no interest in actually finding out the real facts or learning enough about the topic to reach a conclusion of their own, they are happy that is the state of affairs as that is what the media is telling them! Usually the Red Tops or the Wail!

Another PHer slumps to this tired worn out nonsensical puffed up rhetoric. Everybody is wrong except those that actually work in the city, funny that!

[crankedup]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

crankedup said:

Eh! You again do not seem to grasp the problems associated with your beliefs which seem to be stuck in the past two decades. Its not simply a matter of 17m a year in pay, its the whole reward ethos and process that is out of control.

You don't seem to grasp the fact that the reason you deem it to be out of control is because you're gut feeling tells y u that £17m a year is obscene. When others are struggling to live this bloke is picking up a huge sum. That's it. No economic arguement, just one based on your little world.

But Tom Cruise gets $25m for 12 weeks work on 1 movie. Messi picked up €35m last year for kicking a ball around. If Bob Diamond gets £17m, good on him I say. I wish I was on £17m a year. The reason I'm not is because I haven't done anything to deserve it. Once you come to terms with your own failings, you're far more able to accept other people's success without bitterness and envy.

You should give it a try. Just look in the mirror and say "I am a hopeless failure." Believe me, it's easy.

Your use of an actors earnings are irrelevant in this discussion. We are looking at companies that are publicly owned and the management are of course employees. Why would anyone feel bitter having seen their stock fall from the sky to the toilet and yet the management still have the audacity to self reward at obscenely high levels. As you seem to imply, these managers should be applauded and praised for their outstanding performance, go on get stuck in and fill your boots why should the owners be rewarded. Unbelievable.

[crankedup]

roachcoach said:

crankedup said:

Another PHer slumps to this tired worn out nonsensical puffed up rhetoric. Everybody is wrong except those that actually work in the city, funny that!

I don't work in the city and I don't have issue with it. I'll never work 'in the city' and I do not want to.

I don't work in the city, nor would I want to. But I do have issues with certain sectors of the city and the manner in which they operate.

[crankedup]

Soovy said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

crankedup said:

Eh! You again do not seem to grasp the problems associated with your beliefs which seem to be stuck in the past two decades. Its not simply a matter of 17m a year in pay, its the whole reward ethos and process that is out of control.

You don't seem to grasp the fact that the reason you deem it to be out of control is because you're gut feeling tells y u that £17m a year is obscene. When others are struggling to live this bloke is picking up a huge sum. That's it. No economic arguement, just one based on your little world.

But Tom Cruise gets $25m for 12 weeks work on 1 movie. Messi picked up €35m last year for kicking a ball around. If Bob Diamond gets £17m, good on him I say. I wish I was on £17m a year. The reason I'm not is because I haven't done anything to deserve it. Once you come to terms with your own failings, you're far more able to accept other people's success without bitterness and envy.

You should give it a try. Just look in the mirror and say "I am a hopeless failure." Believe me, it's easy.

Exactly.

Diamond is worth every penny of the package he gets. He delivers multiples of this in profit and value.

Contrast, if you will, with a thug footballer who earns 30m for kicking a piece of pigskin around a field.

Go and b1tch about the footballer, not Bob.


Life has never been fair, it isn't fair now, and it never will be. There will always be winners.

And losers.

Obviously you don't hold the shares. you lot crow on about sports persons pay but thats not relevant is it as they are in the main privately owned clubs.

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

In summary I would also suggest that it is a tiny minority which may agree with the views held by most on this forum and perhaps you should ask yourselves why that is.

I am actually genuinely interested in your take on why that is?

For the most part the people I know with whom I have had this discussion with most those that agree tend to do so from a position of knowledge and understanding of how companies work, have experience in doing so themselves and will have at least a rudimentary understanding of the banking industry.

For those that tend to disagree they will freely admit they don't know and have no interest in actually finding out the real facts or learning enough about the topic to reach a conclusion of their own, they are happy that is the state of affairs as that is what the media is telling them! Usually the Red Tops or the Wail!

Another PHer slumps to this tired worn out nonsensical puffed up rhetoric. Everybody is wrong except those that actually work in the city, funny that!

Erm I don't work in the City!

And I asked a genuine question and in no way shape or form resorted to rhetoric I simply gave you what I believe my answer to it was while asking you yours.

