Pigs at the trough 2016
Discussion
crankedup said:
For somebody in the industry I am not surprised by your indifference to the reality of the situation. Clearly it suits you to be less active and content with the status quo. And that sums up in a nutshell how I see the industry working hand in glove and why an investigation should clear out the clouds and lack of transparency required.
As usual, your claims are based on nothing but prejudice and don't align with the realities for those of us that actually have experience of the situation,crankedup said:
It is utterly incredible that you seem to have missed the rising dissatisfaction amongst shareholders and their CEO pay greed, the worst part is the non binding votes when it comes to the in favour / not in favour.
You miss the point - again.I don't dispute what 'some' shareholders think - I simply dispute your claims about institutional fund managers and their involvement as shareholders, At least you are now admitting they you don't actually have any knowledge on which you are basing those claims!
sidicks said:
Your opinion and any insults directed towards me are entirely insignificant, I just thought it was somewhat ironic that the person making personal insults was the same one who had previously complained about other members making personal insults...
I reported you purely because you were disrupting the thread with repeated insults, offering nothing to the content of the thread (just as you are now), not because I was in the slightest way upset or concerned by your comments. They just confirmed what I'd already suspected about you.
You're hilarious.I reported you purely because you were disrupting the thread with repeated insults, offering nothing to the content of the thread (just as you are now), not because I was in the slightest way upset or concerned by your comments. They just confirmed what I'd already suspected about you.
I remember when you were banned from an AV forum for your snidey insults to other members when losing an argument.
Your version of what happened in the 'union' thread tells me everything I need to know about you.
Only in your world could 'button pusher' ever be considered an insult - get out more, it'll do you the world of good.
legzr1 said:
You're hilarious.
I remember when you were banned from an AV forum for your snidey insults to other members when losing an argument.
Once again, you are wrong. I'd lost nothing, just got fed up with the usual ignorant claims from the usual suspect(s) and unfortunately fell foul of the deputy moderator who was massively left wing with a huge chip on his shoulder. The regulator moderator wouldn't have banned me and said as much, but who cares? They made the rules, so even when I was invited back I wasn't interested.I remember when you were banned from an AV forum for your snidey insults to other members when losing an argument.
legzr1 said:
Your version of what happened in the 'union' thread tells me everything I need to know about you.
Why don't you actually explain yourself rather than hiding behind a pathetic vague slur?Regardless, still you persist with your off topic nonsense. You know nothing, and your continued attempts to provoke me suggest you have a significant issue that you need to resolve. Please go away.
legzr1 said:
Only in your world could 'button pusher' ever be considered an insult - get out more, it'll do you the world of good.
It is irrelevant to what I do, but it's generally taken as a less than positive comment.Edited by sidicks on Thursday 19th May 23:26
sidicks said:
legzr1 said:
You're hilarious.
I remember when you were banned from an AV forum for your snidey insults to other members when losing an argument.
Once again, you are wrong. I'd lost nothing, just got fed up with the usual ignorant claims from the usual suspect(s) and unfortunately fell foul of the deputy moderator who was massively left wing with a huge chip on his shoulder. The regulator moderator wouldn't have banned me and said as much, but who cares? They made the rules, so even when I was invited back I wasn't interested.I remember when you were banned from an AV forum for your snidey insults to other members when losing an argument.
But, who cares eh?
Siddicks said:
Why don't you actually explain yourself rather than hiding behind a pathetic vague slur?
There is no need.siddicks said:
It is irrelevant to what I do, but it's generally taken as a less than positive comment.
So, not an insult as such?Edited by sidicks on Thursday 19th May 23:26
As I said then, for someone so vocal you're rather thin skinned.
legzr1 said:
Strange then that you posted some months later on a forum you 'weren't interested in' after your ban for being naughty and a little hypocritical when you insulted another member.
But, who cares eh?
Still wrong - I was only banned from the politics sub-forum.But, who cares eh?
legzr1 said:
There is no need.
Of course not, that way you'd actually have to explain yourself and your false claims could be refuted. legzr1 said:
So, not an insult as such?
As I said then, for someone so vocal you're rather thin skinned.
As I explained previously, less than positive comment = derogatory remark = insult. HTHAs I said then, for someone so vocal you're rather thin skinned.
Given how insignificant a person you are as far as I'm concerned, you're pathetic comments are even more insignificant.
It's probably time you went back to blaming Thatcher for the reason your life hasn't turned out so well - it's been half a dozen posts since you moaned about her...
Regardless, trading personal remarks is getting dull and spoiling the thread. Let's both move on...
