At last Shareholders speak-Barclays Bank
Discussion
RYH64E said:
crankedup said:
Well at least you concede the shareholders have a legitimate interest, the point is that most people saving into a pension scheme will have an interest in banking shares. Given that is the case most people will have a POV on the matter of remuneration within banks, whether they wish to express that POV or not is their concern, as you mention. This brings me to the public perceptions and how this is affecting society in general, not to mention that the investment banks had a role within the European and American financial collapse. Society it seems is deeply offended that top exec's can still be rewarded as though nothing has changed since 2008. Personally I see this as a problem which is not going away any time soon. (we are all in this together) has focused minds into unfairness.
My personal opinion is that bank employees at the highest level have been paid far too much for what has been pretty appalling performance, certainly in terms of share price for long term investors, and that rewards have been unfairly skewed towards employees rather than shareholders. If I were a shareholder I wouldn't be happy, but I'm not, I hold no Barclays shares and decided many years ago that pensions were a waste of money, so don't have any interest there either. Maybe a passing interest in Lloyds and RBS but imo the bigger mistake there was in not letting them go bust in the first place.I do find it ironic to hear those on the left complaining about employees being paid too much, to the detriment of the evil, capitalist shareholders. I thought that the socialist ideal would be for the employees to be paid as much as possible, leaving nothing for the shareholders.
Also this is a business paying its Chief Exec <1% of its profit, can someone PLEASE for the love of god tell me what is wrong with that?
heppers75 said:
RYH64E said:
crankedup said:
Well at least you concede the shareholders have a legitimate interest, the point is that most people saving into a pension scheme will have an interest in banking shares. Given that is the case most people will have a POV on the matter of remuneration within banks, whether they wish to express that POV or not is their concern, as you mention. This brings me to the public perceptions and how this is affecting society in general, not to mention that the investment banks had a role within the European and American financial collapse. Society it seems is deeply offended that top exec's can still be rewarded as though nothing has changed since 2008. Personally I see this as a problem which is not going away any time soon. (we are all in this together) has focused minds into unfairness.
My personal opinion is that bank employees at the highest level have been paid far too much for what has been pretty appalling performance, certainly in terms of share price for long term investors, and that rewards have been unfairly skewed towards employees rather than shareholders. If I were a shareholder I wouldn't be happy, but I'm not, I hold no Barclays shares and decided many years ago that pensions were a waste of money, so don't have any interest there either. Maybe a passing interest in Lloyds and RBS but imo the bigger mistake there was in not letting them go bust in the first place.I do find it ironic to hear those on the left complaining about employees being paid too much, to the detriment of the evil, capitalist shareholders. I thought that the socialist ideal would be for the employees to be paid as much as possible, leaving nothing for the shareholders.
Also this is a business paying its Chief Exec <1% of its profit, can someone PLEASE for the love of god tell me what is wrong with that?
Du1point8 said:
heppers75 said:
RYH64E said:
crankedup said:
Well at least you concede the shareholders have a legitimate interest, the point is that most people saving into a pension scheme will have an interest in banking shares. Given that is the case most people will have a POV on the matter of remuneration within banks, whether they wish to express that POV or not is their concern, as you mention. This brings me to the public perceptions and how this is affecting society in general, not to mention that the investment banks had a role within the European and American financial collapse. Society it seems is deeply offended that top exec's can still be rewarded as though nothing has changed since 2008. Personally I see this as a problem which is not going away any time soon. (we are all in this together) has focused minds into unfairness.
My personal opinion is that bank employees at the highest level have been paid far too much for what has been pretty appalling performance, certainly in terms of share price for long term investors, and that rewards have been unfairly skewed towards employees rather than shareholders. If I were a shareholder I wouldn't be happy, but I'm not, I hold no Barclays shares and decided many years ago that pensions were a waste of money, so don't have any interest there either. Maybe a passing interest in Lloyds and RBS but imo the bigger mistake there was in not letting them go bust in the first place.I do find it ironic to hear those on the left complaining about employees being paid too much, to the detriment of the evil, capitalist shareholders. I thought that the socialist ideal would be for the employees to be paid as much as possible, leaving nothing for the shareholders.