I mean if you want to avoid the question as you can't think of a decent answer then fair enough!

Its plain that you use the same tactic whenever you are unable to justify the content of your posts, most of my points have been ignored I notice. You dont work in the city, not surprised in all honesty. You constantly talk of how understanding business and business activity works, but you fail to understand that those old business models are now defunct with just the old die hards clinging on to drain the very most possible from shareholders businesses. Most people are sick to the back teeth of corporate largesse at shareholders expense. I dont give a monkeys about how brilliant or otherwise these top people are I simply want shareholders to have binding votes so that we can begin to bring back pay levels to real world levels. You have not even offered any sensible comments regarding society unrest over the issues.
I look forward to investment banking having to stand alone to sink or swim with those that own the banks having the rights to decide on matters of management and reward.

[crankedup]

fido said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

heppers 75 - what's your view of top executive remuneration in UK public companies? ... and why?

Why limit the analysis to just top executives? Footballers, celebrities, BBC presenters etc.
We are now in an age of the 'specialist' - if you are very good at doing specific things [which are in demand] whether it be kicking a football around, running a Council, or making people laugh on prime-time television, then you will get mega-bucks compared to Common Man. I don't know what the solution is, or if it is even a problem, but bleating about Bob Diamond just because he earns alot won't make a difference. In his industry, taking onto account the performance of Barcap compared to its peers and how it has emerged from the credit crunch relatively unscathed, he's done pretty well.

No lets keep this discussion centred upon publicly owned companies, that is the issue.

[crankedup]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

crankedup said:

Your use of an actors earnings are irrelevant in this discussion. We are looking at companies that are publicly owned and the management are of course employees. Why would anyone feel bitter having seen their stock fall from the sky to the toilet and yet the management still have the audacity to self reward at obscenely high levels. As you seem to imply, these managers should be applauded and praised for their outstanding performance, go on get stuck in and fill your boots why should the owners be rewarded. Unbelievable.

You have overlooked the fact that the senior management will, as well as being employees, are also co owners, and I suspect hold many more shares that your average punter.

The performance of Barclays cannot be looked at in isolation, but must be gauged against the rest of the sector.

So how has Barclays performed under the stewardship of Bob Diamond, compared to others in the sector, Lloyds TSB, RBS et al. The answer is as you are well aware, is brilliantly.

I wonder if RBS shareholders would begrudge paying £17m to be able to turn back the clock and to swap Diamond for Goodwin?

Rather than moaning about Diamonds pay, you should be kissing the ground he walks on.

But they as shareholders are on an equal footing as the average punter apart from the small matter that the shares would have been doled out as part of the pay reward system, which I actually support as long as they are held over for several years. its laughable to suggest Barclays has done rather well in the face of others going bust save bailouts. Stock price is a disgrace I cant bring myself to accept the management of the business has anything to be proud off. You cannot compare two Executives as you have done, its meaningless as you well know. The shareholders of RBS were offered a suger coated pill which they accepted, Barclays had a completely different strategy working. You seriously believe shareholders should be grateful for the performance turned in!!!!! I suggest its the other way around and this is demonstrated by the shareholders who remain incandescent.

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

Soovy said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

crankedup said:

Eh! You again do not seem to grasp the problems associated with your beliefs which seem to be stuck in the past two decades. Its not simply a matter of 17m a year in pay, its the whole reward ethos and process that is out of control.

You don't seem to grasp the fact that the reason you deem it to be out of control is because you're gut feeling tells y u that £17m a year is obscene. When others are struggling to live this bloke is picking up a huge sum. That's it. No economic arguement, just one based on your little world.

But Tom Cruise gets $25m for 12 weeks work on 1 movie. Messi picked up €35m last year for kicking a ball around. If Bob Diamond gets £17m, good on him I say. I wish I was on £17m a year. The reason I'm not is because I haven't done anything to deserve it. Once you come to terms with your own failings, you're far more able to accept other people's success without bitterness and envy.

You should give it a try. Just look in the mirror and say "I am a hopeless failure." Believe me, it's easy.

Exactly.

Diamond is worth every penny of the package he gets. He delivers multiples of this in profit and value.

Contrast, if you will, with a thug footballer who earns 30m for kicking a piece of pigskin around a field.

Go and b1tch about the footballer, not Bob.