Edited by sidicks on Friday 20th May 08:23
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Apart from investing into unit trust funds, aside from individual shareholding,very little. I wholly depend upon the prospectus sent out by the investment house, or my own research in the case of a purchase of shares. I would like to know more about each individual investment company working 'with' companies regarding strategy planning but this is a missing element or lacking transparency.
Which is exactly why I struggle with your claims about 'what fund managers do and don't do' - you know very little and assume far too much!crankedup said:
Quite how a fund manager can become involved in strategic planning is a mystery when the manager has so many companies on his/her book. I can appreciate the fund manager casting a eye over the company medium term strategy and basing a decision regarding the investment potential but not sitting in a board meeting having direct input of any meaningful depth.
It's the analysts job to do this - that's why fund managers have analysts specialising in different sectors!crankedup said:
Is this the time fund managers cosy up to the CEO and board members
Once again, the tone of your comment betrays your prejudice.crankedup said:
Having said that it matters not a jot to the overall situation regarding corporate greed which remains alive and thriving.
If the majority of shareholders share that view them they will act accordingly and something will be done!Fair play your use of the generic terms within the investment industry plainly makes my contentions completely incorrect.
You keep saying I am prejudice , if that means sick to the back teeth of the current system of reward level in the Board rooms, yes you are correct
My comment about cosy relationships between investment houses and FTSE companies stands.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
For somebody in the industry I am not surprised by your indifference to the reality of the situation. Clearly it suits you to be less active and content with the status quo. And that sums up in a nutshell how I see the industry working hand in glove and why an investigation should clear out the clouds and lack of transparency required.
As usual, your claims are based on nothing but prejudice and don't align with the realities for those of us that actually have experience of the situation,crankedup said:
It is utterly incredible that you seem to have missed the rising dissatisfaction amongst shareholders and their CEO pay greed, the worst part is the non binding votes when it comes to the in favour / not in favour.
You miss the point - again.I don't dispute what 'some' shareholders think - I simply dispute your claims about institutional fund managers and their involvement as shareholders, At least you are now admitting they you don't actually have any knowledge on which you are basing those claims!
In life I always found that a little humility goes a long way, clearly that is not part of your make up, at least I have never seen anything approaching humility within any of your posts. Some see humility as a weakness, to me it's a strength You may wonder why I mention this? it is merely myself trying to understand 'what mAkes you tick' which in turn may help me to be able to interpret your posts to a better understanding and my responses to your posts.
Edited by crankedup on Friday 20th May 10:50
sidicks said:
legzr1 said:
You're hilarious.
I remember when you were banned from an AV forum for your snidey insults to other members when losing an argument.
Once again, you are wrong. I'd lost nothing, just got fed up with the usual ignorant claims from the usual suspect(s) and unfortunately fell foul of the deputy moderator who was massively left wing with a huge chip on his shoulder. The regulator moderator wouldn't have banned me and said as much, but who cares? They made the rules, so even when I was invited back I wasn't interested.I remember when you were banned from an AV forum for your snidey insults to other members when losing an argument.
legzr1 said:
Your version of what happened in the 'union' thread tells me everything I need to know about you.
Why don't you actually explain yourself rather than hiding behind a pathetic vague slur?Regardless, still you persist with your off topic nonsense. You know nothing, and your continued attempts to provoke me suggest you have a significant issue that you need to resolve. Please go away.
legzr1 said:
Only in your world could 'button pusher' ever be considered an insult - get out more, it'll do you the world of good.
It is irrelevant to what I do, but it's generally taken as a less than positive comment.Edited by sidicks on Thursday 19th May 23:26
Please advise me of whom you work for, the thought of any of my money supporting you or your company makes me feel sick.
Edited by crankedup on Friday 20th May 15:33
crankedup said:
Change comes slowly, you once again make the mistake of suggesting that shareholders will change matters regarding the debate subject. For the millionth time small shareholder votes are non binding, that means they can be and generally are, disregarded by the Board.
For the millionth time 'small' shareholder votes are no more or less important than 'large' shareholder votes - there's just more of the latter and therefore (quite rightly) they therefore have a greater say in how a company is run.crankedup said:
Fair play your use of the generic terms within the investment industry plainly makes my contentions completely incorrect.
You keep saying I am prejudice , if that means sick to the back teeth of the current system of reward level in the Board rooms, yes you are correct
If a majority of shareholders think the same, then things will change. If they don't then, quite rightly, things won't (and don't need to) change.You keep saying I am prejudice , if that means sick to the back teeth of the current system of reward level in the Board rooms, yes you are correct
crankedup said:
My comment about cosy relationships between investment houses and FTSE companies stands.
