At last Shareholders speak-Barclays Bank

[will_]

crankedup said:

Now your just being very juvenile adding a few insults for comic effect I assume. I have explained my view point and its one which you do not agree with, thats fair enough. I disagree with your POV but would not wish or want to insult you, although you are testing me severely now.
Although I started this thread centred on banks, I need to explain to you that the overpayment issue is not restricted to banks. The same problem exists in many Corporate Companies and shareholders have sat back for decades and let this problem happen. Now we have a European and American financial crisis shareholders are opening their eyes and at long last voicing their opinions. You believe this to be wrong in some way by using the silly argument that unhappy shareholders should sell their stock- strange. I say shareholders should have the benefit of binding votes rather than the current status. I would have agreed with your POV 20 or 30 years ago but times and attitudes change, clearly yours haven't.

Third time of asking - what do you mean by "binding" votes?

Second time of asking - what did you do, so that we can decide how much your pay should be capped at?

And once again you're missing the point. IF the majority of the owners of a business do not agree with a pay deal for a director then it should be stopped. But that is NOT what is happening, nowhere near. And if shareholders who are in the minority do not like the pay of the executives then they have no option but to put up with it or sell their shares. It is not a "silly" argument at all.

[crankedup]

Soovy said:

crankedup said:

Soovy said:

crankedup said:

.......the ever increasing gap between wealthy and poor.

A 400% increase in that gap over the past ten years cannot be justified by any measure IMO.

Yes it can.

Some people are lazy and poor. And some work hard and do OK for themselves and their families. And so are very lucky and are wealthy.

Life isn't fair, it never has been, and my experience of "the poor" in this Country (many of whom have been clients going through the criminal justice system at one point or another) is that they don't seem to me to be short of money for fags and holidays, or indeed spending all afternoon in the Weatherspoons once their case has been heard and they've paid their fine.

Get real, cranked. You're envious, nothing more.

You should cheer up. You have a pension, and a nice car collection. Be grateful, and (to quote SKA heroes The Specials) "enjoy yourself - it's later than you think".

Edited by Soovy on Tuesday 1st May 17:43

Your entitled to your opinion as much as I, and we disagree on this matter. Envious! no I am truly not, I have had my working life, done OK am secure with no worries, I am fortunate but I and my wife,worked very hard to achieve our current situation. Cheerful? well I am a serious minded person, can't help it, always have been and I expect that will not change. I believe passionately in my own sense of right/ wrong/ justice /injustice but I know others hold different views and values to my own, be a bloody boring world if that were not the case.
Don't get me wrong, life has sometimes been tough, sometimes very tough and full of ste, but like most people you get through it. I do like your use of The Specials line - a great band.

Indeed they are.

And to some extent I am baiting you, we'd probably get on alright you know.

But we do disagree about this whole remuneration thing. If someone can get themselves a deal like that then good luck to them. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Yup, but I don't hate any player,I understand the game needs to change, in the interests of, oh bugger I'm off again!! Even though I'm an old fart I love music, my recent particular likes are a band named GLASVEGAS (worth Googling up if you haven't heard them) and Red Hot Chile Peppers recent album.
I am now considering retiring from this section of the website, only because my POVs seem to not represent most other posters views

[crankedup]

will_ said:

crankedup said:

Now your just being very juvenile adding a few insults for comic effect I assume. I have explained my view point and its one which you do not agree with, thats fair enough. I disagree with your POV but would not wish or want to insult you, although you are testing me severely now.
Although I started this thread centred on banks, I need to explain to you that the overpayment issue is not restricted to banks. The same problem exists in many Corporate Companies and shareholders have sat back for decades and let this problem happen. Now we have a European and American financial crisis shareholders are opening their eyes and at long last voicing their opinions. You believe this to be wrong in some way by using the silly argument that unhappy shareholders should sell their stock- strange. I say shareholders should have the benefit of binding votes rather than the current status. I would have agreed with your POV 20 or 30 years ago but times and attitudes change, clearly yours haven't.

