At last Shareholders speak-Barclays Bank

[crankedup]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

crankedup said:

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?

Case proved. The very thought that I might be including you has got your back up. And that's what this whole thread is about...self delusion. If I attack someone far more successful than I am, I won't have to actually take a long hard look at myself and think about where it went wrong for me.

Blimey! case proved, what case. I find it frustrating that instead of some change minding thoughtful comments you come back with nonsense, sad really.

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

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.

I have answered the question a few times now, you are either not reading it or not understanding it as you have not responded to the answer simply re-asked the question...

See post below from a whole 2hrs and 45 mins ago!!!

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

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.

I do honestly think I have tried to answer the question several times, you just don't like the answer!

Without going into a repost of a previous post, I believe the revolt has come about because there is simply a majority of people in this fair nation of ours that are so easily led by (no personal offence intended) people like yourself whom have a simple moral objection to the amount of money, have no real understanding of the complexities of the corporate world and the job it entails and have no desire to find that out therefore become influenced by the media and people again like yourself who bang the 'its wrong, its our money' drum using emotive miss placed terminology to gouge out a moral standpoint.

Thats not a factual answer though is it, your still shouting out about your own opinions on how the business world should work, rather fanciful TBH. Now you seem to want to lump in shareholders along with the media, members of public, Barclays Chairman within your world of non intellectual persons not understanding Corporate business and finance whilst being led by others. All rather insulting and formed from zero basis of fact.
Again I ask, do you object to people having morals and those morals exhibited when debating? How about ethics then, where do you stand on that issue? Its all part of life and living of which nobody is excused, by that I mean you are not obliged to hold any of these instincts but its very poor form to make derisory comment about others that do.

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

plasticpig said:

heppers75 said:

Without going into a repost of a previous post, I believe the revolt has come about because there is simply a majority of people in this fair nation of ours that are so easily led by (no personal offence intended) people like yourself whom have a simple moral objection to the amount of money, have no real understanding of the complexities of the corporate world and the job it entails and have no desire to find that out therefore become influenced by the media and people again like yourself who bang the 'its wrong, its our money' drum using emotive miss placed terminology to gouge out a moral standpoint

An assertion that doesn't stand up. A vote that large against the pay deals means that there were institutional shareholders (pension and insurance companies etc) voting against the bonuses. Their criteria will be that Barclay's performance just doesn't warrant the level of remuneration being handed out; as some of them have said publicly in the press.

Fair comment and not that I am after a custard test However I am genuinely interested in increasing knowledge as always can you point me in the direction of some?

So its a fair comment now! this means you do understand the reasons behind the shareholders 'angst'. Why could you not admit that to me some pages back rather than keep 'baiting me'.

[crankedup]

will_ said:

Isn't the point (really) that if 30% of the shareholders aren't happy, 70% are? And the majority rules? Or should the 30% over-rule the 70%?

The thing about shares is that if you aren't happy with the performance or the pay scales, you sell the shares and - if enough people do that - the share price falls and (eventually) the directors get the chop (not to mention the value of their own portfolios falling). If that isn't happening then (overall) it's clear that the share-holders are happy with the performance and the pay - right?

Personally I think share-holder activism is a good thing, but the minority of share-holders can't (and don't) have any right to hold sway over the majority....

As I have said time and time again, why should shareholders have to ditch stock because the managers are taking excessive remunerations? The fact is that shareholders must be given BINDING VOTING RIGHTS in a way spoken of by Vince Cable. Management must not be permitted to set their own targets and rewards through boards that self serve each other. The idea that senior management can only be judged upon the share price is wholly wrong and certainly unfair to that management. I may find excessive remuneration abhorrent but I still want to see good reward for good results. At the same time you can't judge performance on share price alone unless you are using that as a very long term judgement, in which case poor management would exist in the mix for years. Presume that performance indicators are used by line managers but the senior level of Directors is another issue.

[crankedup]

plasticpig said:

heppers75 said:

Fair comment and not that I am after a custard test However I am genuinely interested in increasing knowledge as always can you point me in the direction of some?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...

Some fund management company said:

We voted against the remuneration report because we do not believe the committee exercised sufficient discretion by granting substantial bonus awards for a year in which the company's performance was mixed," said George Dallas, head of corporate governance at fund manager F&C. "This is a significant statement of investor concern about the company's remuneration practices

Well thanks plasticpig for pointing out that insurance companies are wobbling about the remuneration packages, it was dismissed when I posted the point several days ago. Its because some people in here cannot bring themselves to face the facts when I bring them to attention perhaps. I have a word for that sort

[crankedup]

will_ said:

plasticpig said:

will_ said:

Personally I think share-holder activism is a good thing, but the minority of share-holders can't (and don't) have any right to hold sway over the majority....

They do actually; in certain limited circumstances. See Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006.

In the circumstances which are the subject of this thread? Very, very unlikely.

The vast, vast majortiy of company activities require 50% or even 75% shareholder approval. I don't see why director remuneration should be any different. No-one is obliged to buy and hold shares in companies which are either not performing, or are over-paying their executives.

The problem is Will that many shares are held in pension funds where millions of people have no real say and entrust pension fund managers, another pet hate and distrust of mine.

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

heppers75 said:

plasticpig said:

heppers75 said:

Without going into a repost of a previous post, I believe the revolt has come about because there is simply a majority of people in this fair nation of ours that are so easily led by (no personal offence intended) people like yourself whom have a simple moral objection to the amount of money, have no real understanding of the complexities of the corporate world and the job it entails and have no desire to find that out therefore become influenced by the media and people again like yourself who bang the 'its wrong, its our money' drum using emotive miss placed terminology to gouge out a moral standpoint

An assertion that doesn't stand up. A vote that large against the pay deals means that there were institutional shareholders (pension and insurance companies etc) voting against the bonuses. Their criteria will be that Barclay's performance just doesn't warrant the level of remuneration being handed out; as some of them have said publicly in the press.

Fair comment and not that I am after a custard test However I am genuinely interested in increasing knowledge as always can you point me in the direction of some?

So its a fair comment now! this means you do understand the reasons behind the shareholders 'angst'. Why could you not admit that to me some pages back rather than keep 'baiting me'.

Do you just select at random which posts you read and then respond to those without bothering with the rest, or are you just not able to?

Ducking the issues seem to be a favourite tactic of yours. Your hypercritical nature of posts is now fully revealed, you insult me and yet agree with another poster despite the fact that we both alluded to the same issue. re Insurance Company boss calls time on excessive remuneration. Unfortunately I do not seem to have the time to find links and quotes to my posts, although I am retired from work. You must work at the speed of light 24 hours a day to fit it all in, that is not to criticise just a thought.

[crankedup]

will_ said:

crankedup said:

will_ said:

Isn't the point (really) that if 30% of the shareholders aren't happy, 70% are? And the majority rules? Or should the 30% over-rule the 70%?

The thing about shares is that if you aren't happy with the performance or the pay scales, you sell the shares and - if enough people do that - the share price falls and (eventually) the directors get the chop (not to mention the value of their own portfolios falling). If that isn't happening then (overall) it's clear that the share-holders are happy with the performance and the pay - right?

Personally I think share-holder activism is a good thing, but the minority of share-holders can't (and don't) have any right to hold sway over the majority....

As I have said time and time again, why should shareholders have to ditch stock because the managers are taking excessive remunerations? The fact is that shareholders must be given BINDING VOTING RIGHTS in a way spoken of by Vince Cable. Management must not be permitted to set their own targets and rewards through boards that self serve each other. The idea that senior management can only be judged upon the share price is wholly wrong and certainly unfair to that management. I may find excessive remuneration abhorrent but I still want to see good reward for good results. At the same time you can't judge performance on share price alone unless you are using that as a very long term judgement, in which case poor management would exist in the mix for years. Presume that performance indicators are used by line managers but the senior level of Directors is another issue.

