At last Shareholders speak-Barclays Bank

[martin84]

heppers75 said:

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

This point applies more to the likes of RBS than Barclays but when you've made a horrific loss, its not hard to improve on abject failure. Labelling it a 'profit' is disingenuous at best.

Calls for lower top executive pay are not just coming from Churches and the Labour Party, banking experts talking to Jeff Randall a couple of weeks ago even say record pay was driven by unsustainable profits and based on confidence which was misplaced. Their pay will have to start decreasing because they're not in that world anymore.

On the flip side, Barclays have always been very nice to me - a bit too nice if I'm honest - and I'd hate to ever see them go bust because Martin Tyler would struggle to stop saying 'this is the Barclays Premier League!!!' and the new sponsors would get very annoyed.

[heppers75]

deadslow said:

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.

martin84 said:

This point applies more to the likes of RBS than Barclays but when you've made a horrific loss, its not hard to improve on abject failure. Labelling it a 'profit' is disingenuous at best.

Calls for lower top executive pay are not just coming from Churches and the Labour Party, banking experts talking to Jeff Randall a couple of weeks ago even say record pay was driven by unsustainable profits and based on confidence which was misplaced. Their pay will have to start decreasing because they're not in that world anymore.

On the flip side, Barclays have always been very nice to me - a bit too nice if I'm honest - and I'd hate to ever see them go bust because Martin Tyler would struggle to stop saying 'this is the Barclays Premier League!!!' and the new sponsors would get very annoyed.

So come on put me something in crayon here then chaps....

We have a business that has made an approx 10% profit, not imagined, not overtly manipulated one a real one as far as I am aware, which please prove me wrong if indeed I am wrong.

Now if the said execs were taking out ooo say £10bn and leaving £2bn I would be a bit ooo come on chaps a bit harsh but we are talking millions in pay to service billions in profit, so really what am I missing? Oh and by missing I don't want a socialist, envy driven diatribe give me a solid logical argument I double dare you!?

[RYH64E]

crankedup said:

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.

In my opinion the shareholders are the only ones entitled to question pay/profit levels within the bank. I'm not a shareholder of Barclays and as such I couldn't care less how much of the profits are distributed to shareholders and how much paid to executives, it's not my business and not my problem - it's also not the Government's concern and certainly nothing to do with Joe Public.

[wolves_wanderer]

heppers75 said:

So come on put me something in crayon here then chaps....

We have a business that has made an approx 10% profit, not imagined, not overtly manipulated one a real one as far as I am aware, which please prove me wrong if indeed I am wrong.

Now if the said execs were taking out ooo say £10bn and leaving £2bn I would be a bit ooo come on chaps a bit harsh but we are talking millions in pay to service billions in profit, so really what am I missing? Oh and by missing I don't want a socialist, envy driven diatribe give me a solid logical argument I double dare you!?

[some of]The owners are questioning it. That is their right and all the answer any of us needs.

[deadslow]

heppers75 said:

So come on put me something in crayon here then chaps....

We have a business that has made an approx 10% profit, not imagined, not overtly manipulated one a real one as far as I am aware, which please prove me wrong if indeed I am wrong.

Now if the said execs were taking out ooo say £10bn and leaving £2bn I would be a bit ooo come on chaps a bit harsh but we are talking millions in pay to service billions in profit, so really what am I missing? Oh and by missing I don't want a socialist, envy driven diatribe give me a solid logical argument I double dare you!?

You don't get it. Fair enough, we've all got our opinions, though no need to be so overtly arrogant and condescending.

[johnfm]

heppers75 said:

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!?

I think you may be forgetting that the shareholders are the only ones who have taken a haircut in all this. In fact shareholders in banks are like Soovy - no hair left worth mentioning.


Barclays investors have lost 65%, share price dropping from 750 to 200 since 2002.

Lloyds shareholders lost over 90% since 2002.

Probably worse for shareholder in RBS, NR etc etc.

A dividend of a few % really isn't much consolation.

Expecting management to share some of this massive downside isn't really envy, is it.

[heppers75]

deadslow said:

heppers75 said:

So come on put me something in crayon here then chaps....

We have a business that has made an approx 10% profit, not imagined, not overtly manipulated one a real one as far as I am aware, which please prove me wrong if indeed I am wrong.

Now if the said execs were taking out ooo say £10bn and leaving £2bn I would be a bit ooo come on chaps a bit harsh but we are talking millions in pay to service billions in profit, so really what am I missing? Oh and by missing I don't want a socialist, envy driven diatribe give me a solid logical argument I double dare you!?

You don't get it. Fair enough, we've all got our opinions, though no need to be so overtly arrogant and condescending.