Life has never been fair, it isn't fair now, and it never will be. There will always be winners.

And losers.

Obviously you don't hold the shares. you lot crow on about sports persons pay but thats not relevant is it as they are in the main privately owned clubs.

I totally agree and I am a shareholder - next argument?

Also there is little or no difference between Barclays and Manchester United they are both publicly traded private limited companies yet you seem to not want to address this why is that?

Edited by heppers75 on Monday 30th April 20:38

I said most sports clubs are privately owned, not all. Obvious to all that Man City are listed. Lets keep this discussion centred on the self reward greed of top executives that seem to treat the shareholders with contempt, which you seem to support. As a shareholder yourself you take the opposite POV to me and nothing will change that. Nobody is worth, whatever that means, the multi millions of pounds that they decide they are worthy of paying themselves and the sooner it stops the better. Over to you.

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

Its plain that you use the same tactic whenever you are unable to justify the content of your posts, most of my points have been ignored I notice. You dont work in the city, not surprised in all honesty. You constantly talk of how understanding business and business activity works, but you fail to understand that those old business models are now defunct with just the old die hards clinging on to drain the very most possible from shareholders businesses. Most people are sick to the back teeth of corporate largesse at shareholders expense. I dont give a monkeys about how brilliant or otherwise these top people are I simply want shareholders to have binding votes so that we can begin to bring back pay levels to real world levels. You have not even offered any sensible comments regarding society unrest over the issues.
I look forward to investment banking having to stand alone to sink or swim with those that own the banks having the rights to decide on matters of management and reward.

Pray tell what tactic is that then? I am just using fact and logic which seems to be something you are wholly totally & incapable of even understanding let alone doing.

Shareholders do and always have had a vote and they are free to exercise that vote, also I fully understand how corporate structures operate and how a modern business framework needs to function and I have the track record to prove as such thank you.

I believe I did offer an opinion somewhat couched in less than flattering terms but not quite as direct as Soovy I grant you, about societies position on the subject. Which was essentially that mix in varied circles and it has been my experience that those that seem to hold the opinion you do have that opinion given to them and accepted by them from popular media and other outlets. They have as a rule made little or no journey of discovery of their own volition to reach a conclusion based on their own understanding and accept the writings of someone whose job is not to provide facts but sell news. Those opinions it seems are generally created and espoused by sensationalists to garner support and sell something be it themselves or a newspaper article etc. These are the kind of folks who like to miss use terminology to dramatise a point - you know what I mean saying something is 'publicly owned' to try and incite some sort of vitriolic outburst of sympathy and uprising!

Edited by heppers75 on Monday 30th April 20:59

Taking out the waffle, the fact is shareholders voting rights are non binding and the sooner this changes the better.

[crankedup]

otolith said:

I'm sorry, but I think you are annoyed because, like Martin, you think that it is immoral for somebody to be so highly paid. I suspect that you would still want to cut executive pay even if it could be proven that it would be counter-productive for shareholders to do so, because I think the root of your objection is dogmatic rather than utilitarian.

You are correct in your assumption that I feel it is immoral to receive multi million pounds remuneration in certain circumstances. However, I recognise that individuals who have started business with their own money (Sir R.Branson for example) are to be applauded for their success. I have no problem with entrepreneurship. As I have said it is the self reward upon the backs of others and against interests of shareholders at the current ridicules levels I find offensive. It is clear that the rewards have reached unsustainable highs upon the back of the weak notion of having to pay top rates for the best. I am a Lib-Dem and as such my POV is not anti capitalist but one of moderate capitalism which the whole of society can benefit with.
Not so far from Thatcher in some ways as she advocated prosperity through shares and home ownership! What we see now is a gap widening between the very wealthy and the poor increased by 400% over the past ten years, this is not healthy for society in general IMO.

[crankedup]

bobbylondonuk said:

lol...publicly owned companies. no wonder this country is going downhill. people are debating about st they have no idea about!

Pat yourself on your own back for spotting the one error thought printed Now back to remuneration packages.

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

Nobody is worth, whatever that means, the multi millions of pounds that they decide they are worthy of paying themselves and the sooner it stops the better. Over to you.

See that is just the crux of the issue, you simply have a personal and fundamental problem with someone being paid what you consider to be an obscene amount of money.

