Pigs at the trough 2016

Author
Discussion

Fittster

20,120 posts

212 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
MrBarry123 said:
Provided they pay a fair wage to ALL of their employees, I couldn't give a flying fk what the big boys earn.
So you don't care about the pensions of private sector workers?

London424

12,826 posts

174 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
Shock horror, the Long Term incentive that is built using financial growth metrics has paid out. Just be glad that he only got 80% of what he could have got or you'd really be upset!

How much did the company grow in that time by the way?

MrBarry123

6,025 posts

120 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
Fittster said:
So you don't care about the pensions of private sector workers?
You'll have to expand on that and explain your point if you want an answer.

Fittster

20,120 posts

212 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
London424 said:
Shock horror, the Long Term incentive that is built using financial growth metrics has paid out. Just be glad that he only got 80% of what he could have got or you'd really be upset!

How much did the company grow in that time by the way?
Incorrect.

The link between pay and firm performance is asymmetric. In good times, bosses’ pay rises a lot, but in bad times, it doesn’t fall so far. In fact, the biggest influence on bosses’ pay is not so much company performance as simply the size of the firm.

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/fmg/workingPapers/discussion...



Fittster

20,120 posts

212 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
MrBarry123 said:
Fittster said:
So you don't care about the pensions of private sector workers?
You'll have to expand on that and explain your point if you want an answer.
If bosses are plundering their firms there's less for shareholders, many of which are pension funds.

0000

13,812 posts

190 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
Even if you're a pension fund the value of your investment may go up or down.

sidicks

25,218 posts

220 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
Fittster said:
If bosses are plundering their firms there's less for shareholders, many of which are pension funds.
So the best people to decide whether the remuneration is appropriate are the owners of the business I.e. the pension funds and their appointed representatives (asset managers)?

As Shareholders they have a vote and use it accordingly...

London424

12,826 posts

174 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
Fittster said:
London424 said:
Shock horror, the Long Term incentive that is built using financial growth metrics has paid out. Just be glad that he only got 80% of what he could have got or you'd really be upset!

How much did the company grow in that time by the way?
Incorrect.

The link between pay and firm performance is asymmetric. In good times, bosses’ pay rises a lot, but in bad times, it doesn’t fall so far. In fact, the biggest influence on bosses’ pay is not so much company performance as simply the size of the firm.

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/fmg/workingPapers/discussion...
What do you mean incorrect? I haven't talked at all about the link between pay and performance and how good it is.

I've said that his LTI plan is based on financial metrics. Based on the achievement of those he will trigger his award (to a greater or lesser degree). In this instance he met 80%.

MrBarry123

6,025 posts

120 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
Fittster said:
If bosses are plundering their firms there's less for shareholders, many of which are pension funds.
As I understand it...

Decisions like renumeration policy for executives are decided within a plc based on a vote by all shareholders; with the side gaining more than 50% of the vote (the majority) winning. For some shareholders this means that votes sometimes don't give the result they want however that's how it works. If they don't like that, they shouldn't be investing in a plc.

FredClogs

14,041 posts

160 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
Come the revolution the Dettol bourgeoisie will be first to get the flush...

It's unsustainable, pop will eat it self... PWEI.

CrutyRammers

13,735 posts

197 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
rofl
What is it about you lefties that make you unable to spell or write things wot are comprehensible? Does all the bile and hatred make you in such a hurry that you can't think straight?

legzr1

3,843 posts

138 months

SPS

1,306 posts

259 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
PurpleMoonlight said:
It's 'remuneration'.
I wondered how long it would be!

Jasandjules

69,825 posts

228 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
If shareholders object then it is a problem. Other than that, what a corporation pays it's top employees is none of our business.

Fittster

20,120 posts

212 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
sidicks said:
Fittster said:
If bosses are plundering their firms there's less for shareholders, many of which are pension funds.
So the best people to decide whether the remuneration is appropriate are the owners of the business I.e. the pension funds and their appointed representatives (asset managers)?

As Shareholders they have a vote and use it accordingly...
You don't think that the fund managers have a vested interested in high executive compensation? "Oh look how much the board of Widget PLC get, clearly as an important players in the financial services industry we should have a similar level of benefits".

Next you'll be telling me you have to pay for top talent.

Fittster

20,120 posts

212 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
London424 said:
Fittster said:
London424 said:
Shock horror, the Long Term incentive that is built using financial growth metrics has paid out. Just be glad that he only got 80% of what he could have got or you'd really be upset!

How much did the company grow in that time by the way?
Incorrect.

The link between pay and firm performance is asymmetric. In good times, bosses’ pay rises a lot, but in bad times, it doesn’t fall so far. In fact, the biggest influence on bosses’ pay is not so much company performance as simply the size of the firm.

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/fmg/workingPapers/discussion...
What do you mean incorrect? I haven't talked at all about the link between pay and performance and how good it is.

I've said that his LTI plan is based on financial metrics. Based on the achievement of those he will trigger his award (to a greater or lesser degree). In this instance he met 80%.
You've posted before you've read the link haven't you?

Wilmslowboy

4,189 posts

205 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
Not all CEO's are the same

Kapoor grew the business value by c17% (£800M) in a period when the FTSE100 fell by C11% (last 12 months)


Performance inline with FTSE would have seen a c£380 million drop in value, so in theory compared to the FTSE100 he increased the value for his shareholders by over a billion.... pretty good stewardship.

Perhaps the media should highlight those that get rich rewards for failures not great success???
Rupert Murdoch managed to lose a couple billion for his share holders over the past 12 months and still take out $27m

smifffymoto

4,527 posts

204 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
I used to think,well good for them earning that amount of money.Now I think it's discusting,why does anybody need to take that amount,half or a third would still be plenty.CEOs don't earn peanuts day to day so why pay obscene amounts in bonus etc.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

crankedup

Original Poster:

25,764 posts

242 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
0000 said:
crankedup said:
BlackLabel said:
I see that Sir Martin Sorrell was paid over £70m for 2015 (one of the biggest pay cheques in British corporate history) which some people didn't like - not sure why given he's built his company up for over 30 years. If shareholders don't object then is it really anyone else's business?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/29/s...
It's not his company. It belongs to the shareholders.
And if the shareholders don't object then is it really anyone else's business?
Tell me you haven't noticed or heard about the 2016 shareholders meetings and the anger displayed and voted against the board pay recommendations. Many people are shareholders of course, even if only through their pensions funds.

MarshPhantom

9,658 posts

136 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
ellroy said:
Lefty poster in envy post shocker.
Reported recently that excess pay for bosses has a negative effect on staff motivation and performance.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/12056337/Pay-gap-...