Pigs at the trough 2016

[crankedup]

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.

Having ran a business and then sold it n I have no need to rely upon shiny suits, of course I invest in shares through unit trust funds and also my own individual holdings. Perhaps you may care to retract your comments about bitter and penniless as it is wholly incorrect and unfounded.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

See you have moved the goalposts on my thread, it's about CEO pay NOT how a company is run.
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!

Oh FFS! How many times?

Try this for starters...

crankedup said:

those businesses running pension funds do not give a flying fig about the pay board recommendations. Therefore simply nod and grunt.

crankedup said:

fund managers have simply grunted and nodded through massive hikes in Corporate Board pay, time for change.

crankedup said:

Boardroom pay hikes for the past twenty years or so!

crankedup said:

Well said! an indication of the indifference between those that invest real money and those that are paid to invest on behalf of those that pay their wages.

ctankedup said:

Like I have said for years, Fund Managers simply wave through any pay board recommendations.

crankedup said:

Is this the time fund managers cosy up to the CEO and board members

crankedup said:

My contention is that fund managers certainly influenced Board pay recommendations, by nodding and grunting through excessive rewards.

[crankedup]

Mr Whippy said:

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.

I have freely and openly owned up about my in depth knowledge of the intricacies of financial investment houses and how they operate. But it seems to me that if you are not a dedicated expert you are wrong to complain, suggest, invoke any sort of opinion that is contrary to the image that sidicks likes to enthuse over. The sad part is that the whole of the industry has this bad attitude, no wonder a full investigation into this industry has been ordered, about time I say.
I agree with your comments entirely, it is an industry where time has stood still, well very nearly. Time for a blooming good shakedown.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Have you noticed sidicks that you now stand alone defending the dreadful accusations made involving the industry in which you work?

Plenty of people disagreed with you at the start of thread - they just get bored with responding to people who have already made up their minds about something (despite having limited understanding of the issue in question).

crankedup said:

There is a reason for this, other such defenders have, by and large, realised that they were wrong, not entirely of course, but fundamentally wrong.

Priceless!

crankedup said:

Please advise me of whom you work for, the thought of any of my money supporting you or your company makes me feel sick.

Fortunately for both of us, you don't have the option!

Edited by sidicks on Friday 20th May 15:46

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

I have freely and openly owned up about my in depth knowledge of the intricacies of financial investment houses and how they operate. But it seems to me that if you are not a dedicated expert you are wrong to complain, suggest, invoke any sort of opinion that is contrary to the image that sidicks likes to enthuse over.

No, you are wrong to repeatedly make claims about something you have no understanding of experience of. It's quite simple!

cramkedup said:

The sad part is that the whole of the industry has this bad attitude, no wonder a full investigation into this industry has been ordered, about time I say.
I agree with your comments entirely, it is an industry where time has stood still, well very nearly. Time for a blooming good shakedown.

The sad part is that most of the 'industry' (whichever vague definition you are currently using) is fed u of having to respond to ill-informed outsiders. Most of the industry is also fed up of poor behaviour by the minority being used to castigate the majority.

Etc

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

See you have moved the goalposts on my thread, it's about CEO pay NOT how a company is run.
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!

Oh FFS! How many times?

Try this for starters...

crankedup said:

those businesses running pension funds do not give a flying fig about the pay board recommendations. Therefore simply nod and grunt.

crankedup said:

fund managers have simply grunted and nodded through massive hikes in Corporate Board pay, time for change.

crankedup said:

Boardroom pay hikes for the past twenty years or so!

crankedup said:

Well said! an indication of the indifference between those that invest real money and those that are paid to invest on behalf of those that pay their wages.

ctankedup said:

Like I have said for years, Fund Managers simply wave through any pay board recommendations.

crankedup said:

Is this the time fund managers cosy up to the CEO and board members

crankedup said:

My contention is that fund managers certainly influenced Board pay recommendations, by nodding and grunting through excessive rewards.

Thank you for putting all my facts into one basket. All of the points are those shared by other small investors and it is partially the reason why the industry is being investigated, amongst other matters. You can't see it because you have become 'smell blind'.

