At last Shareholders speak-Barclays Bank

[crankedup]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

PRTVR said:

Can somebody explain something to me, how many shares in barclays would I need to get a return of 17 million pounds a year?
People often quote , but he is in charge of x number of people ,but the truth is there is in place a command structure right down to the local branch manager,
then they quote the profit made by the company but how much is directly attributable to him, if at the end of the year he stated that a list of decisions he made made this much profit I would have no problem with the reward but I suspect barclays would make a profit if he did nothing so what is his value to the company,
Not 17 millions I am sure.

Two word answer....Fred Goodwin.

A strong CEO sets the whole tone and vision for the entire organisation. People are quite happy the blame Goodwin for the demise of RBS, but when the boots on the other foot, and an organisation does well, then the CEO has played only a minor roll and it's the foot soldiers who have made the profit.

Roberto Di Matteo hasn't kicked a ball since he took over and Chelsea, not has Sir Alex at Man Utd.

Mens Rea I think is the latin...directing mind.

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

[crankedup]

speedy_thrills said:

PRTVR said:

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

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

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

[crankedup]

PRTVR said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

crankedup said:

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

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

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

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

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

[crankedup]

Seeing a few pages added to my thread thought I would look in for a read, Oh dear. Back onto topic then, or almost at least. Media reports a growing number of Companies are now experiencing 'shareholders revolt' in one case leading to the CEO walking away. Her remuneration had risen from 1.3 million in 2003 to over 2.00 million to date without a commensurate improvement in Company profit. Hopefully they will find a CEO who is able to deliver.

[crankedup]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

crankedup said:

Seeing a few pages added to my thread thought I would look in for a read, Oh dear. Back onto topic then, or almost at least. Media reports a growing number of Companies are now experiencing 'shareholders revolt' in one case leading to the CEO walking away. Her remuneration had risen from 1.3 million in 2003 to over 2.00 million to date without a commensurate improvement in Company profit. Hopefully they will find a CEO who is able to deliver.

And if the new CEO produces worse results than the old, they might just regret their actions.

Quite agree, but the point is they have had their say in who runs their Company. CEO will not want to be sacked, it looks bad on the CV, add to that CEO failures will not look good for those responsible for the hiring either.

[crankedup]

Soovy said:

So, RBS has paid back every penny now then, and the taxpayer still holds a majority stake.

So the "poor taxpayer" has done rather well out of this "bail out" - what have you got to say about that Crankers?

RBS crawls out from the swamp! when the Government release the shares onto the market they might be worth a punt, although I would be wary as Hester is sure to step down soon and who will step in? Meanwhile those long term holders are still nursing a nasty bruising. Not very much in profit but some better then none for the Taxpayer, so a win win for taxpayer and RBS as Hester makes painful progress off loading Companies as he goes. I would say he is doing a good job overall.

Meanwhile Aviva boss walks away from shareholder pressure.

[crankedup]

Not so long ago shareholders would make no difference whatever they voted, I was advised that I was a tt for suggesting that change was coming. That was some time ago, now its happening. Allow me to advise that good CEO and Directors are willing able and ready to accept the challenges of positions that become vacant. They will be offered decent salaries commensurate with responsibility and performance targets. Its life Jim, but not how it used to be.

[crankedup]

There you go DJC, go have a suck on this thread. You will find it enlightening I'm sure.