Third time of asking - what do you mean by "binding" votes?

Second time of asking - what did you do, so that we can decide how much your pay should be capped at?

And once again you're missing the point. IF the majority of the owners of a business do not agree with a pay deal for a director then it should be stopped. But that is NOT what is happening, nowhere near. And if shareholders who are in the minority do not like the pay of the executives then they have no option but to put up with it or sell their shares. It is not a "silly" argument at all.

OK Will, here is a link which comes some way to perhaps elaborating and detailing further what I have been on about. I am retiring from this section of PH soon so all will go smoothly again soon perhaps.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/9238925/sharehold...

Sorry you may need to tap it in.

[will_]

crankedup said:

OK Will, here is a link which comes some way to perhaps elaborating and detailing further what I have been on about. I am retiring from this section of PH soon so all will go smoothly again soon perhaps.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/9238925/sharehold...

Sorry you may need to tap it in.

Thank you - but that doesn't actually explain what a "binding" vote (as advocated by you and Mr Cable) actually is.

And in any event, I presume that it would still need majority share-holder backing - which I'm yet to see in relation to Barclays. In which case there is no justification for kerbing their executives' pay.

[Sticks.]

will_ said:

And in any event, I presume that it would still need majority share-holder backing - which I'm yet to see in relation to Barclays. In which case there is no justification for kerbing their executives' pay.

I did ask earlier (not you) what % of shareholders are (disengaged) non UK companies and, for that matter, other financial institutions.

Btw, wasn't Aviva making a similar headline earlier this week?

[will_]

So.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17938865

Maybe I was wrong about the revolution....

But this is what should happen - the majority of the shareholders expressing their wishes.

ETA - and now I understand what Cranky meant by binding votes - it certainly seems justified that shareholders get to agree the pay of the directors of the company they own.

Edited by will_ on Thursday 3rd May 17:39

[heppers75]

will_ said:

So.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17938865

Maybe I was wrong about the revolution....

But this is what should happen - the majority of the shareholders expressing their wishes.

ETA - and now I understand what Cranky meant by binding votes - it certainly seems justified that shareholders get to agree the pay of the directors of the company they own.

Edited by will_ on Thursday 3rd May 17:39

Totally agree as well, IF the majority speak then they should be heard.

One thought that occurred though, is there a danger that we get into a Trade Union style block voting scenario? By which I mean the ultimate owner of the vote ought to be the individual that has the share in the fund is the fund manager getting the same sort of power as a trade union boss by voting on others who may not share their opinion?

I guess you could take it too far but it did occur as a thought.

Also as far as Aviva goes it is pretty much in a sh*t state so I totally agree they ought to be getting little or f**k all in the way of reward.

[crankedup]

will_ said:

crankedup said:

OK Will, here is a link which comes some way to perhaps elaborating and detailing further what I have been on about. I am retiring from this section of PH soon so all will go smoothly again soon perhaps.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/9238925/sharehold...

Sorry you may need to tap it in.

Thank you - but that doesn't actually explain what a "binding" vote (as advocated by you and Mr Cable) actually is.

And in any event, I presume that it would still need majority share-holder backing - which I'm yet to see in relation to Barclays. In which case there is no justification for kerbing their executives' pay.

Having read the piece do you now agree that such an argument that I have raised is indeed valid with some merit. If your sole argument is now 70% of shareholders are happy with Barclays I can offer no more. All I have raised is the matter of shareholders being given, as a legal right, the chance to vote upon proposals, including remuneration of top directors and CEO. And that vote be binding as opposed to the current vote of being advisory. Binding vote means the board of directors are legally bound to act upon those shareholders decision. It will mean, IMO, that the boards will have to work harder to convince the shareholders that the proposals put to them are completely in the interests of the Company Of course it follows that further transparency will be required with the detail.

[crankedup]

Sticks. said:

will_ said:

And in any event, I presume that it would still need majority share-holder backing - which I'm yet to see in relation to Barclays. In which case there is no justification for kerbing their executives' pay.