My comment about you having zero knowledge or understanding about the situation still stands. As such, it's fair to dismiss your claims as based on prejudice not evidence.Edited by sidicks on Friday 20th May 10:43
crankedup said:
Having said that I offer you two points for correcting my mistake of not using correct industry terminology, I e pact you now to say it's worth more points than that?
You too eh?My posts are picked apart on details despite the merit of the points being made being very clear and reasonably made.
Not that I care too much, I get a mild education and then I move on and still feel the same way about the fundamental argument I was making.
But I also do think there is a case of many people not being able to see the wood for the trees in lots of industries. They are so comfortable with the status quo and so wrapped up in the detail, they can't stand back and see the big picture in simple terms.
I believe the pension industry is like this too.
Only really the direct to consumer industries like fashion are really in touch with the consumers perspective and needs. They adapt ahead of the consumer to stay relevant, they don't wait for consumers to change their tastes.
Advertising too has to really push boundaries to engage.
Finance and pensions are like dinosaurs who couldn't change to save their lives... which is why government seems to have to do it for them by legislating to keep them relevant and competitive.
crankedup said:
Me thinks you are most desperate in your quest to somehow swim against a tide of dissatisfaction so vividly apparent to all, except yourself of course.
Things will change according to what the majority of shareholders want - as usual you confuse what you want with the majority. Shareholders should decide how the business they own should be run, crankedup said:
The actual intricacies of the workings of the industry you are in are of no importance to me, what is important are the fundamentals.
And there we have it - facts are not important, you can just make up your ignorant claims from afar and hope no-one disputes them. crankedup said:
Your use of minor inaccuracies are testimony to your desperation. As a shareholder and holder of trust funds I must have confidence in the investment houses that deal with my investments,
In that case I'd recommend actually finding out about most investment firms actually do in this regard, rather than make false claims!crankedup said:
Having said that I offer you two points for correcting my mistake of not using correct industry terminology, I e pact you now to say it's worth more points than that?
???Edited by sidicks on Friday 20th May 14:53
Mr Whippy said:
You too eh?
My posts are picked apart on details despite the merit of the points being made being very clear and reasonably made.
Not that I care too much, I get a mild education and then I move on and still feel the same way about the fundamental argument I was making.
But I also do think there is a case of many people not being able to see the wood for the trees in lots of industries. They are so comfortable with the status quo and so wrapped up in the detail, they can't stand back and see the big picture in simple terms.
I believe the pension industry is like this too.
Only really the direct to consumer industries like fashion are really in touch with the consumers perspective and needs. They adapt ahead of the consumer to stay relevant, they don't wait for consumers to change their tastes.
Advertising too has to really push boundaries to engage.
Finance and pensions are like dinosaurs who couldn't change to save their lives... which is why government seems to have to do it for them by legislating to keep them relevant and competitive.
How ironic that most of your issues with pensions stem from repeated tinkering and ill-thought out legislation from governments...My posts are picked apart on details despite the merit of the points being made being very clear and reasonably made.
Not that I care too much, I get a mild education and then I move on and still feel the same way about the fundamental argument I was making.
But I also do think there is a case of many people not being able to see the wood for the trees in lots of industries. They are so comfortable with the status quo and so wrapped up in the detail, they can't stand back and see the big picture in simple terms.
I believe the pension industry is like this too.
Only really the direct to consumer industries like fashion are really in touch with the consumers perspective and needs. They adapt ahead of the consumer to stay relevant, they don't wait for consumers to change their tastes.
Advertising too has to really push boundaries to engage.
Finance and pensions are like dinosaurs who couldn't change to save their lives... which is why government seems to have to do it for them by legislating to keep them relevant and competitive.
sidicks said:
Still wrong - I was only banned from the politics sub-forum.
Oh, my mistake.You lost interest in a sub-forum, a sub-forum you were banned from after abusing members and being accused of constantly 'twisting things until the pips squeak' but you still visited and posted on the Forum after your ban.
Ok.
siddicks said:
Of course not, that way you'd actually have to explain yourself and your false claims could be refuted.
Nothing to explain.You know my opinion of you and your posting style - you reported my feelings to a Mod and got me removed from a thread (a thread concerning an industry I've worked in for decades, an industry you clearly know next to nothing about).
Well done you
siddicks said:
Given how insignificant a person you are as far as I'm concerned, you're pathetic comments are even more insignificant.
Please don't.You'll upset my feelings and I'm afraid you'll offer 'C.Vs at dawn' again
siddicks said:
It's probably time you went back to blaming Thatcher for the reason your life hasn't turned out so well - it's been half a dozen posts since you moaned about her...
I see.You know nothing about me or my life so you clutch at straws.
Never had you down as a fool but I'm open to be proven wrong...
siddicks said:
Regardless, trading personal remarks is getting dull and spoiling the thread. Let's both move on...
Yes, let's move on as you think you've covered your arse and covered your hypocrisy.Edited by sidicks on Friday 20th May 08:23
You've actually shown the whole forum what you're all about my friend.
Bye.
I actually run a company that has associations with the asset management industry and in the past I have worked for an asset manager (most of which are NOT owned by banks either 
)
Sidlicks is both factually and historically correct in his observations about how fund managers have influenced pay for a long time..
Crankedup and Legzr1 are not....they have opinions based on their 'feelings' ONLY.
A whole lot of opinion and a lack understanding always seems to bring out an argument on PH where both sides are intractable in their views, but in reality only one of them actually understands.
Your fund manager is interested in maximising the returns of his end investors - even IF they happen to be misinformed individuals like Crank and Leg, the Fund manager will still make the best decision possible, to make sure that neither of them retire bitter and penniless.
)Sidlicks is both factually and historically correct in his observations about how fund managers have influenced pay for a long time..
Crankedup and Legzr1 are not....they have opinions based on their 'feelings' ONLY.
A whole lot of opinion and a lack understanding always seems to bring out an argument on PH where both sides are intractable in their views, but in reality only one of them actually understands.
Your fund manager is interested in maximising the returns of his end investors - even IF they happen to be misinformed individuals like Crank and Leg, the Fund manager will still make the best decision possible, to make sure that neither of them retire bitter and penniless.
sidicks said:
Mr Whippy said:
You too eh?
My posts are picked apart on details despite the merit of the points being made being very clear and reasonably made.
Not that I care too much, I get a mild education and then I move on and still feel the same way about the fundamental argument I was making.
But I also do think there is a case of many people not being able to see the wood for the trees in lots of industries. They are so comfortable with the status quo and so wrapped up in the detail, they can't stand back and see the big picture in simple terms.
I believe the pension industry is like this too.
Only really the direct to consumer industries like fashion are really in touch with the consumers perspective and needs. They adapt ahead of the consumer to stay relevant, they don't wait for consumers to change their tastes.
Advertising too has to really push boundaries to engage.
Finance and pensions are like dinosaurs who couldn't change to save their lives... which is why government seems to have to do it for them by legislating to keep them relevant and competitive.
How ironic that most of your issues with pensions stem from repeated tinkering and ill-thought out legislation from governments...My posts are picked apart on details despite the merit of the points being made being very clear and reasonably made.
Not that I care too much, I get a mild education and then I move on and still feel the same way about the fundamental argument I was making.
But I also do think there is a case of many people not being able to see the wood for the trees in lots of industries. They are so comfortable with the status quo and so wrapped up in the detail, they can't stand back and see the big picture in simple terms.
I believe the pension industry is like this too.
Only really the direct to consumer industries like fashion are really in touch with the consumers perspective and needs. They adapt ahead of the consumer to stay relevant, they don't wait for consumers to change their tastes.
Advertising too has to really push boundaries to engage.
Finance and pensions are like dinosaurs who couldn't change to save their lives... which is why government seems to have to do it for them by legislating to keep them relevant and competitive.
Both sides are to blame.
Government has it's own elephant in the room with pension liabilities, never mind the social security state pension provision which is going to be a tough one to balance when demographics get the better of the country.
Maybe why we're letting so many immigrants in?
Hol said:
I actually run a company that has associations with the asset management industry and in the past I have worked for an asset manager (most of which are NOT owned by banks either )
Sidlicks is both factually and historically correct in his observations about how fund managers have influenced pay for a long time..
Crankedup and Legzr1 are not....they have opinions based on their 'feelings' ONLY.
A whole lot of opinion and a lack understanding always seems to bring out an argument on PH where both sides are intractable in their views, but in reality only one of them actually understands.
Your fund manager is interested in maximising the returns of his end investors - even IF they happen to be misinformed individuals like Crank and Leg, the Fund manager will still make the best decision possible, to make sure that neither of them retire bitter and penniless.
Perhaps you'd like to go through the thread and show me where I said an opinion was fact? )Sidlicks is both factually and historically correct in his observations about how fund managers have influenced pay for a long time..