With so much shareholder discontent you and people like you should be concerned, instead you breath arrogance at every turn.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Thank you for putting all my facts into one basket. All of the points are those shared by other small investors and it is partially the reason why the industry is being investigated, amongst other matters. You can't see it because you have become 'smell blind'.

Facts?


You admit yourself that you have extremely limited understanding of what fund managers do and then you claim that the above are 'facts'! And then you have the cheek to suggest that other people lack humility.

crankedup said:

With so much shareholder discontent you and people like you should be concerned, instead you breath arrogance at every turn.

Once again you try and make this personal and once again you fail you - still fail to have the slightest knowledge of what me and my company do. Suggest you move on.

Edited by sidicks on Friday 20th May 15:51

Edited by sidicks on Friday 20th May 15:52

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Have you noticed sidicks that you now stand alone defending the dreadful accusations made involving the industry in which you work?

Plenty of people disagreed with you at the start of thread - they just get bored with responding to people who have already made up their minds about something (despite having limited understanding of the issue in question).

crankedup said:

There is a reason for this, other such defenders have, by and large, realised that they were wrong, not entirely of course, but fundamentally wrong.

Priceless!




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

Scrapping the barrel, I still say and always will until such times as matters are corrected that CEO pay is grossly excessive and that the investment houses fund managers have much to do with the problem, that is nodding and grunting through the excessive pay rewards.

[Mr Whippy]

I've 'waved through recommendations' in the two mutuals I have a say in.

I simply look through and see they're paid very handsomely but they're also clearly doing a good job for the overall business.


I'd prefer them to accept less remuneration, obviously they really like their money and feel it's tremendously important to them.

It's sad in a way because I always think I'd be more than happy with say £500,000 a year, but clearly I wouldn't be because I'd just be looking at all the £100,000 watches, £5,000,000 houses and stuff, instead of the cheaper versions.

More money, same old st to worry about

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Scrapping the barrel, I still say and always will until such times as matters are corrected that CEO pay is grossly excessive

Entirely subjective - and will vary from one CEO to the next. I have no problem with you stating your views and would not seek to dissuade you from this personal view.

crankedup said:

and that the investment houses fund managers have much to do with the problem, that is nodding and grunting through the excessive pay rewards.

A claim based on zero knowledge, is worth zero...

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

I have freely and openly owned up about my in depth knowledge of the intricacies of financial investment houses and how they operate. But it seems to me that if you are not a dedicated expert you are wrong to complain, suggest, invoke any sort of opinion that is contrary to the image that sidicks likes to enthuse over.

No, you are wrong to repeatedly make claims about something you have no understanding of experience of. It's quite simple!

cramkedup said:

The sad part is that the whole of the industry has this bad attitude, no wonder a full investigation into this industry has been ordered, about time I say.
I agree with your comments entirely, it is an industry where time has stood still, well very nearly. Time for a blooming good shakedown.

The sad part is that most of the 'industry' (whichever vague definition you are currently using) is fed u of having to respond to ill-informed outsiders. Most of the industry is also fed up of poor behaviour by the minority being used to castigate the majority.

Etc

The industry may well be fed up of having to respond to your so called ill informed outsiders. And those words sum up the industry and you as a worker in the industry, 'ill informed outsiders'. For those co- workers who are fed up my advise to them is ship out, it's a big World outside of finance.
Those fed up workers haven't even had the glare and probing of investigation, if they get upset at a little bit of bad press then Lord help them when the real work begins.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Thank you for putting all my facts into one basket. All of the points are those shared by other small investors and it is partially the reason why the industry is being investigated, amongst other matters. You can't see it because you have become 'smell blind'.

Facts?


You admit yourself that you have extremely limited understanding of what fund managers do and then you claim that the above are 'facts'! And then you have the cheek to suggest that other people lack humility.

crankedup said:

With so much shareholder discontent you and people like you should be concerned, instead you breath arrogance at every turn.

Once again you try and make this personal and once again you fail you - still fail to have the slightest knowledge of what me and my company do. Suggest you move on.

Edited by sidicks on Friday 20th May 15:51

Edited by sidicks on Friday 20th May 15:52

Ah your resort to the rofl , not long now before the headbanger then.
Facts are facts, expertise to read the financial papers, listen to quality radio broadcasts and watch news reports suggesting everything that I have mentioned in this thread, and yet you seem to not recognise any of the problems. Your dismissal of facts will not make the problems disappear, no matter how often you hope they might. Your working in the industry has made you 'smell blind'

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Ah your resort to the rofl , not long now before the headbanger then.
Facts are facts, expertise to read the financial papers, listen to quality radio broadcasts and watch news reports suggesting everything that I have mentioned in this thread, and yet you seem to not recognise any of the problems. Your dismissal of facts will not make the problems disappear, no matter how often you hope they might. Your working in the industry has made you 'smell blind'

Please provide links to these 'facts'...

Perhaps me and Hol are lucky and the firms we have worked for have been the exception to the rule - my firm in particular has a strong ESG ethos and culture - but I strongly suspect that there are numerous other firms doing this similarly.

Edited by sidicks on Friday 20th May 16:06

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Scrapping the barrel, I still say and always will until such times as matters are corrected that CEO pay is grossly excessive

Entirely subjective - and will vary from one CEO to the next. I have no problem with you stating your views and would not seek to dissuade you from this personal view.

crankedup said:

and that the investment houses fund managers have much to do with the problem, that is nodding and grunting through the excessive pay rewards.

A claim based on zero knowledge, is worth zero...

But you haven' actually been able to post any positive evidence have you. I am still, as are others, wondering why CEO pay keeps forever rocketing skywards, and why fund managers allow this. Over the past eight years performance of FTSE companies has not been stellar, and yet pay rewards have been grossly inflated. That is the beef for thousands upon thousands, according to the media, I must own up and tell you I haven't conducted a personal survey.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

But you haven' actually been able to post any positive evidence have you. I am still, as are others, wondering why CEO pay keeps forever rocketing skywards, and why fund managers allow this. Over the past eight years performance of FTSE companies has not been stellar, and yet pay rewards have been grossly inflated. That is the beef for thousands upon thousands, according to the media, I must own up and tell you I haven't conducted a personal survey.

I have twenty years of 'evidence'!

You expect me to post confidential analyst reports where CEO and board remuneration has been mentioned?

[Jockman]

crankedup said:

Have you noticed sidicks that you now stand alone defending the dreadful accusations made involving the industry in which you work? There is a reason for this, other such defenders have, by and large, realised that they were wrong, not entirely of course, but fundamentally wrong.

C'mon crankedup, you know this was a silly thing to say.

[crankedup]

Mr Whippy said:

I've 'waved through recommendations' in the two mutuals I have a say in.

I simply look through and see they're paid very handsomely but they're also clearly doing a good job for the overall business.


I'd prefer them to accept less remuneration, obviously they really like their money and feel it's tremendously important to them.

It's sad in a way because I always think I'd be more than happy with say £500,000 a year, but clearly I wouldn't be because I'd just be looking at all the £100,000 watches, £5,000,000 houses and stuff, instead of the cheaper versions.

More money, same old st to worry about

I asked the teller at the desk of Nationwide why it is that my interest rates on my savings have diminished whilst the pay of the CEO has ballooned to three million. I asked in a lighthearted way of course, after all they are just the front line staff. To my surprise the teller said 'how do you know about that?'

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Ah your resort to the rofl , not long now before the headbanger then.
Facts are facts, expertise to read the financial papers, listen to quality radio broadcasts and watch news reports suggesting everything that I have mentioned in this thread, and yet you seem to not recognise any of the problems. Your dismissal of facts will not make the problems disappear, no matter how often you hope they might. Your working in the industry has made you 'smell blind'

Please provide links to these 'facts'...

Perhaps me and Hol are lucky and the firms we have worked for have been the exception to the rule - my firm in particular has a strong ESG ethos and culture - but I strongly suspect that there are numerous other firms doing this similarly.

Edited by sidicks on Friday 20th May 16:06

As was said to me fairly recently Google is your friend.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

As was said to me fairly recently Google is your friend.

So Google provides evidence as to the (confidential) discussions with management and voting decisions that fund managers have made?

Really?

[crankedup]

The really ironic thing is that both my daughter and son-in-law work in finance, daughter within the pensions industry and her husband in banking.
They both do very nicely indeed thank you, but in fairness they work very hard in a stressful environment.