I did ask earlier (not you) what % of shareholders are (disengaged) non UK companies and, for that matter, other financial institutions.

Btw, wasn't Aviva making a similar headline earlier this week?

Yes Aviva has just suffered the worst shareholders 'revolt' with just over 50% of shareholders disagreeing salary increase to the CEO.

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

will_ said:

So.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17938865

Maybe I was wrong about the revolution....

But this is what should happen - the majority of the shareholders expressing their wishes.

ETA - and now I understand what Cranky meant by binding votes - it certainly seems justified that shareholders get to agree the pay of the directors of the company they own.

Edited by will_ on Thursday 3rd May 17:39

Totally agree as well, IF the majority speak then they should be heard.

One thought that occurred though, is there a danger that we get into a Trade Union style block voting scenario? By which I mean the ultimate owner of the vote ought to be the individual that has the share in the fund is the fund manager getting the same sort of power as a trade union boss by voting on others who may not share their opinion?

I guess you could take it too far but it did occur as a thought.

Also as far as Aviva goes it is pretty much in a sh*t state so I totally agree they ought to be getting little or f**k all in the way of reward.

Thank you. All I have said all along is shareholders should have binding voting rights and at Barclays over 30% of shareholders protested against the remuneration packages. I just happen to agree and support Vince Cables assertions on the matter. I am not a leftie although I do have some left leaning principles, this remuneration debate is not, for me, political. I believe, as I have said for many months, the Cable policy idea will stand good for Companies, shareholders and UK PLC.
PS Aviva have just posted their best profits for some years I believe, but I may be wrong.

[heppers75]

crankedup said:

Thank you. All I have said all along is shareholders should have binding voting rights and at Barclays over 30% of shareholders protested against the remuneration packages. I just happen to agree and support Vince Cables assertions on the matter. I am not a leftie although I do have some left leaning principles, this remuneration debate is not, for me, political. I believe, as I have said for many months, the Cable policy idea will stand good for Companies, shareholders and UK PLC.
PS Aviva have just posted their best profits for some years I believe, but I may be wrong.

Cranky fella I never disagreed with that premise - or your taste in music FYI!

I just believe you cannot manage complex businesses based on dogmatic principle and actually I care not if that is left or right leaning, neither way works.

FWIW I think Cable is an utter twunt and I have met the man on a few occasions and I would not piss on him if he were on fire... However that is my personal view.

Aviva overall have done that one thing as far as I can tell that I was accused of possibly ignoring (I wasn't FYI) of manipulating their KPI's to bolster a profit headline figure.

[will_]

crankedup said:

will_ said:

crankedup said:

OK Will, here is a link which comes some way to perhaps elaborating and detailing further what I have been on about. I am retiring from this section of PH soon so all will go smoothly again soon perhaps.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/9238925/sharehold...

Sorry you may need to tap it in.

Thank you - but that doesn't actually explain what a "binding" vote (as advocated by you and Mr Cable) actually is.

And in any event, I presume that it would still need majority share-holder backing - which I'm yet to see in relation to Barclays. In which case there is no justification for kerbing their executives' pay.

Having read the piece do you now agree that such an argument that I have raised is indeed valid with some merit. If your sole argument is now 70% of shareholders are happy with Barclays I can offer no more. All I have raised is the matter of shareholders being given, as a legal right, the chance to vote upon proposals, including remuneration of top directors and CEO. And that vote be binding as opposed to the current vote of being advisory. Binding vote means the board of directors are legally bound to act upon those shareholders decision. It will mean, IMO, that the boards will have to work harder to convince the shareholders that the proposals put to them are completely in the interests of the Company Of course it follows that further transparency will be required with the detail.

Well, now I've discovered what you meant by "binding", in principle I agree. However (a) I don't agree with remuneration caps at all, and (b) in relation to Barclays the majority of their shareholders didn't object, in which case the arguments are (currently) irrelevant to that company. My argument has always been that the majority rule.

I have consistently stated that the majority of shareholders should rule. Clearly Aviva directors have been given a kicking by their shareholders - quite right too. Barclays, on the contrary, haven't.

[will_]

Sticks. said:

will_ said:

And in any event, I presume that it would still need majority share-holder backing - which I'm yet to see in relation to Barclays. In which case there is no justification for kerbing their executives' pay.

I did ask earlier (not you) what % of shareholders are (disengaged) non UK companies and, for that matter, other financial institutions.

Btw, wasn't Aviva making a similar headline earlier this week?

I don't know, but does it really matter? A shareholder is a shareholder. They own the company, and should determine how it is run, by whom and at what pay. Their status or location would appear irrelevant?

[Sticks.]

will_ said:

I don't know, but does it really matter? A shareholder is a shareholder. They own the company, and should determine how it is run, by whom and at what pay. Their status or location would appear irrelevant?

I just think that shareholders like you or I are more likely to take an interest; and large corporations or financial institution shreholders might arguably not want to upset the apple cart. The % split will affect the vote and what 'the majority or shreholders are happy' means.

[will_]

Sticks. said:

will_ said:

I don't know, but does it really matter? A shareholder is a shareholder. They own the company, and should determine how it is run, by whom and at what pay. Their status or location would appear irrelevant?

I just think that shareholders like you or I are more likely to take an interest; and large corporations or financial institution shreholders might arguably not want to upset the apple cart. The % split will affect the vote and what 'the majority or shreholders are happy' means.

Whilst I agree that that is true, it doesn't change the facts as to owns the company (in my view).

[Sticks.]

will_ said:

Whilst I agree that that is true, it doesn't change the facts as to owns the company (in my view).

That's true.

[PRTVR]

Can somebody explain something to me, how many shares in barclays would I need to get a return of 17 million pounds a year?
People often quote , but he is in charge of x number of people ,but the truth is there is in place a command structure right down to the local branch manager,
then they quote the profit made by the company but how much is directly attributable to him, if at the end of the year he stated that a list of decisions he made made this much profit I would have no problem with the reward but I suspect barclays would make a profit if he did nothing so what is his value to the company,
Not 17 millions I am sure.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

PRTVR said:

Can somebody explain something to me, how many shares in barclays would I need to get a return of 17 million pounds a year?
People often quote , but he is in charge of x number of people ,but the truth is there is in place a command structure right down to the local branch manager,
then they quote the profit made by the company but how much is directly attributable to him, if at the end of the year he stated that a list of decisions he made made this much profit I would have no problem with the reward but I suspect barclays would make a profit if he did nothing so what is his value to the company,
Not 17 millions I am sure.

Two word answer....Fred Goodwin.

A strong CEO sets the whole tone and vision for the entire organisation. People are quite happy the blame Goodwin for the demise of RBS, but when the boots on the other foot, and an organisation does well, then the CEO has played only a minor roll and it's the foot soldiers who have made the profit.

Roberto Di Matteo hasn't kicked a ball since he took over and Chelsea, not has Sir Alex at Man Utd.

Mens Rea I think is the latin...directing mind.

[PRTVR]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Two word answer....Fred Goodwin.

A strong CEO sets the whole tone and vision for the entire organisation. People are quite happy the blame Goodwin for the demise of RBS, but when the boots on the other foot, and an organisation does well, then the CEO has played only a minor roll and it's the foot soldiers who have made the profit.

Roberto Di Matteo hasn't kicked a ball since he took over and Chelsea, not has Sir Alex at Man Utd.

Mens Rea I think is the latin...directing mind.

But do they? I work for a large organisation and to honest with you I would struggle to tell you who the CEO is and his impact on me is nothing.
Your football reference is not relevant due to the fact that they are in direct control of a few people and the result are in direct view alongside his decisions on who to play or who he has bought.

[Du1point8]

will just leave this here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17944066