You aren't really dealing with my point.

The majority of shareholders (i.e. owners) ARE happy. So what, exactly, is the problem - except that you (a non-shareholder) aren't happy? And if you are a shareholder, but are not impressed by the performance and/or remuneration packages, why should you be able to over-rule the majority? You can't, therefore your only option is to sell or put up with it - because the majority of the owners ARE happy.

Shareholders already have the power to make a stand against directors' remuneration. The fact is, they don't, either because they don't care, or because they are content with the performance of the company and/or the remuneration.

I think we know what the problem is. As for 70% of shareholders being happy, that simply is not the case is is pure supposition on your part. Millions of shares are held in management funds, I agree a certain percentage may not care a jot, although they are awaking now and this is why we see 30% extremely unhappy. Many shareholders are apathetic simply because they know their vote is non binding, that must change soon to binding votes. As pointed out some shares will be owned by bank employees, guess most of them are happy? No way sell or put up with it, that has gone on for too long and is partly the reason for these excessive remunerations. But its not just the issue of certain sectors being overpaid it is also a problem for the well being of society.

[crankedup]

Soovy said:

crankedup said:

will_ said:

plasticpig said:

will_ said:

Personally I think share-holder activism is a good thing, but the minority of share-holders can't (and don't) have any right to hold sway over the majority....

They do actually; in certain limited circumstances. See Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006.

In the circumstances which are the subject of this thread? Very, very unlikely.

The vast, vast majortiy of company activities require 50% or even 75% shareholder approval. I don't see why director remuneration should be any different. No-one is obliged to buy and hold shares in companies which are either not performing, or are over-paying their executives.

The problem is Will that many shares are held in pension funds where millions of people have no real say and entrust pension fund managers, another pet hate and distrust of mine.

AHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

So it IS your pension that's behind your bile.

I was right all along.

Look - remember the document you signed when you took out your pension? There was a bit in there about "value of investments can go down as well as up". You signed up to that.

If you didn't want to trust someone with your money, you should have invested it yourself.

Edited by Soovy on Tuesday 1st May 17:09

No, No soovy, my pension is secured by my own hard work and I retired years ago. Yes of course investments are risky but the top people still seem to gross out on their own rewards whether its been a good year or poor year, that is an insult
My objection (or bile as you call it )is more to do with the ethics and morals together with the effects seen growing within society in general over 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.

[crankedup]

TTwiggy said:

I note that 'not exactly a raving communist' Ferdinand Mount (Eton and Oxford educated, former head of policy for Margaret Thatcher) seems to agree that the gulf between rich and poor has become unsustainably wide, and that shareholders are getting a bad deal in his new book 'The New Few'.

Erm, sorry chap your wasting your time, just like me, putting over news like that. Those in favour of the status quo will not be bamboozeled into the truth with facts such as that. Like rabbits in headlights they be.

[crankedup]

will_ said:

crankedup said:

will_ said:

plasticpig said:

will_ said:

Personally I think share-holder activism is a good thing, but the minority of share-holders can't (and don't) have any right to hold sway over the majority....

They do actually; in certain limited circumstances. See Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006.

In the circumstances which are the subject of this thread? Very, very unlikely.

The vast, vast majortiy of company activities require 50% or even 75% shareholder approval. I don't see why director remuneration should be any different. No-one is obliged to buy and hold shares in companies which are either not performing, or are over-paying their executives.

The problem is Will that many shares are held in pension funds where millions of people have no real say and entrust pension fund managers, another pet hate and distrust of mine.

And? The pension funs are not compulsory to be invested in. If the investors don't like being invested in particular companies, they can withdraw their funds from the pension fund and you can bet your bottom dollar that if enough people did that the pension funds would take notice.

The fact is, the majority of shareholders are content. I'm sorry that you don't like that, but it would be wholly wrong for the minority to act against the evident wishes of the majority.

Why should they have to do that? People should be able to entrust the fund managers to represent the holders of these blocks of shares. I wouldn't want to have to spend my time studying all of the various companies and the company strategies and remuneration packages of those companies. Its what I pay a fund manager to do. As I keep saying, not just in this thread either, the companies offering investment fund management should be exercising some muscle instead of ignoring the problem or indeed sitting on remuneration boards and flagging through huge payments. Demonstrate to me that your assertion that the majority of shareholders are content. It is complete nonsense to make such assertions and I have previously stated my case as to why. The silent majority will soon be awoken from their blissful slumbers when it is realised that their vote will be a binding vote very soon, this should prompt some action which I hope will bring about much needed change. Like other industries some pressure needs to bring about sea change in the way the system operates. For those that don't like it, well its goodbye then.

[crankedup]

will_ said:

crankedup said:

will_ said:

crankedup said:

will_ said:

Isn't the point (really) that if 30% of the shareholders aren't happy, 70% are? And the majority rules? Or should the 30% over-rule the 70%?

The thing about shares is that if you aren't happy with the performance or the pay scales, you sell the shares and - if enough people do that - the share price falls and (eventually) the directors get the chop (not to mention the value of their own portfolios falling). If that isn't happening then (overall) it's clear that the share-holders are happy with the performance and the pay - right?

Personally I think share-holder activism is a good thing, but the minority of share-holders can't (and don't) have any right to hold sway over the majority....

As I have said time and time again, why should shareholders have to ditch stock because the managers are taking excessive remunerations? The fact is that shareholders must be given BINDING VOTING RIGHTS in a way spoken of by Vince Cable. Management must not be permitted to set their own targets and rewards through boards that self serve each other. The idea that senior management can only be judged upon the share price is wholly wrong and certainly unfair to that management. I may find excessive remuneration abhorrent but I still want to see good reward for good results. At the same time you can't judge performance on share price alone unless you are using that as a very long term judgement, in which case poor management would exist in the mix for years. Presume that performance indicators are used by line managers but the senior level of Directors is another issue.

You aren't really dealing with my point.

The majority of shareholders (i.e. owners) ARE happy. So what, exactly, is the problem - except that you (a non-shareholder) aren't happy? And if you are a shareholder, but are not impressed by the performance and/or remuneration packages, why should you be able to over-rule the majority? You can't, therefore your only option is to sell or put up with it - because the majority of the owners ARE happy.

Shareholders already have the power to make a stand against directors' remuneration. The fact is, they don't, either because they don't care, or because they are content with the performance of the company and/or the remuneration.

I think we know what the problem is. As for 70% of shareholders being happy, that simply is not the case is is pure supposition on your part. Millions of shares are held in management funds, I agree a certain percentage may not care a jot, although they are awaking now and this is why we see 30% extremely unhappy. Many shareholders are apathetic simply because they know their vote is non binding, that must change soon to binding votes. As pointed out some shares will be owned by bank employees, guess most of them are happy? No way sell or put up with it, that has gone on for too long and is partly the reason for these excessive remunerations. But its not just the issue of certain sectors being overpaid it is also a problem for the well being of society.

The problem is - people bleating about something that they don't like (high remuneration) whilst not being in a position to do anything about it because (a) they aren't a shareholder or (b) they are in a minority even if they are a shareholder. What is the solution? Don't be a shareholder, (and frankly why would you want to own shares in a badly performing company with overpaid directors) or become a major shareholder. It really is as simple as that. There is no justificiation for altering the rights of shareholders so that the minority (direct) "owners" over-rule the majority of the shareholders, whether they be institutions, employees or individuals. To do so would be completely unfair against the majority.

If only 30% of shareholders object to a remuneration package, that is insufficient to change it. It is completely irrelevant if those shareholders are institutional or not, because the basic investor has a complete choice to invest their funds elsewhere should they not agree with how their fund manager is acting or using their voting rights. No-one is compelled to own shares in companies in which they object to director pay, whether directly or indirectly through pension funds.

I have no more to offer regards your first para.
Agree that 30% vote from shareholders is insufficient to bring change or instruct changes, I have never suggested otherwise. It is not an irrelevance as to how an individual will have shares held, in fact it is the opposite IMV. Those with less time often invest in managed funds, certainly pension savers will. Your argument that individuals should not invest in particular companies only holds true in certain circumstances. However, when the companies remuneration packages are in question the shareholders should have, and soon will have, binding votes that will either agree or disagree with the proposals. It is not the case of saying 'he/she is paid to much so I won't invest' that would be plainly daft and not a basis of an investment strategy. This for me is the sole basis of the discussion, its not a matter of too much pay (although I think it is) but of shareholders having a binding vote on the matter. If it is to be in favour of a huge remuneration package and its voted through, then fine I wouldn't argue against it passed that stage, then I would consider if my investment is best placed within the company.

[crankedup]

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.

[crankedup]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

crankedup said:

Millions of shares are held in management funds

Why, if according to you, the CEO is so useless???

Didn't say the CEO was useless. And I have explained several times why fund managers hold shares in certain companies that used to be considered 'blue chip'. I now feel that you and other posters are being simply obtuse in the matter.

[crankedup]

will_ said:

crankedup said:

will_ said:

crankedup said:

will_ said:

plasticpig said:

will_ said:

Personally I think share-holder activism is a good thing, but the minority of share-holders can't (and don't) have any right to hold sway over the majority....

They do actually; in certain limited circumstances. See Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006.

In the circumstances which are the subject of this thread? Very, very unlikely.

The vast, vast majortiy of company activities require 50% or even 75% shareholder approval. I don't see why director remuneration should be any different. No-one is obliged to buy and hold shares in companies which are either not performing, or are over-paying their executives.

The problem is Will that many shares are held in pension funds where millions of people have no real say and entrust pension fund managers, another pet hate and distrust of mine.

And? The pension funs are not compulsory to be invested in. If the investors don't like being invested in particular companies, they can withdraw their funds from the pension fund and you can bet your bottom dollar that if enough people did that the pension funds would take notice.

The fact is, the majority of shareholders are content. I'm sorry that you don't like that, but it would be wholly wrong for the minority to act against the evident wishes of the majority.

Why should they have to do that? People should be able to entrust the fund managers to represent the holders of these blocks of shares. I wouldn't want to have to spend my time studying all of the various companies and the company strategies and remuneration packages of those companies. Its what I pay a fund manager to do. As I keep saying, not just in this thread either, the companies offering investment fund management should be exercising some muscle instead of ignoring the problem or indeed sitting on remuneration boards and flagging through huge payments. Demonstrate to me that your assertion that the majority of shareholders are content. It is complete nonsense to make such assertions and I have previously stated my case as to why. The silent majority will soon be awoken from their blissful slumbers when it is realised that their vote will be a binding vote very soon, this should prompt some action which I hope will bring about much needed change. Like other industries some pressure needs to bring about sea change in the way the system operates. For those that don't like it, well its goodbye then.

Because the fund managers are also happy that well-paid executives are required at large corporations? Because they aren't filled with the bitter envy of the left? Because the companies are actually performing well in a difficult market and the remuneration is justified? Because their funds are doing OK and they want the best management going forward?
Because the people investing in the funds don't give two ticks about what the directors are paid, they only care about the performance of their investments. And if their funds aren't performing, they should be removing their investments - the managers will soon take note. Why don't they do that? Because in fact the company is performing (relatively) well, and if it isn't the fund managers will get out sharply.

If the investors really did care, they would take the time to look at what they are actually invested in. The fact that they (and you) can't be bothered shows how insignificant the "problem" as you see it really is.

If only 30% of shareholders object to something, the other 70% are in favour or don't care (i.e. are content). It is irrelevant if they are direct or indirect shareholders, because the indirect share-holders are easily able to remove their investments if they cared so deepely. The fact is, they don't - so you're barking if you think there's soon going to be some sort of lefty revolution.

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.

[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.

[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.