I am asking you to explain to me what it is I do not get? Please do... I am more than open to it, just please use logic not rhetoric!

[heppers75]

johnfm said:

heppers75 said:

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!?

I think you may be forgetting that the shareholders are the only ones who have taken a haircut in all this. In fact shareholders in banks are like Soovy - no hair left worth mentioning.


Barclays investors have lost 65%, share price dropping from 750 to 200 since 2002.

Lloyds shareholders lost over 90% since 2002.

Probably worse for shareholder in RBS, NR etc etc.

A dividend of a few % really isn't much consolation.

Expecting management to share some of this massive downside isn't really envy, is it.

Perhaps I ought to fess up at this point that I am a shareholder and to the tune of a more than minimal amount. I have no problem with the way the institution is run and my return on my investment. But then again my investment was made when Barclays and the remainder of the industry tanked!

[johnfm]

heppers75 said:

deadslow said:

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.

martin84 said:

This point applies more to the likes of RBS than Barclays but when you've made a horrific loss, its not hard to improve on abject failure. Labelling it a 'profit' is disingenuous at best.

Calls for lower top executive pay are not just coming from Churches and the Labour Party, banking experts talking to Jeff Randall a couple of weeks ago even say record pay was driven by unsustainable profits and based on confidence which was misplaced. Their pay will have to start decreasing because they're not in that world anymore.

On the flip side, Barclays have always been very nice to me - a bit too nice if I'm honest - and I'd hate to ever see them go bust because Martin Tyler would struggle to stop saying 'this is the Barclays Premier League!!!' and the new sponsors would get very annoyed.

So come on put me something in crayon here then chaps....

We have a business that has made an approx 10% profit, not imagined, not overtly manipulated one a real one as far as I am aware, which please prove me wrong if indeed I am wrong.

Now if the said execs were taking out ooo say £10bn and leaving £2bn I would be a bit ooo come on chaps a bit harsh but we are talking millions in pay to service billions in profit, so really what am I missing? Oh and by missing I don't want a socialist, envy driven diatribe give me a solid logical argument I double dare you!?

Heppers, I don't think you understand the duty of management to those who owns a business.

What would you think of a management that had lost YOUR company £10million over the last two years, and then brilliantly made you £1m this year? Would you wait until you'd to the other £9million back before cracking out the champers?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

crankedup said:

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.

Is he entitled to his bonus under his contract of employment? Has he met whatever targets he was set, if any? If he's entitled to it under contract, then pay it. If he isn't, then don't if you don't want to. But....if he walks from Barclays into another top job for more money and Barclays performance suffers as a result of not having him at the helm, then don't start bleating about it.

Diamond has led the Bank admirably when other banks were claiming their government bail out. The buy out of the remains of Lehmans was absolute genius. If I was a shareholder, I'd gladly pay the bonus. But I'm not, and as Barclays hasn't had a bean from the British taxpayer, it's none of my business really.

I am a Barclays customer, and I've never had a crossed word with them in over 30 yrs. Very efficient.

[heppers75]

johnfm said:

Heppers, I don't think you understand the duty of management to those who owns a business.

What would you think of a management that had lost YOUR company £10million over the last two years, and then brilliantly made you £1m this year? Would you wait until you'd to the other £9million back before cracking out the champers?

Hi John, I very well understand the duty of management I am in the very position myself.

Are those facts or even percentage relationships actually true of Barclays have they actually posted a loss?

[Du1point8]

johnfm said:

heppers75 said:

deadslow said:

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.

martin84 said:

This point applies more to the likes of RBS than Barclays but when you've made a horrific loss, its not hard to improve on abject failure. Labelling it a 'profit' is disingenuous at best.

Calls for lower top executive pay are not just coming from Churches and the Labour Party, banking experts talking to Jeff Randall a couple of weeks ago even say record pay was driven by unsustainable profits and based on confidence which was misplaced. Their pay will have to start decreasing because they're not in that world anymore.

On the flip side, Barclays have always been very nice to me - a bit too nice if I'm honest - and I'd hate to ever see them go bust because Martin Tyler would struggle to stop saying 'this is the Barclays Premier League!!!' and the new sponsors would get very annoyed.

So come on put me something in crayon here then chaps....

We have a business that has made an approx 10% profit, not imagined, not overtly manipulated one a real one as far as I am aware, which please prove me wrong if indeed I am wrong.

Now if the said execs were taking out ooo say £10bn and leaving £2bn I would be a bit ooo come on chaps a bit harsh but we are talking millions in pay to service billions in profit, so really what am I missing? Oh and by missing I don't want a socialist, envy driven diatribe give me a solid logical argument I double dare you!?

Heppers, I don't think you understand the duty of management to those who owns a business.

What would you think of a management that had lost YOUR company £10million over the last two years, and then brilliantly made you £1m this year? Would you wait until you'd to the other £9million back before cracking out the champers?

you are assuming all the major shareholders did not drop the shares when they were going down and buy them back when they were at a low.

If someone lost a lot on the shares their fund adviser would be hung out to dry.

[heppers75]

Du1point8 said:

johnfm said:

heppers75 said:

deadslow said:

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.

martin84 said:

This point applies more to the likes of RBS than Barclays but when you've made a horrific loss, its not hard to improve on abject failure. Labelling it a 'profit' is disingenuous at best.

Calls for lower top executive pay are not just coming from Churches and the Labour Party, banking experts talking to Jeff Randall a couple of weeks ago even say record pay was driven by unsustainable profits and based on confidence which was misplaced. Their pay will have to start decreasing because they're not in that world anymore.

On the flip side, Barclays have always been very nice to me - a bit too nice if I'm honest - and I'd hate to ever see them go bust because Martin Tyler would struggle to stop saying 'this is the Barclays Premier League!!!' and the new sponsors would get very annoyed.

So come on put me something in crayon here then chaps....

We have a business that has made an approx 10% profit, not imagined, not overtly manipulated one a real one as far as I am aware, which please prove me wrong if indeed I am wrong.

Now if the said execs were taking out ooo say £10bn and leaving £2bn I would be a bit ooo come on chaps a bit harsh but we are talking millions in pay to service billions in profit, so really what am I missing? Oh and by missing I don't want a socialist, envy driven diatribe give me a solid logical argument I double dare you!?

Heppers, I don't think you understand the duty of management to those who owns a business.

What would you think of a management that had lost YOUR company £10million over the last two years, and then brilliantly made you £1m this year? Would you wait until you'd to the other £9million back before cracking out the champers?

you are assuming all the major shareholders did not drop the shares when they were going down and buy them back when they were at a low.

If someone lost a lot on the shares their fund adviser would be hung out to dry.

Very true, I dumped my financial sector portfolio a year or so before it really tanked and yep I made a loss on the whole. However I rebought at the bottom as it turns out and have made back the aforementioned losses and some. Thanks to the likes of the Barclays team.

I think the blame game being played by the long term crew because they did not 'watch' or 'manage' correctly their investment so lost money and income because of conditions in the market is nothing if not a little disingenuous!

BTW - hope you are well DP...

[johnfm]

heppers75 said:

johnfm said:

Heppers, I don't think you understand the duty of management to those who owns a business.

What would you think of a management that had lost YOUR company £10million over the last two years, and then brilliantly made you £1m this year? Would you wait until you'd to the other £9million back before cracking out the champers?

Hi John, I very well understand the duty of management I am in the very position myself.

Are those facts or even percentage relationships actually true of Barclays have they actually posted a loss?

Heppers

Just illustrative - but look at the share prices from 2002. Long term investors are fked.

[johnfm]

Du1point8 said:

johnfm said:

heppers75 said:

deadslow said:

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.

martin84 said:

This point applies more to the likes of RBS than Barclays but when you've made a horrific loss, its not hard to improve on abject failure. Labelling it a 'profit' is disingenuous at best.

Calls for lower top executive pay are not just coming from Churches and the Labour Party, banking experts talking to Jeff Randall a couple of weeks ago even say record pay was driven by unsustainable profits and based on confidence which was misplaced. Their pay will have to start decreasing because they're not in that world anymore.

On the flip side, Barclays have always been very nice to me - a bit too nice if I'm honest - and I'd hate to ever see them go bust because Martin Tyler would struggle to stop saying 'this is the Barclays Premier League!!!' and the new sponsors would get very annoyed.

So come on put me something in crayon here then chaps....

We have a business that has made an approx 10% profit, not imagined, not overtly manipulated one a real one as far as I am aware, which please prove me wrong if indeed I am wrong.

Now if the said execs were taking out ooo say £10bn and leaving £2bn I would be a bit ooo come on chaps a bit harsh but we are talking millions in pay to service billions in profit, so really what am I missing? Oh and by missing I don't want a socialist, envy driven diatribe give me a solid logical argument I double dare you!?

Heppers, I don't think you understand the duty of management to those who owns a business.

What would you think of a management that had lost YOUR company £10million over the last two years, and then brilliantly made you £1m this year? Would you wait until you'd to the other £9million back before cracking out the champers?

you are assuming all the major shareholders did not drop the shares when they were going down and buy them back when they were at a low.

If someone lost a lot on the shares their fund adviser would be hung out to dry.

In the case of managed funds, yes.

I am sure a bunch of people have lost loads and so a small divi isn't much consolation.

[Du1point8]

johnfm said:

heppers75 said:

johnfm said:

Heppers, I don't think you understand the duty of management to those who owns a business.

What would you think of a management that had lost YOUR company £10million over the last two years, and then brilliantly made you £1m this year? Would you wait until you'd to the other £9million back before cracking out the champers?

Hi John, I very well understand the duty of management I am in the very position myself.

Are those facts or even percentage relationships actually true of Barclays have they actually posted a loss?

Heppers

Just illustrative - but look at the share prices from 2002. Long term investors are fked.

As mentioned before the major shareholders the are 'questioning' this are not the long term investors... they will be the ones that didn't do at all bad out of the situation, those that did will be the hobby investors that may have had 10-20k of shares in value that don't know the market.

[heppers75]

johnfm said:

heppers75 said:

johnfm said:

Heppers, I don't think you understand the duty of management to those who owns a business.

What would you think of a management that had lost YOUR company £10million over the last two years, and then brilliantly made you £1m this year? Would you wait until you'd to the other £9million back before cracking out the champers?

Hi John, I very well understand the duty of management I am in the very position myself.

Are those facts or even percentage relationships actually true of Barclays have they actually posted a loss?

Heppers

Just illustrative - but look at the share prices from 2002. Long term investors are fked.

Do not disagree John, but as mentioned below if you are a portfolio / share based investor do you not work your portfolio and manage it and try and stay aware? Or do you be a lazy twunt and then bh and moan when your ineptitude results in a loss!.

You did skilfully avoid my actual question so well done, have Barclays ever posted a loss as I think you did use that as an explicit argument!? You I have to say are making a very compelling case but it was based on X being greater than Y X being remuneration and Y being profit. IF and BTW you can't do it but IF you could prove that I am sold.

[martin84]

RYH64E said:

it's also not the Government's concern and certainly nothing to do with Joe Public.

When that bank is 83% State Owned - which I am aware is not the case with Barclays specifically - then it is very much Joe Public's concern because Joe Public owns 83% of that bank. As a result of that the Government have to be interested and make top executive pay their concern because the taxpayer doesnt like funding big bonuses when the man in the street is losing his job.

The Governments concern is whatever the public tell them it should be and a Conservative Government specifically cannot be seen to back bankers and the richest of London, that certainly won't play well so they have to at least talk a good game.

johnfm said:

What would you think of a management that had lost YOUR company £10million over the last two years, and then brilliantly made you £1m this year? Would you wait until you'd to the other £9million back before cracking out the champers?

Exactly. Thats what I mean by its not hard to improve on abject failure. These profits arent profits at all, they're just clawing back previous tremendous losses. Nothing to be happy about. Nothing to celebrate and certainly nothing to be proud of.

heppers75 said:

Now if the said execs were taking out ooo say £10bn and leaving £2bn I would be a bit ooo come on chaps a bit harsh but we are talking millions in pay to service billions in profit, so really what am I missing? Oh and by missing I don't want a socialist, envy driven diatribe give me a solid logical argument I double dare you!?

No business outside banking could stay afloat and grow if the top people took 84% of the business profit for their own salary. The Sandwich maker couldn't stay in business if he took 84% of his takings as salary. Surely the top bosses taking most of the money for themselves holds the bank back generally? We say Government sucking up too much money in taxation such as the 50p tax rate holds everybody else back. I'd apply the same principle to any top boss who sucks up most of the takings for himself, the Gordon Brown of the banking sector.

Its not an evil socialist agenda to acknowledge no person is worth what these people are paid. They're suits who sit at a desk and push some buttons. The mere fact they think they're worth it - and in some cases demand more - shows how they have no connection to the real world. Pampered and sheltered are words which cant even begin to describe it. Believing they're worth it and we should fellate bankers is hardly a positive advert for the virtues of free market capitalism, it just alienates the majority. The other fact is the pay gap between the top and bottom is so staggering now that it has more in common with communist societies past and present than anything else.

I'm happy to admit the current status quo is the way it is, but I'll never say its good or anything to be encouraged.

[RYH64E]

Du1point8 said:

As mentioned before the major shareholders the are 'questioning' this are not the long term investors... they will be the ones that didn't do at all bad out of the situation, those that did will be the hobby investors that may have had 10-20k of shares in value that don't know the market.

There must have been an awful lot of hobby investors as I don't think the number of shares issued decreased as the price plummeted.

[heppers75]

martin84 said:

No business outside banking could stay afloat and grow if the top people took 84% of the business profit for their own salary.

Please provide me with the direct evidence that the board of Barclays took 84% of the whole business profit?