I will ask a simple question does anyone who is a mere employee of any company and never put a penny of their own money in just 'got a job' ever under any circumstances worth the sort of money we are talking about?

I would like you to answer my question first, which I asked several pages back. Why is it that shareholder 'revolt' has increased from under 10% ten years ago to over 30% at the last meeting? You seem to consistently ignore the plain facts of the matter, or others spout 'they are idiots' they don't understand' its a very highly skilled job. Its like no other job in the U.K. demands special skills, which is plainly a daft argument.

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

heppers75 said:

They have as a rule made little or no journey of discovery of their own volition to reach a conclusion based on their own understanding and accept the writings of someone whose job is not to provide facts but sell news. Those opinions it seems are generally created and espoused by sensationalists to garner support and sell something be it themselves or a newspaper article etc.

Just the sort of pretentious twaddle I would expect from someone trying to sound clever but with little idea what's actually going on.

My bet was you'd land on "about right" on the remuneration question, simply because it avoids forming any significant opinion of your own.

And yours was just the sort of rude, ill informed and obnoxious response I would expect from someone who falls very much into the category of person I was describing and relies on insult and personal attack when they do not have the intelligence, knowledge or vocabulary to counter someone else's position!!

ETA - On re-reading I also note you chose to respond to a post on a question you asked me with my reply to someone else's post as opposed to the one I gave to the actual question you asked. Which actually very much re-enforces my argument that folks like yourself just can't cope and simply grasp at straws and cling to vitriol and others writings to justify your position. As opposed to address actual answers to the questions you ask. Also you accuse me of trying to sound clever but with little idea what's actually going on yet both you and crankedup were the ones using obviously incorrect facts calling these companies 'publicly owned' in a very clear way to try and incite some sort of view that they are 'public property'. However I notice you both have moved on very rapidly from that not addressed the fact you were currently I believe the only ones using incorrect information and you accuse others of being the ones lacking in knowledge mmmm

Edited by heppers75 on Tuesday 1st May 07:25

I was the one who used the wrong term, of course public owned is just that. I have now lost the whole reasoning of my debate apparently. But I have never given up on any matter which I feel passionately about and I am not about to start now, unless somebody can provide some clear and concise reason as to why I am wrong in my POV. You seem unable to accept that not all people agree with you?

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

Nobody is worth, whatever that means, the multi millions of pounds that they decide they are worthy of paying themselves and the sooner it stops the better. Over to you.

See that is just the crux of the issue, you simply have a personal and fundamental problem with someone being paid what you consider to be an obscene amount of money.

I will ask a simple question does anyone who is a mere employee of any company and never put a penny of their own money in just 'got a job' ever under any circumstances worth the sort of money we are talking about?

Wrong again! I have an issue with people who self reward on a epic scale whilst disregarding the wishes of shareholders who are stating the same issue as myself. Is that so difficult to understand?

[crankedup]

bobbylondonuk said:

here is a simple question.

Board members hired on contracts with performance targets. Remuneration board agrees pay after assessment of performance and decide amount.

Is it right to then renege on that contract? share holders votes are not binding because the board already has authority to negotiate contracts of senior employees. So can that contract be reneged on?

Here is a simple answer.

Apparently many board members appear on each others boards, a cosy arrangement of you scratch my back?
Of course contracts should not be reneged on, (although in many businesses employees have been asked to ignore their contracts under extreme trading circumstances in order to keep the business afloat) but they should be shared and agreed with shareholders representatives on the remuneration board and those persons should hold binding voting rights. The remuneration board should consist of 50% shareholding members. Under those circumstances I personally would feel a much more transparent and reasonable pay award scheme would result. What is the point of advising shareholders of business matters when those shareholders votes can be and very often are ignored.

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

I was the one who used the wrong term, of course public owned is just that. I have now lost the whole reasoning of my debate apparently. But I have never given up on any matter which I feel passionately about and I am not about to start now, unless somebody can provide some clear and concise reason as to why I am wrong in my POV. You seem unable to accept that not all people agree with you?

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me at all, I do have a problem with them presenting opinion as fact, miss using terminology to misrepresent and try to gain the moralistic high ground while being possessed of cosmic scale double standards.

ETA - Also resorting to personal insults when they run out of actual reasoned responses - which was more Ozzie than yourself I grant you.

Edited by heppers75 on Tuesday 1st May 11:42

Only one point holds any truth and that I have acknowledged in my use of use of the wrong term. Can you please demonstrate as to why you choose to insult me with your 'cosmic double scale standards'. Is there something which is inherently wrong with trying to maintain moral standards? You say I use opinion as fact - demonstrate please.

[crankedup]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

heppers75 said:

See that is just the crux of the issue, you simply have a personal and fundamental problem with someone being paid what you consider to be an obscene amount of money.

I will ask a simple question does anyone who is a mere employee of any company and never put a penny of their own money in just 'got a job' ever under any circumstances worth the sort of money we are talking about?

Nail/head.

The problem here is that some are just furious that others can earn millions a year. Doesn't matter what they do. They would complain if someone who simultaneously found a cure for cancer, aids and brought peace to the Middle East was given a multi million bonus.

Because as Martin84 (that's his IQ, not his year of birth I'm guessing) said about 8 pages ago "nobodies (sic) worth £2M a year, we've already established that."

I just wish people would be more honest about it. I'd have a modicum of respect for someone that came on and said "it's just not fair that someone can earn 100 times what I earn, just because I'm a failure and they're a success."

I assume that you do not include myself in your silly assertions?

[crankedup]

Soovy said:

crankedup said:

Thatcher

Hi Soovy, love that image 'The Young Ones', if only we could enjoy tele like that again!

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

bobbylondonuk said:

here is a simple question.

Board members hired on contracts with performance targets. Remuneration board agrees pay after assessment of performance and decide amount.

Is it right to then renege on that contract? share holders votes are not binding because the board already has authority to negotiate contracts of senior employees. So can that contract be reneged on?

Here is a simple answer.

Apparently many board members appear on each others boards, a cosy arrangement of you scratch my back?
Of course contracts should not be reneged on, (although in many businesses employees have been asked to ignore their contracts under extreme trading circumstances in order to keep the business afloat) but they should be shared and agreed with shareholders representatives on the remuneration board and those persons should hold binding voting rights. The remuneration board should consist of 50% shareholding members. Under those circumstances I personally would feel a much more transparent and reasonable pay award scheme would result. What is the point of advising shareholders of business matters when those shareholders votes can be and very often are ignored.

Which if the company were in the toilet I would agree with.

However we are talking about a business that made £4bn in profit, distributed £3/4bn to shareholders and the Execs got paid I think less than £50m between them.

I don't care which way you word it those numbers stack up and make sense, the issue you have is that you think the final number should probably be less than a 20th of what it is as you just have a problem within someone that was not a founding father having that sort of money as a reward.

Interestingly what is your take on say in 20 years time I have popped my clogs and my son has inherited my business never done a days work there in his life but the MD there makes a £2m profit and my son gets a £1m dividend and the MD gets £250k in salary and bonus, who is the wronged party in that equation or is indeed the equation a fair one?

crankedup said:

Only one point holds any truth and that I have acknowledged in my use of use of the wrong term. Can you please demonstrate as to why you choose to insult me with your 'cosmic double scale standards'. Is there something which is inherently wrong with trying to maintain moral standards? You say I use opinion as fact - demonstrate please.

Because you only wish to condem people earning that sort of money in a sector you clearly have a level of distaste for and would not apply the same logic or reasoning to other areas as you know it will make you sound a bit daft so you avoid answering the direct question on the subject which I have asked in various guises now and you seem to be avoiding.

So I will ask it again: -

So then nobody under any circumstances if they are not an actual investor and have risked their own money is in any way shape or form, under any circumstances morally right to take a payment for anything they do over a certain amount correct?

The addition I made earlier based on some of your half answers to the above but not complete ones was: -

If that is the case what is this mythical threshold as an anual income figure?

But you have yet again failed to to the whole point of the debate - question I keep asking is : why is it that over 30% of shareholders have voiced very serious objections to the remuneration packages. Can you not understand that I am not the only person with 'this problem' as you put it. Once again I state that only 10% raised objections to the issue just ten years ago, so a rise of 20% is a serious matter for the bank to address, the Chairman of the bank concedes on this matter, why can't you?
The mythical threshold is one that will be decided by a remuneration board which will have 50% of non - executive shareholders with binding voting rights. Or something along those lines.