At last Shareholders speak-Barclays Bank

[crankedup]

Good to see Vince Cable's policy idea's is having influence, we understand that the major shareholders of Barclays are demanding, yes thats correct, DEMANDING, an improvement in performance of the bank within three months before 2.7 million pounds bonus is released to the C.O. This should signal the start of reality in the banks and corporations that 'out of this world' remunerations at the top cannot continue.

[crankedup]

Following a week away I come back to find zero interest in the Barclays Bank shareholders anger over the top bankers remuneration. Now we expect to see other shareholders follow the lead to start bringing down these 'out of real world' remunerations in other banks and Corporations.

[Liszt]

Because apart from the special write downs they made £2 billion profit?

[Edinburger]

Only corporate and institutional share holders will be listened to though.

[crankedup]

Edinburger said:

Only corporate and institutional share holders will be listened to though.

Why do you suppose that? Although I agree that it is most likely those two groups that must hold the lions share of the shares. Not sure when V.Cables policy suggestion of shareholders votes to be binding rather than the current arrangement of them being non-binding.
Either way this is all quite damaging for the banks top employees.

[crankedup]

Liszt said:

Because apart from the special write downs they made £2 billion profit?

More likely being the Chairman has admitted that the banks performance last year was simply not good enough to warrant the remunerations. Shareholders are seething over the issue. About bloody time these corporate shareholders started to look after the interests of the small shareholder who has his portfolio under management companies.

[Du1point8]

crankedup said:

Edinburger said:

Only corporate and institutional share holders will be listened to though.

Why do you suppose that? Although I agree that it is most likely those two groups that must hold the lions share of the shares. Not sure when V.Cables policy suggestion of shareholders votes to be binding rather than the current arrangement of them being non-binding.
Either way this is all quite damaging for the banks top employees.

Only to the CEO, not the top traders, I can't see any of this affecting the traders as it would all go tits up for them as they will leave to go to other banks.

The CEO is the figure head so I can see why he is listening to the not getting the bonus, but no worse than some that decided to forgo their bonuses to keep the PR front up.

[DJRC]

crankedup said:

Edinburger said:

Only corporate and institutional share holders will be listened to though.

Why do you suppose that? Although I agree that it is most likely those two groups that must hold the lions share of the shares. Not sure when V.Cables policy suggestion of shareholders votes to be binding rather than the current arrangement of them being non-binding.
Either way this is all quite damaging for the banks top employees.

Well it isnt really is it? Shareholders...and dont forget the call Barc put out for more private investor dosh...agreed the package in the first place so that was the carrot, now they are applying the stick. This is normal capitalist behavior. Its only an additional 2.7m aswell, dont forget Bobby boy has already pocketed several million. Your OP was also about 2 months late, as he got grilled in the performance report back then and was told it was only 50% acceptable.

[Soovy]

crankedup said:

Following a week away I come back to find zero interest in the Barclays Bank shareholders anger over the top bankers remuneration. Now we expect to see other shareholders follow the lead to start bringing down these 'out of real world' remunerations in other banks and Corporations.

That's because no one is interested



If they don't like it they should sell their shares, which as it happens they are doing very well out of.

No surprise you raised this, and no suprise that no one gives a sh t.

[speedy_thrills]

Du1point8 said:

Only to the CEO, not the top traders, I can't see any of this affecting the traders as it would all go tits up for them as they will leave to go to other banks.

I've always wondered about that bunch, do you really get better financial performance by paying people more?

Would banks actually be better off with monkeys and a darts? If they where really so valuable would they not just set up shop themselves to live somewhere tropical?

Edited by speedy_thrills on Friday 27th April 14:34

[Du1point8]

speedy_thrills said:

Du1point8 said:

Only to the CEO, not the top traders, I can't see any of this affecting the traders as it would all go tits up for them as they will leave to go to other banks.

I've always wondered about that bunch, do you really get better financial performance by paying people more?

Would banks actually be better off with monkeys and a darts? If they where really so valuable would they not just set up shop themselves to live somewhere warm and tropical?

some are day traders... some don't want the hassle... some set up their own hedge funds... try as a trader to get £1 billion funds to invest by yourself when not being with a bank, you probably will not get much take up at all from the big investors until you have proven yourself with very long hours of trading and running your own business.

Why do high paid solicitors not set up their own companies if they are so good?

Its all about choices...

[Ozzie Osmond]

What value is there in kicking just about the only major bank which hasn't had to go cap-in-hand to UK government for a bailout?

The real issue is the whole rotten city club of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours", exemplified by the supposed role of non-executive directors. It makes your skin crawl to watch these people brown-nosing around each other, just as we've seen in the slimy press/police/politicians fiasco being unravelled by Leveson.

[youngsyr]

Liszt said:

Because apart from the special write downs they made £2 billion profit?

Those "special write downs" included the writing off of previously reported massive PPI revenues, didn't they?

I'm not convinced that you can just ignore those as trivialities.

[Sway]

Ozzie Osmond said:

What value is there in kicking just about the only major bank which hasn't had to go cap-in-hand to UK government for a bailout?

The real issue is the whole rotten city club of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours", exemplified by the supposed role of non-executive directors. It makes your skin crawl to watch these people brown-nosing around each other, just as we've seen in the slimy press/police/politicians fiasco being unravelled by Leveson.

I'm sure you've used the 'boys club of non execs' argument before, only for it to be clearly shown to be a load of shyte, as it isn't actually the case that there is a limited number of directors who bounce between different boards awarding themselves vast amounts of cash as a backscratching exercise.

In an airport lounge at the mo, but it seems the protest has failed.... Quelle surprise.

Actually thinking about it, haven't heard any tosh from Cable recently - think he's been muzzled?

[crankedup]

DJRC said:

crankedup said:

Edinburger said:

Only corporate and institutional share holders will be listened to though.

Why do you suppose that? Although I agree that it is most likely those two groups that must hold the lions share of the shares. Not sure when V.Cables policy suggestion of shareholders votes to be binding rather than the current arrangement of them being non-binding.
Either way this is all quite damaging for the banks top employees.

Well it isnt really is it? Shareholders...and dont forget the call Barc put out for more private investor dosh...agreed the package in the first place so that was the carrot, now they are applying the stick. This is normal capitalist behavior. Its only an additional 2.7m aswell, dont forget Bobby boy has already pocketed several million. Your OP was also about 2 months late, as he got grilled in the performance report back then and was told it was only 50% acceptable.

Nothing late about my post, I was on about shareholders shouting out about excessive remuneration packages months ago. PH said at the time that I was *&%%&*$$^(*. I also disagree with your assertion that this is 'normal' capitalistic behaviour, whilst I agree that high performance must be recognised and rewarded those of us outside of the square mile seen those rewards as overblown and cutting short shareholders.

[crankedup]

Soovy said:

crankedup said:

Following a week away I come back to find zero interest in the Barclays Bank shareholders anger over the top bankers remuneration. Now we expect to see other shareholders follow the lead to start bringing down these 'out of real world' remunerations in other banks and Corporations.

That's because no one is interested



If they don't like it they should sell their shares, which as it happens they are doing very well out of.

No surprise you raised this, and no suprise that no one gives a sh t.

Only the misguided do not give a monkeys. Do you not see the time of overblown self reward is on the way out or are you deluding yourself. Remember the shareholders are the bosses.

[heppers75]

So a firm makes a £2bn profit and pays out a more than acceptable dividend given the state of the global economy yet the 'shareholders' want the 'bosses' to have less remuneration.

Ahhh the politics of envy and jealousy makes for such a lovely society does it not!?

[deadslow]

Could it be the business owners are finally fed up with the employees plundering the coffers?

[heppers75]

deadslow said:

Could it be the business owners are finally fed up with the employees plundering the coffers?

On which planet is a £2bn profit constituted plundering?

[deadslow]

heppers75 said:

On which planet is a £2bn profit constituted plundering?

Apparently, Earth, 2012. Profit is immaterial unless the banks are some profit-share/communist experiment.

The employees in some businesses have been allowed to become very greedy. The business owners seem to be questioning their bang per buck; its their preogative.