Crankedup and Legzr1 are not....they have opinions based on their 'feelings' ONLY.
A whole lot of opinion and a lack understanding always seems to bring out an argument on PH where both sides are intractable in their views, but in reality only one of them actually understands.
Your fund manager is interested in maximising the returns of his end investors - even IF they happen to be misinformed individuals like Crank and Leg, the Fund manager will still make the best decision possible, to make sure that neither of them retire bitter and penniless.
Good luck
Mr Whippy said:
It's a circular issue I'll agree.
Both sides are to blame.
Government has it's own elephant in the room with pension liabilities, never mind the social security state pension provision which is going to be a tough one to balance when demographics get the better of the country.
Maybe why we're letting so many immigrants in?
How does the government's problem with their own state pension liabilities explain or justify their constant tinkering with private (DC) pensions?Both sides are to blame.
Government has it's own elephant in the room with pension liabilities, never mind the social security state pension provision which is going to be a tough one to balance when demographics get the better of the country.
Maybe why we're letting so many immigrants in?
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Me thinks you are most desperate in your quest to somehow swim against a tide of dissatisfaction so vividly apparent to all, except yourself of course.
Things will change according to what the majority of shareholders want - as usual you confuse what you want with the majority. Shareholders should decide how the business they own should be run, crankedup said:
The actual intricacies of the workings of the industry you are in are of no importance to me, what is important are the fundamentals.
And there we have it - facts are not important, you can just make up your ignorant claims from afar and hope no-one disputes them. crankedup said:
Your use of minor inaccuracies are testimony to your desperation. As a shareholder and holder of trust funds I must have confidence in the investment houses that deal with my investments,
In that case I'd recommend actually finding out about most investment firms actually do in this regard, rather than make false claims!crankedup said:
Having said that I offer you two points for correcting my mistake of not using correct industry terminology, I e pact you now to say it's worth more points than that?
???Edited by sidicks on Friday 20th May 14:53
Maybe true what you say about investigating fully exactly shattered it is that investment houses offer, oh hang on that's something I have been arguing for!! Investigation is underway by people who will dig about deeper than I am able. Quite pleased you now, at long last agree.
False claims, what false claims have I made!
Hol said:
I actually run a company that has associations with the asset management industry and in the past I have worked for an asset manager (most of which are NOT owned by banks either )
Sidlicks is both factually and historically correct in his observations about how fund managers have influenced pay for a long time..
Crankedup and Legzr1 are not....they have opinions based on their 'feelings' ONLY.
A whole lot of opinion and a lack understanding always seems to bring out an argument on PH where both sides are intractable in their views, but in reality only one of them actually understands.
Your fund manager is interested in maximising the returns of his end investors - even IF they happen to be misinformed individuals like Crank and Leg, the Fund manager will still make the best decision possible, to make sure that neither of them retire bitter and penniless.
My contention is that fund managers certainly influenced Board pay recommendations, by nodding and grunting through excessive rewards. So I do agree the facts but it's a negative and something that needs to be investigated. )Sidlicks is both factually and historically correct in his observations about how fund managers have influenced pay for a long time..
Crankedup and Legzr1 are not....they have opinions based on their 'feelings' ONLY.
A whole lot of opinion and a lack understanding always seems to bring out an argument on PH where both sides are intractable in their views, but in reality only one of them actually understands.
Your fund manager is interested in maximising the returns of his end investors - even IF they happen to be misinformed individuals like Crank and Leg, the Fund manager will still make the best decision possible, to make sure that neither of them retire bitter and penniless.
When you suggest that fund managers make the best decisions possible, I assume you are talking about the buy/sell issue?
Understanding is not required, it is transparency that is missing from the industry. No evidence whatsoever has been shown in this thread regarding value for investment. Sidicks or you may suggest meeting the average is fine, of course but it's not an answer it's just a notion that one investment house is as bad as the next.
sidicks said:
Mr Whippy said:
It's a circular issue I'll agree.
Both sides are to blame.
Government has it's own elephant in the room with pension liabilities, never mind the social security state pension provision which is going to be a tough one to balance when demographics get the better of the country.
Maybe why we're letting so many immigrants in?
How does the government's problem with their own state pension liabilities explain or justify their constant tinkering with private (DC) pensions?Both sides are to blame.
Government has it's own elephant in the room with pension liabilities, never mind the social security state pension provision which is going to be a tough one to balance when demographics get the better of the country.
Maybe why we're letting so many immigrants in?
That is a huge 'tinker' with DC systems, and it's been done because ultimately they'll want to wind down the state pension at some point if they can.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff