Pigs at the trough 2016

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

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.

Let me guess, your family members are excluded from your 'the whole industry is corrupt' statements?

[Hol]

crankedup said:

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.

Ill safely retract the penniless bit then, based on your assurances..

[legzr1]

Hol said:

Ill safely retract the penniless bit then, based on your assurances..

Still waiting for those links.

When you get time naturally.

[Rovinghawk]

Jockman said:

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

With respect, I think you're wrong.

He doesn't know that it's silly & probably believes everything he's typed.

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

Jockman said:

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

With respect, I think you're wrong.

He doesn't know that it's silly & probably believes everything he's typed.

Of course it is, it's just a bit of fun, what difference could you, I, possibly make to a world that keeps turning. None at all!!!
Eggs and bacon for breakfast or a bowl of porridge? It really makes no difference to anybody. You go to work and I am retired, soon I will be dead and you will be retired. Happy daze.

[Rovinghawk]

crankedup said:

Rovinghawk said:

Jockman said:

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

With respect, I think you're wrong.
He doesn't know that it's silly & probably believes everything he's typed.

Of course it is, it's just a bit of fun.

An admission of talking bollux. You heard it here first, folks.

[Jockman]

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

crankedup said:

Rovinghawk said:

Jockman said:

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

With respect, I think you're wrong.
He doesn't know that it's silly & probably believes everything he's typed.

Of course it is, it's just a bit of fun.

An admission of talking bollux. You heard it here first, folks.

This is just a bit of fun, not at all sure how you manage to interpret that as an admission of talking bollux!!! The serious stuff comes with the investigations into the industry. Nobody takes anything seriously on chat forums, I certainly don't.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

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.

Let me guess, your family members are excluded from your 'the whole industry is corrupt' statements?

No room for guessing I'm afraid, and I not sure that fund managers nodding and grunting through pay board recommendations is the basis of corruption, after all the fund manager is not the only suit casting a vote. no wonder you get yourself stewed up, you read stuff that isn't there, or is it a guilt complex, I wouldn't know.

[crankedup]

Hol said:

crankedup said:

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.

Ill safely retract the penniless bit then, based on your assurances..

You can also retract the personal comment stating that I am bitter. Far from it, I am very content being happily married with a son and daughter and recently, well three years ago, a grandson. Self suffient and great couple of hobbies, although I must admit I really do need a change of my wife's day runner car, that is a heap of junk.:.laugh:

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

No room for guessing I'm afraid, and I not sure that fund managers nodding and grunting through pay board recommendations is the basis of corruption, after all the fund manager is not the only suit casting a vote. no wonder you get yourself stewed up, you read stuff that isn't there, or is it a guilt complex, I wouldn't know.

They don't - HTH

[Hol]

legzr1 said:

Hol said:

Ill safely retract the penniless bit then, based on your assurances..

Still waiting for those links.

When you get time naturally.

Links to....... your posts???

Edited by Hol on Saturday 21st May 13:00

[Hol]

legzr1 said:

Hol said:

Ill safely retract the penniless bit then, based on your assurances..

Still waiting for those links.

When you get time naturally.

Links to....... your posts???

Edited by Hol on Saturday 21st May 13:03

[legzr1]

legzr1 said:

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?

Good luck

I've made it a little easier for you

[legzr1]

You could raise a hand an admit you fked up.

Beyond your type I guess.

So that's admission of mistakes and humility off the list.

Next?

[Hol]

legzr1 said:

legzr1 said:

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?

Good luck

I've made it a little easier for you

Ok Mr ******.

Show ME in the above statement of mine where I have said anything othan YOu have opinions based on your feelings.

You can't can you?


Guess what.... You are...

[Mr Whippy]

But fundamentally they're allowed to have the opinion that CEOs are paid too much.

I think they take too much in pay too.


But like I've said, the only people to change this are the people who own these businesses, and they need to stand up together to make a fundamental change in attitude.

Easy to do, but people are still too apathetic

[sidicks]

Mr Whippy said:

But fundamentally they're allowed to have the opinion that CEOs are paid too much.

I think they take too much in pay too.


But like I've said, the only people to change this are the people who own these businesses, and they need to stand up together to make a fundamental change in attitude.

Easy to do, but people are still too apathetic

Agreed 100%.

The OP admitted he isn't prepared to put his money where his mouth is, which says a lot.

[legzr1]

Hol said:

Ok Mr ******.

Show ME in the above statement of mine where I have said anything othan YOu have opinions based on your feelings.

You can't can you?


Guess what.... You are...

As I thought, you were wrong, can't find a post of mine in this thread that backs up your assertion and now it's time for wriggle, twist and face saving.

Similar to Siddicks tactics.

He too works with/for similar financial institutions - is this a trend?

Go on, show some humility - I just know it's in there somewhere.

[Mr Whippy]

sidicks said:

Mr Whippy said:

But fundamentally they're allowed to have the opinion that CEOs are paid too much.

I think they take too much in pay too.


But like I've said, the only people to change this are the people who own these businesses, and they need to stand up together to make a fundamental change in attitude.

Easy to do, but people are still too apathetic

Agreed 100%.

The OP admitted he isn't prepared to put his money where his mouth is, which says a lot.

Yep, people need to realise that if they want ethics both ways, they too need to take a 'cut' in their wealth too.

It's no good whinging about say the Tesco CEO, then going to Tesco because it's the cheapest place.

You're complicit in the whole thing if you use that logic.

People need to realise that paying cheap is exactly why these CEOs get paid big. If they'd pay smaller businesses who don't shaft everyone in sight more money, they'd get more ethics too!

Dave