At last Shareholders speak-Barclays Bank

[NorthernBoy]

speedy_thrills said:

Although employers must also believe you aren't easily replaceable.
.

Yes, absolutely. If a bank thinks that I can be replaced by someone on half the money, then I'd not last long, and would be sent on my way. The only way to get a good bonus, in general, is if you are viewed as valuable, expensive to replace, and at risk of leaving.

Actually, on the point of how hard we work in the bad bonus years, there probably is a bit of tailing off of effort. I'm less keen to do 35 hours a week of unpaid overtime, for example, when I'm only being paid the amount specified in my contract. This hardly seems unreasonable, though, with employe and employee both cutting back to agreed amounts and hours in the lean years.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

PRTVR said:

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.

Well he's a crap CEO then isn't he. Perhaps if your organisation paid more, the might get a good one!

[heppers75]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

PRTVR said:

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.

Well he's a crap CEO then isn't he. Perhaps if your organisation paid more, the might get a good one!

Or depending on the level in the organisation PRTVR is at (if it is say CEO and 5 or more levels of management down) he may well have little view of the CEOs' value or appreciation of what he does, which is not at all a surprise.

The issue if that is the case is it would actually be a failing in his line management on effectively communicating downstream to the troops on the higher level corporate machinations, arguably the CEO ought to be managing his management team in effectively doing that so swings and round-a-bouts.

Another contention is of course that there are any number of email comms, town hall style meetings and briefings which take place and like many more disengaged employees do you simply ignore them and or do not go to them. In which case then I am afraid the reason you don't know is of your own doing!

[PRTVR]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

PRTVR said:

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.

Well he's a crap CEO then isn't he. Perhaps if your organisation paid more, the might get a good one!

He is well paid, on a par with Mr diamond, what appears to have happened is over the years the going rate for the job has kept going up in the belief that you had to pay the going rate for the job, and that rate kept going up, but with no check as to the value of this person to the company.
I remember reading an article many moons ago on running a large company, it was written tongue in cheek, it broke down the running into two major acts, amalgamation and sinergy savings and splits to focus on your core business, over the years I have witnessed this many times, in the company I work for along with many others, it appears that to justify their wages they need to put a stamp on their time in the job and this is what they do.
I do think CEOs should be paid well, but there is a point where the cost out ways the benifits.

Edited by PRTVR on Friday 4th May 09:04

[crankedup]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

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.

A good CEO will have a strong board of Directors, top pro's who will assist the CEO guide the Company to a better long term business. They will closely monitor what is going on and advise and recommend the CEO when business ids going off course, together with reasoning. The CEO is the Captain of the ship relying on his pro's to guide the working of that ship. Fred Goodwin was a dictating fool who had a massive ego, pushing through HIS own ideas of how the Company would best move forward, he wouldn't listen to good advise and that was his downfall. So while I agree in parts with your analogy Goodwin was an egoistic manic who couldn't be reigned in. Its all about professional balance something most Companies seem to achieve.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

crankedup said:

A good CEO will have a strong board of Directors, top pro's who will assist the CEO guide the Company to a better long term business. They will closely monitor what is going on and advise and recommend the CEO when business ids going off course, together with reasoning. The CEO is the Captain of the ship relying on his pro's to guide the working of that ship. Fred Goodwin was a dictating fool who had a massive ego, pushing through HIS own ideas of how the Company would best move forward, he wouldn't listen to good advise and that was his downfall. So while I agree in parts with your analogy Goodwin was an egoistic manic who couldn't be reigned in. Its all about professional balance something most Companies seem to achieve.

Absolutely right. Goodwin was an egotistical maniac. Oh, if only RBS had had Bob Diamond at the helm. Could have saved them billions. I wonder how much it would have been worth to have had Diamond at the helm instead of Goodwin.

Offers anyone. I'll start the bidding at....£17.7m.

[speedy_thrills]

NorthernBoy said:

The only way to get a good bonus, in general, is if you are viewed as valuable, expensive to replace, and at risk of leaving.

Depends on the company as well however, unfortunately human resources at many companies fail to grasp the value of their staff.

It's always a training, lower level management, advertising or product problem. Look at poor old RIM after they started slashing back at staff to cut costs, they've ended up in...whatever the corporate version of a last stand is. Business strategies aren't always rational is what I'm saying.

[PRTVR]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

crankedup said:

A good CEO will have a strong board of Directors, top pro's who will assist the CEO guide the Company to a better long term business. They will closely monitor what is going on and advise and recommend the CEO when business ids going off course, together with reasoning. The CEO is the Captain of the ship relying on his pro's to guide the working of that ship. Fred Goodwin was a dictating fool who had a massive ego, pushing through HIS own ideas of how the Company would best move forward, he wouldn't listen to good advise and that was his downfall. So while I agree in parts with your analogy Goodwin was an egoistic manic who couldn't be reigned in. Its all about professional balance something most Companies seem to achieve.

Absolutely right. Goodwin was an egotistical maniac. Oh, if only RBS had had Bob Diamond at the helm. Could have saved them billions. I wonder how much it would have been worth to have had Diamond at the helm instead of Goodwin.

Offers anyone. I'll start the bidding at....£17.7m.

But the years leading up to the problems with RBS how much was goodwin paid?and was not everybody praising him and saying he was worth every penny,
Times are changing and rightly so in my opinion, Is it to much to have them justify why they are paid so much by the people who own the company.

[RYH64E]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Absolutely right. Goodwin was an egotistical maniac. Oh, if only RBS had had Bob Diamond at the helm. Could have saved them billions. I wonder how much it would have been worth to have had Diamond at the helm instead of Goodwin.

Offers anyone. I'll start the bidding at....£17.7m.

I've said it before and I know that you disagree, but all of the evidence suggests that Bob Diamond wanted the ABN deal and only avoided it because of a fall in Barclays share price - not due to any personal brilliance. Had he achieved his objective of paying £90bn for the poisoned chalice that was ABN you might not be so fulsome in your praise.

Edited by RYH64E on Friday 4th May 13:27

[speedy_thrills]

PRTVR said:

Times are changing and rightly so in my opinion, Is it to much to have them justify why they are paid so much by the people who own the company.

Banks and other financial companies have a peculiarity in having exceptionally generous compensation. Only the energy sector seems to match this but given the BP spill fiasco you can see why .

[crankedup]

speedy_thrills said:

PRTVR said:

Times are changing and rightly so in my opinion, Is it to much to have them justify why they are paid so much by the people who own the company.

Banks and other financial companies have a peculiarity in having exceptionally generous compensation. Only the energy sector seems to match this but given the BP spill fiasco you can see why .

The 'golden goodbye' is one of the important considerations to be offered to shareholders within the forthcoming legislation. The critical point will be that for an out going CEO or Director the sum of money will be limited, in an advisory manner, to be one years salary. Should the Company wish to offer over and above this sum then it will be given over to a shareholders vote. The shareholders will vote and that vote will be binding as to the level of the 'golden goodbye'. Would trust that past performance of the outgoing member of staff will to a great extent be of great consideration within the shareholders.

[heppers75]

RYH64E said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Absolutely right. Goodwin was an egotistical maniac. Oh, if only RBS had had Bob Diamond at the helm. Could have saved them billions. I wonder how much it would have been worth to have had Diamond at the helm instead of Goodwin.

Offers anyone. I'll start the bidding at....£17.7m.

I've said it before and I know that you disagree, but all of the evidence suggests that Bob Diamond wanted the ABN deal and only avoided it because of a fall in Barclays share price - not due to any personal brilliance. Had he achieved his objective of paying £90bn for the poisoned chalice that was ABN you might not be so fulsome in your praise.

Edited by RYH64E on Friday 4th May 13:27

And I have said that is just utter emotive speculation to try and make a point to further your argument.

[crankedup]

PRTVR said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

crankedup said:

A good CEO will have a strong board of Directors, top pro's who will assist the CEO guide the Company to a better long term business. They will closely monitor what is going on and advise and recommend the CEO when business ids going off course, together with reasoning. The CEO is the Captain of the ship relying on his pro's to guide the working of that ship. Fred Goodwin was a dictating fool who had a massive ego, pushing through HIS own ideas of how the Company would best move forward, he wouldn't listen to good advise and that was his downfall. So while I agree in parts with your analogy Goodwin was an egoistic manic who couldn't be reigned in. Its all about professional balance something most Companies seem to achieve.

Absolutely right. Goodwin was an egotistical maniac. Oh, if only RBS had had Bob Diamond at the helm. Could have saved them billions. I wonder how much it would have been worth to have had Diamond at the helm instead of Goodwin.

Offers anyone. I'll start the bidding at....£17.7m.

But the years leading up to the problems with RBS how much was goodwin paid?and was not everybody praising him and saying he was worth every penny,
Times are changing and rightly so in my opinion, Is it to much to have them justify why they are paid so much by the people who own the company.

Your correct PRTV, although growing numbers of people were becoming very nervous about the aggressive stance Goodwin was taking, shareholders were also very very nervous and openly were critical in meetings just prior to the ill fated takeover. Apparently Goodwins Board of Directors were ridden over rough shod by Goodwin when they voiced their concerns. Our thanks must go to Goodwin, for it is him and his type which had contributed to the general malaise in the financial sector, over confident and over bearing. (I acknowledge not all bankers are like that at all). We are both minded to the upcoming changes and the placement of great trust in shareholders to recognise the value or otherwise in the Management of their Companies, not just banks don't forget. Its been a lesson for us all but I would expect that in a few decades time people will once again be 'invincible'.

[RYH64E]

heppers75 said:

And I have said that is just utter emotive speculation to try and make a point to further your argument.

What exactly do you dispute?

That Barclays bid for ABN is fact, and there is plenty of evidence to support the supposition that Diamond supported the bid. That the ABN acquisition was a disaster for RBS is also pretty widely accepted. So, again, what do you dispute?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

RYH64E said:

heppers75 said:

And I have said that is just utter emotive speculation to try and make a point to further your argument.

What exactly do you dispute?

That Barclays bid for ABN is fact, and there is plenty of evidence to support the supposition that Diamond supported the bid. That the ABN acquisition was a disaster for RBS is also pretty widely accepted. So, again, what do you dispute?

Good god man! Just because he was involved in bidding for it, you have absolutely no way of knowing if the pruchase would have gone ahead had he won the bidding process, because that would have been prior to due diligence.

So to say "Bob Diamond only dodged the ABN bullet because RBS were even more stupid than he was is just a ficticious arguement that you've come up with to bolster your own flagging case.

If you and youtr neighbour are both interested in buying the same 2nd hand car, he bids more than you, buys it without any RAC or AA inspection, and it turns out to be a lemon, that doesn't automatically mean you'd have bought it if he hadn't. You might have been more cautios and walked away before committing to the deal.

Jeez! It ain't rocket surgery, honestly.

[fido]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

If you and youtr neighbour are both interested in buying the same 2nd hand car, he bids more than you, buys it without any RAC or AA inspection, and it turns out to be a lemon, that doesn't automatically mean you'd have bought it if he hadn't. You might have been more cautios and walked away before committing to the deal.

By all accounts, Fred the neighbour got a UBS 5* inspection and was told to stay well clear. Then went ahead and bought it anyway just to out-do his neighbour.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

fido said:

By all accounts, Fred the neighbour got a UBS 5* inspection and was told to stay well clear. Then went ahead and bought it anyway just to out-do his neighbour.

Yes, that's true!

I can't believe that the anti Bob Diamond rant has stooped to "he isn't worth the money because he might have done something incredibly stupid if someone else hadn't beaten him to it."

The longer this nonsense gets spouted, the more I'm convinced that this is nothing to do with legitimate shareholder concerns, and more about bitter and twisted failures who are furious with envy at someone elses success.

It is possible to be a failure but not be eaten up with envy. I've managed it!

[heppers75]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

RYH64E said:

heppers75 said:

And I have said that is just utter emotive speculation to try and make a point to further your argument.

What exactly do you dispute?

That Barclays bid for ABN is fact, and there is plenty of evidence to support the supposition that Diamond supported the bid. That the ABN acquisition was a disaster for RBS is also pretty widely accepted. So, again, what do you dispute?

Good god man! Just because he was involved in bidding for it, you have absolutely no way of knowing if the pruchase would have gone ahead had he won the bidding process, because that would have been prior to due diligence.

So to say "Bob Diamond only dodged the ABN bullet because RBS were even more stupid than he was is just a ficticious arguement that you've come up with to bolster your own flagging case.

If you and youtr neighbour are both interested in buying the same 2nd hand car, he bids more than you, buys it without any RAC or AA inspection, and it turns out to be a lemon, that doesn't automatically mean you'd have bought it if he hadn't. You might have been more cautios and walked away before committing to the deal.

Jeez! It ain't rocket surgery, honestly.

RY - The above pretty much says it all really, you are taking leaps of faith and extrapolating something you have utterly no direct knowledge of that involves the goings on behind closed doors in a corporate board room and in the thoughts in peoples heads, and you are doing so to suit your argument and trying to present it as fact.

Do you really not see that or are you so manifestly convinced you are fully cognisant of all the facts that what the rest of us see as supposition to you is actual fact?

[RYH64E]

heppers75 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

RYH64E said:

heppers75 said:

And I have said that is just utter emotive speculation to try and make a point to further your argument.

What exactly do you dispute?

That Barclays bid for ABN is fact, and there is plenty of evidence to support the supposition that Diamond supported the bid. That the ABN acquisition was a disaster for RBS is also pretty widely accepted. So, again, what do you dispute?

Good god man! Just because he was involved in bidding for it, you have absolutely no way of knowing if the pruchase would have gone ahead had he won the bidding process, because that would have been prior to due diligence.

So to say "Bob Diamond only dodged the ABN bullet because RBS were even more stupid than he was is just a ficticious arguement that you've come up with to bolster your own flagging case.

If you and youtr neighbour are both interested in buying the same 2nd hand car, he bids more than you, buys it without any RAC or AA inspection, and it turns out to be a lemon, that doesn't automatically mean you'd have bought it if he hadn't. You might have been more cautios and walked away before committing to the deal.

Jeez! It ain't rocket surgery, honestly.

RY - The above pretty much says it all really, you are taking leaps of faith and extrapolating something you have utterly no direct knowledge of that involves the goings on behind closed doors in a corporate board room and in the thoughts in peoples heads, and you are doing so to suit your argument and trying to present it as fact.

Do you really not see that or are you so manifestly convinced you are fully cognisant of all the facts that what the rest of us see as supposition to you is actual fact?

I'm not the one extrapolating and taking a leap of faith, you two are guessing that despite all of the prior research, and despite offering £90bn (not something done on a whim, surely?) that Barclays would not have completed had their bid been successful? It's only recently that RBS and Goodwin have become discredited, at the time of the ABN bid they were seen as competent, well respected, highly paid banking professionals, much like the Barclays team. RBS went through with the deal (the deal that Diamond wanted), why do you assume that Barclays wouldn't have done the same?

[heppers75]

RYH64E said:

heppers75 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

RYH64E said:

heppers75 said:

And I have said that is just utter emotive speculation to try and make a point to further your argument.

What exactly do you dispute?

That Barclays bid for ABN is fact, and there is plenty of evidence to support the supposition that Diamond supported the bid. That the ABN acquisition was a disaster for RBS is also pretty widely accepted. So, again, what do you dispute?

Good god man! Just because he was involved in bidding for it, you have absolutely no way of knowing if the pruchase would have gone ahead had he won the bidding process, because that would have been prior to due diligence.

So to say "Bob Diamond only dodged the ABN bullet because RBS were even more stupid than he was is just a ficticious arguement that you've come up with to bolster your own flagging case.

If you and youtr neighbour are both interested in buying the same 2nd hand car, he bids more than you, buys it without any RAC or AA inspection, and it turns out to be a lemon, that doesn't automatically mean you'd have bought it if he hadn't. You might have been more cautios and walked away before committing to the deal.

Jeez! It ain't rocket surgery, honestly.

RY - The above pretty much says it all really, you are taking leaps of faith and extrapolating something you have utterly no direct knowledge of that involves the goings on behind closed doors in a corporate board room and in the thoughts in peoples heads, and you are doing so to suit your argument and trying to present it as fact.

Do you really not see that or are you so manifestly convinced you are fully cognisant of all the facts that what the rest of us see as supposition to you is actual fact?

I'm not the one extrapolating and taking a leap of faith, you two are guessing that despite all of the prior research, and despite offering £90bn (not something done on a whim, surely?) that Barclays would not have completed had their bid been successful? It's only recently that RBS and Goodwin have become discredited, at the time of the ABN bid they were seen as competent, well respected, highly paid banking professionals, much like the Barclays team. RBS went through with the deal (the deal that Diamond wanted), why do you assume that Barclays wouldn't have done the same?

Hells teeth you really are so thoroughly immersed in the belief of your own prescience you truly think that you are capable of second guessing what a whole group of people and an entire organisation were going to do at a point in time several years ago based on aged media reports.

Wow... that is on many levels very special!

To actually answer the question you asked I am perfectly happy to contend I do not know one way or the other and I am perfectly happy to accept I am not on a level that would even allow me to contend I would be able to make a judgement one way or the other, the issue is you seem to be manifestly of the belief you can say for absolute certain you are.

Do you honestly and truthfully not realise what a bloody nutter that makes you sound like?