Also this is a business paying its Chief Exec <1% of its profit, can someone PLEASE for the love of god tell me what is wrong with that?
heppers75 said:
So I am a Barclays shareholder and bought a reasonable sum of shares in early 2009 and I have zero problem with the way the company is ran. I have seen my shareholding basically double in value over the period I have held them and I have had some dividend return on them also.
Also this is a business paying its Chief Exec <1% of its profit, can someone PLEASE for the love of god tell me what is wrong with that?
What's wrong with it is that Bob Diamond is hugely successful, and I'm not, so rather than face up to the fact that he deserves to earn tonnes more than me, I reserve the right to bAlso this is a business paying its Chief Exec <1% of its profit, can someone PLEASE for the love of god tell me what is wrong with that?
h and moan about it like an spoilt brat.
heppers75 said:
So I am a Barclays shareholder and bought a reasonable sum of shares in early 2009 and I have zero problem with the way the company is ran. I have seen my shareholding basically double in value over the period I have held them and I have had some dividend return on them also.
Also this is a business paying its Chief Exec <1% of its profit, can someone PLEASE for the love of god tell me what is wrong with that?
Would you feel the same if you'd bought those same shares in 2007?Also this is a business paying its Chief Exec <1% of its profit, can someone PLEASE for the love of god tell me what is wrong with that?
Maybe I'm being thick here (I've just got back from a beer festival so could be why), but according to the bad journalism of the BBC, 26.9% of those who voted said no.
Or, to be more correct:
73.1% of the voters spoke and said they're happy with the renumeration package.
Including abstainers, 31% against, or, to put it more accurately, 69% for.
So yes, they have spoken and its not what is claimed in the OP.
Or, to be more correct:
73.1% of the voters spoke and said they're happy with the renumeration package.
Including abstainers, 31% against, or, to put it more accurately, 69% for.
So yes, they have spoken and its not what is claimed in the OP.
RYH64E said:
heppers75 said:
So I am a Barclays shareholder and bought a reasonable sum of shares in early 2009 and I have zero problem with the way the company is ran. I have seen my shareholding basically double in value over the period I have held them and I have had some dividend return on them also.
Also this is a business paying its Chief Exec <1% of its profit, can someone PLEASE for the love of god tell me what is wrong with that?
Would you feel the same if you'd bought those same shares in 2007?Also this is a business paying its Chief Exec <1% of its profit, can someone PLEASE for the love of god tell me what is wrong with that?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
heppers75 said:
So I am a Barclays shareholder and bought a reasonable sum of shares in early 2009 and I have zero problem with the way the company is ran. I have seen my shareholding basically double in value over the period I have held them and I have had some dividend return on them also.
Also this is a business paying its Chief Exec <1% of its profit, can someone PLEASE for the love of god tell me what is wrong with that?
What's wrong with it is that Bob Diamond is hugely successful, and I'm not, so rather than face up to the fact that he deserves to earn tonnes more than me, I reserve the right to bAlso this is a business paying its Chief Exec <1% of its profit, can someone PLEASE for the love of god tell me what is wrong with that?
h and moan about it like an spoilt brat.
I think if some of the others on this thread had your honesty the world would be a better place! 
Use Psychology said:
it's the main reason we are seeing the massive inflation in executive pay which is categorically not in the interests of shareholders. It's clearly a 'you pat my back and I'll pat your's' arrangement. otherwise insurance and pension funds would look to minimise executive pay and maximise dividends.
Indeed, we are both of the same opinion regards this issue.RYH64E said:
crankedup said:
Well at least you concede the shareholders have a legitimate interest, the point is that most people saving into a pension scheme will have an interest in banking shares. Given that is the case most people will have a POV on the matter of remuneration within banks, whether they wish to express that POV or not is their concern, as you mention. This brings me to the public perceptions and how this is affecting society in general, not to mention that the investment banks had a role within the European and American financial collapse. Society it seems is deeply offended that top exec's can still be rewarded as though nothing has changed since 2008. Personally I see this as a problem which is not going away any time soon. (we are all in this together) has focused minds into unfairness.
My personal opinion is that bank employees at the highest level have been paid far too much for what has been pretty appalling performance, certainly in terms of share price for long term investors, and that rewards have been unfairly skewed towards employees rather than shareholders. If I were a shareholder I wouldn't be happy, but I'm not, I hold no Barclays shares and decided many years ago that pensions were a waste of money, so don't have any interest there either. Maybe a passing interest in Lloyds and RBS but imo the bigger mistake there was in not letting them go bust in the first place.I do find it ironic to hear those on the left complaining about employees being paid too much, to the detriment of the evil, capitalist shareholders. I thought that the socialist ideal would be for the employees to be paid as much as possible, leaving nothing for the shareholders.
heppers75 said:
RYH64E said:
crankedup said:
Well at least you concede the shareholders have a legitimate interest, the point is that most people saving into a pension scheme will have an interest in banking shares. Given that is the case most people will have a POV on the matter of remuneration within banks, whether they wish to express that POV or not is their concern, as you mention. This brings me to the public perceptions and how this is affecting society in general, not to mention that the investment banks had a role within the European and American financial collapse. Society it seems is deeply offended that top exec's can still be rewarded as though nothing has changed since 2008. Personally I see this as a problem which is not going away any time soon. (we are all in this together) has focused minds into unfairness.
My personal opinion is that bank employees at the highest level have been paid far too much for what has been pretty appalling performance, certainly in terms of share price for long term investors, and that rewards have been unfairly skewed towards employees rather than shareholders. If I were a shareholder I wouldn't be happy, but I'm not, I hold no Barclays shares and decided many years ago that pensions were a waste of money, so don't have any interest there either. Maybe a passing interest in Lloyds and RBS but imo the bigger mistake there was in not letting them go bust in the first place.I do find it ironic to hear those on the left complaining about employees being paid too much, to the detriment of the evil, capitalist shareholders. I thought that the socialist ideal would be for the employees to be paid as much as possible, leaving nothing for the shareholders.
Also this is a business paying its Chief Exec <1% of its profit, can someone PLEASE for the love of god tell me what is wrong with that?
jimothy said:
Maybe I'm being thick here (I've just got back from a beer festival so could be why), but according to the bad journalism of the BBC, 26.9% of those who voted said no.
Or, to be more correct:
73.1% of the voters spoke and said they're happy with the renumeration package.
Including abstainers, 31% against, or, to put it more accurately, 69% for.
So yes, they have spoken and its not what is claimed in the OP.
Almost one third of shareholders voted against the remuneration package. Hardly something the bank can be proud of and should be of deep concern to them. Just a decade ago this number would have been less than 10%. We are not talking of a few disgruntled, these are people who own the business.Or, to be more correct:
73.1% of the voters spoke and said they're happy with the renumeration package.
Including abstainers, 31% against, or, to put it more accurately, 69% for.
So yes, they have spoken and its not what is claimed in the OP.
crankedup said:
Well I don't know about the left complaining but my own concern over the issue is more centralist being how society is affected by excessive reward packages, not just in the U.K either. The political implications are also of concern, or should be, to us all.
Absolutely right.People like Michael Jackson and David Luiz get paid a lot of money because of their demonstrable talent and success. People who set up profitable businesses make a lot of money because they have usually riasked their own money and demonstrated the ability to create something. There is absolutely [b]no[/no] sign that the sort of people who rise to the top of utilities or former building societies have any unique talents, have taken significant financial risks with their own money or are in any way irreplaceable. It needs to stop.
crankedup said:
Use Psychology said:
it's the main reason we are seeing the massive inflation in executive pay which is categorically not in the interests of shareholders. It's clearly a 'you pat my back and I'll pat your's' arrangement. otherwise insurance and pension funds would look to minimise executive pay and maximise dividends.
Indeed, we are both of the same opinion regards this issue.unless you address this issue I don't think you have much that is valauble to say on the subject - 'politics of envy' is a weak deflection of valid points. Personally I have little problem with private individuals being paid by private institutions what they like... so I am uneasy with intervention here However when we see such out-of-proportion pay increases for a sector of society, we have to ask two questions: why is this happening, and what (if anything) should we do about it?
Many people here are saying that high executive pay is no problem, I think I would probably agree for now, but to me, it has the potential to become one. If you look at the past (even just 100 - 150 years ago) you'll find that we used to have a massively less-equal society, with very very rich people and very very poor people. I'm not sure this would be such a nice place to live.
crankedup said:
heppers75 said:
RYH64E said:
crankedup said:
Well at least you concede the shareholders have a legitimate interest, the point is that most people saving into a pension scheme will have an interest in banking shares. Given that is the case most people will have a POV on the matter of remuneration within banks, whether they wish to express that POV or not is their concern, as you mention. This brings me to the public perceptions and how this is affecting society in general, not to mention that the investment banks had a role within the European and American financial collapse. Society it seems is deeply offended that top exec's can still be rewarded as though nothing has changed since 2008. Personally I see this as a problem which is not going away any time soon. (we are all in this together) has focused minds into unfairness.
My personal opinion is that bank employees at the highest level have been paid far too much for what has been pretty appalling performance, certainly in terms of share price for long term investors, and that rewards have been unfairly skewed towards employees rather than shareholders. If I were a shareholder I wouldn't be happy, but I'm not, I hold no Barclays shares and decided many years ago that pensions were a waste of money, so don't have any interest there either. Maybe a passing interest in Lloyds and RBS but imo the bigger mistake there was in not letting them go bust in the first place.I do find it ironic to hear those on the left complaining about employees being paid too much, to the detriment of the evil, capitalist shareholders. I thought that the socialist ideal would be for the employees to be paid as much as possible, leaving nothing for the shareholders.
Also this is a business paying its Chief Exec <1% of its profit, can someone PLEASE for the love of god tell me what is wrong with that?
heppers75 said:
SO just how is the remuneration package of the man that was not in charge at that point and has been in charge through a period where the share price and profits have increased something that should be moaned about? Surely he is doing exactly that job he is being very handsomely remunerated for is he not?
You could have said exactly the same about the man in charge up to the point in 2007 when everything went wrong. I'm not comfortable with employees being paid huge sums without having the risk that shareholders carry. I have no problem with business owners earning whatever they can, especially those who risk their own money (like me...).
RYH64E said:
You could have said exactly the same about the man in charge up to the point in 2007 when everything went wrong.
I'm not comfortable with employees being paid huge sums without having the risk that shareholders carry. I have no problem with business owners earning whatever they can, especially those who risk their own money (like me...).
So I am assuming then you will never pay a performance related bonus to say sales staff, or have an employee share scheme then where you would gift shares as reward to allow employees to participate in dividend payments?I'm not comfortable with employees being paid huge sums without having the risk that shareholders carry. I have no problem with business owners earning whatever they can, especially those who risk their own money (like me...).
Many businesses do (including mine!) so just in case you do that now have a think about how much you have paid out to someone as a performance related bonus in relation to your profit. I don't know if that will resonate with you but I know personally of a number of SME businesses that have made payments to employees (that have done no more than have a job with say commission) that as a % of that businesses profit are significantly greater than that of any major bank CEO would get and those people have done nothing more than a good job by the terms of their job as defined - Are they bad & vastly overpaid people too?
It is odd I find that those are not considered bad people but simply because of the actual sum involved with the big CEO's people simply disregard the % because for want of a better word they seem jealous of the actual number as to their peculiar set of values and I suspect political leanings it is 'too much'.
It is a very very ugly personality trait IMHO.
Edited by heppers75 on Saturday 28th April 19:40
Ultimately I believe that it is for the shareholders to decide what is acceptable in terms of remuneration, personally I believe that it is too high but as I have said before, it isn't my problem.
If I were convinced that the success of the organisation was dependent on the vision of the chief executive then I would agree it was OK, but in the vast majority of cases I don't think that it is. Take RBS as an example, Fred Goodwin was lauded as a visionary and paid huge amounts of money up to the time when the whole pack of cards collapsed at which point he became a (still very rich) pariah.
Was he worth the money in the good years when the share price was soaring? Him and his very well paid colleagues certainly weren't brilliant enough to see what was coming, but when the st hit the fan it was the shareholders that took the biggest losses - not the highly paid former employees whose losses were largely limited to loss of salary.
If I were convinced that the success of the organisation was dependent on the vision of the chief executive then I would agree it was OK, but in the vast majority of cases I don't think that it is. Take RBS as an example, Fred Goodwin was lauded as a visionary and paid huge amounts of money up to the time when the whole pack of cards collapsed at which point he became a (still very rich) pariah.
Was he worth the money in the good years when the share price was soaring? Him and his very well paid colleagues certainly weren't brilliant enough to see what was coming, but when the s
t hit the fan it was the shareholders that took the biggest losses - not the highly paid former employees whose losses were largely limited to loss of salary.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff