Pigs at the trough 2016

[legzr1]

Hol said:

legzr1 said:

Hol said:

So, you accuse me of saying something YOU made up. And then insult me when I can't find this thing that I didn't even say.

Just listen to yourself.....

You bundled me in with Cranked in a half-Arsed rant when I hadn't actually made comment on the topic up until then.

You assumed I'd made the same comments as Cranked.


I asked you to provide proof of this.

You did not.
You cannot.
Stop digging.

I presume this will be the last we hear of it...
Have a good day

I have provided you with an explanation of where you have dug a mineshaft of your own design.

You made an assumption and commented, that my prior paragraph was about the two of you, because you didn't read it properly. It was quite clearly a general comment that didn't, mention either of you and had no linked correlation to my second paragraph - which did mention you.

Or, you did read it properly and the message actually struck a chord in your physche even though it was a generalisation, hence you went on the attack and started acting like id slapped you in the face.


Ironic really, when you read it.



Your wrong, you owe me an apology for your obvious error, but I don't want one, as I don't really want to converse with somebody like you any further.
Do you understand now?

Hol said:

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.

Edited by Hol on Sunday 22 May 12:23

What a character.

Your 'analytical ' mind has you confused.

Try going back to where you first chimed in, read what you posted, read what I quoted and realise you've got the wrong end of the stick, you've messed up and are about to show some humility.

Lay down the shovel Mr Wriggly Worm...

[legzr1]

sidicks said:

legzr1 said:

You're already aware of my opinion of you...

How strange! You appear to know everything about me based on my Internet forum posts, yet somehow You seem to believe that we can't discern anything about you in the same manner...

legzr1 said:

You know nothing about me or my life so you clutch at straws

You need to be very careful.

Seeing your hypocrisy demonstrated on another forum I use regularly isn't quite the same as a veiled attempt to threaten to go hunting for user ID on the Internet.

There are AUPs on this forum that you signed up to - be sensible, stay within the rules, don't go getting another ban.

Clear enough for you?

HTH


I'll admit I may have you wrong.
In real life you could be a thoroughly decent chap but, on the basis of reading quite a bit of your diatribe both on here and other places, I have formed an opinion of you.

You're aware of that opinion

[legzr1]

'

sealtt said:

Fragmented corporate ownership has led to this scenario... as paraphrased from a Mr Bogle (Founder and Former Chairman, The Vanguard Group, writer of Battle for the Soul of Capitalism)...


Late in the twentieth century, something went wrong, a "pathological mutation in capitalism," in the words of journalist William Pfaff. The classic system—owners' capitalism—had been based on a dedication to serving the interests of the corporation's owners in maximizing the return on their capital investment. But a new system developed—managers' capitalism—in which, Pfaff wrote, "the corporation came to be run to profit its managers, in complicity if not conspiracy with accountants and the managers of other corporations." Why did it happen? "Because the markets had so diffused corporate ownership that no responsible owner exists. This is morally unacceptable, but also a corruption of capitalism itself." And so it is.

Once an "ownership society" in which direct owners of stock held voting control over corporate America [UK, etc], we have become an "agency society," and we are not going back. But the agents—largely mutual fund managers and pension fund trustees—have failed to represent, first and foremost, their principals—pension beneficiaries and owners of mutual fund shares. These intermediaries consume far too large a portion of whatever returns our corporations and our financial markets are generous enough to provide, with far too small a portion of these returns delivered to the last-line investors who have put up all of the capital and assumed all of the risks.

Very intersteing

[sidicks]

legzr1 said:

You need to be very careful.

Seeing your hypocrisy demonstrated on another forum I use regularly isn't quite the same as a veiled attempt to threaten to go hunting for user ID on the Internet.

There are AUPs on this forum that you signed up to - be sensible, stay within the rules, don't go getting another ban.

Thanks. As I said before, you'd be well-placed to follow your own advice...

legzr1 said:

I'll admit I may have you wrong.
In real life you could be a thoroughly decent chap but, on the basis of reading quite a bit of your diatribe both on here and other places, I have formed an opinion of you.

You're aware of that opinion

As above, the same could (and does) apply to you!!

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

sidicks said:

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

Did I really? Refresh my memory on how we arrived at that conclusion

This is too easy...

crankedup said:

Unfortunately it is not always the best move to sell shares on the basis that the Board are being overpaid. Blue cihips are the bedrock of investments in company shares, usually safe reliable, rather dull, investments. They do usually pay reasonable dividends with a creep upwards in share price. I feel strongly in regard to over generous pay but not so strongly as to want to cut off my nose to spite my face. This is especially reinforced in the face of almost negative interest on cash investment.

I can only conclude that you cannot understand that I said in effect that although I dislike the situation of CEO pay, that dislike is not so strong as to make me want to cut off my nose to spite my face. PPeehaps you have never heard of the expression? But it is the very opposite of your comment, once again you make yourself look a chump.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

sidicks said:

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

They don't what?

The section has already been highlighted in bold for you - not sure what else I can do to help you understand...

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 22 May 07:11

Try writing out a post.

They nod and grunt or they wave through pay board recommendations. It's both but you say 'they don''.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Back of the net! Spot on. You won't read of any humility from the likes of those that we disagree with, for some reason they must think it's a show of superiority not to show such human considerations. Sad really.

Humility is a most valuable and positive trait - I think it's very important to recognise the areas where one has little or no experience and defer to others - for this reason the vast majority of my posts are limited to a few key areas where I have a lot of experience - rather to suggest that one's own view is somehow more important.

On the other hand, some people:
- seem to believe that their views are much more important than others ("small shareholders should have more say than large shareholders")
- seem to believe that their opinions are more important than those with years of actual experience

Perhaps you might review your own posts in the context of 'humility' before making comments about others...

Sadly for your position taken that you conveniently overlook the matter of small investors voting against pay board recommendations and detailing displeasure at CEO pay. I know you feel it's just myself and a handful of others but reality is that the problem is genuine for thousands of small investors.
Your experience is interesting and of course you have a technical handle on the professional investment procedures and legalities, as well as terminology. Unfortunately you don,t seem to look out of the window into a real world. Still keep kidding yourself that the issue isn't real. When the investigatory team come knocking be prepared for a surprise or two.

[crankedup]

Here you go sidicks, this will make you spin and squirm.

Mail on Sunday :Jeff Prestridge

'Nobody understands pensions, not even officials for keeping the economy on an even keel. Last week Andy Haldane confessed to 'not being able to make the remotest sense of pensions'. They have become to complex.

In fairness the Governments past and present are most culpable changing rules and regulations. The pensions industry must also share a chunk of responsibility . It has tried every trick in the book to take as much in charges as it can from OUR funds without us knowing about the scale of its PILLAGE. Shameful.

Greater financial simplicity should be the order of the day.i

[Mr Whippy]

crankedup said:

Greater financial simplicity should be the order of the day

They want it on one hand, but don't on the other.

They want people to more easily engage with pensions and saving, because that is what they pyramid scheme needs (almost forced now by AE)... and their survival needs skimming.

Yet they don't want them to be so simple they start asking why the hell does X take £Y for basically looking at my money in an account all day!

Finally, they also don't want people THAT engaged in their pensions because if they did they'd be going to a self-managed SIPP and avoiding these apathetically managed vampire pension companies altogether.


Sadly again though this comes down to consumer apathy.

If people all suddenly moved to the cheapest SIPP out there and managed their funds themselves, they'd be making pension compaines squirm to remain relevant, and they'd be able to take back this diffusion of ownership the above article mentioned, and make individuals able to vote with their wealth much better.


Everyone needs to take more ownership, from the bottom up. If they did then all this worry about overpaid CEOs would disappear pretty quickly.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

I can only conclude that you cannot understand that I said in effect that although I dislike the situation of CEO pay, that dislike is not so strong as to make me want to cut off my nose to spite my face. PPeehaps you have never heard of the expression? But it is the very opposite of your comment, once again you make yourself look a chump.

So you don't understand basic English now? As Mr Whippy has outlined "putting your money where you mouth is" would mean removing your investment from these companies and only investing in others that do meet your 'CEO remuneration requirements'.

You highlighted above that you simply weren't prepared to go this (as I highlighted above). Not sure why you can't see this?

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Try writing out a post.

They nod and grunt or they wave through pay board recommendations. It's both but you say 'they don''.

20 years of experience tells me otherwise. But you won't listen to people with actual experience of the experince in case that contradicts your inbuilt prejudice.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Sadly for your position taken that you conveniently overlook the matter of small investors voting against pay board recommendations and detailing displeasure at CEO pay. I know you feel it's just myself and a handful of others but reality is that the problem is genuine for thousands of small investors.
Your experience is interesting and of course you have a technical handle on the professional investment procedures and legalities, as well as terminology. Unfortunately you don,t seem to look out of the window into a real world. Still keep kidding yourself that the issue isn't real. When the investigatory team come knocking be prepared for a surprise or two.

Why do you keep misrepresenting my point (and refusing to address the questions I've raised)?

Is your idea of democracy one where the minority get to overrule the majority, as long as they share your opinion??

Why should the views of a minority outweigh the views of the majority?

[crankedup]

Agreed entirely. Mail on Sunday Jeff makes a mildly tough anylisis of the current pension provider fund management industry. He suggests that fund managers are seriously stressed by the performance parameters required, most burn out very quickly, I alluded to this early in the thread about high stress levels in the job. Those burnt out managers end up in less successful investment houses, relatively coasting, it's what I said earlier in the thread!
The topic of investor charges is raised, M&G break cover reducing fees o their investors through an online service stating THAT IN A LOW INVESTMENT RETURN ENVIRONMENT HIGH CHARGES ARE AN UNFAIR BURDEN FOR INVESTORS?
In reducing fees maybe it will spark a price War in online fund dealing services forced to cut their BLOATED FEES?
The winners will be in investors, about time too.
This is only a start to a complete overhaul of the industry, better late than never.

Of course sidicks and others will know better and completely disagree. Heads in sand. There is no doubt that the investment industry is a tough place to work in, but the rewards are attractive, at least that is my understanding. Methinks it's going to get a whole lot tougher.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

I can only conclude that you cannot understand that I said in effect that although I dislike the situation of CEO pay, that dislike is not so strong as to make me want to cut off my nose to spite my face. PPeehaps you have never heard of the expression? But it is the very opposite of your comment, once again you make yourself look a chump.

So you don't understand basic English now? As Mr Whippy has outlined "putting your money where you mouth is" would mean removing your investment from these companies and only investing in others that do meet your 'CEO remuneration requirements'.

You highlighted above that you simply weren't prepared to go this (as I highlighted above). Not sure why you can't see this?

You read it in an opposite way to my meaning either deliberate or for the fun factor. Either way I have for years mentioned share buying and trust fund holdings. But do I need to prove the point this way?

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Sadly for your position taken that you conveniently overlook the matter of small investors voting against pay board recommendations and detailing displeasure at CEO pay. I know you feel it's just myself and a handful of others but reality is that the problem is genuine for thousands of small investors.
Your experience is interesting and of course you have a technical handle on the professional investment procedures and legalities, as well as terminology. Unfortunately you don,t seem to look out of the window into a real world. Still keep kidding yourself that the issue isn't real. When the investigatory team come knocking be prepared for a surprise or two.

Why do you keep misrepresenting my point (and refusing to address the questions I've raised)?

Is your idea of democracy one where the minority get to overrule the majority, as long as they share your opinion??

Why should the views of a minority outweigh the views of the majority?

Why can't you acknowledge that serious problems exist within an industry that you work in and hundreds thousands people invest hard earn money into? You ignore what is in front of your face, you may be the wizard of Wall Street for all I know but even he isn't immune to facing reality, why can't you see that?

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Try writing out a post.

They nod and grunt or they wave through pay board recommendations. It's both but you say 'they don''.

20 years of experience tells me otherwise. But you won't listen to people with actual experience of the experince in case that contradicts your inbuilt prejudice.

But your biased experiences are not aligning to reality. You continue to ignore the warnings from small shareholders and investors of the growing dissatisfaction regarding, lack of transparency, unfair charging %s, discreet and underhand excess charges and no doubt more will follow. You may think you are whiter than white, you may well be, but the industry as a sector is coming under the gaze from those that can, and will, change matters to the investors favour.

[Big Al.]

Guys, polite request here, can we please stop the squabbling and lets get this thread back on topic.

TYIA

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

But your biased experiences are not aligning to reality. You continue to ignore the warnings from small shareholders and investors of the growing dissatisfaction regarding, lack of transparency, unfair charging %s, discreet and underhand excess charges and no doubt more will follow. You may think you are whiter than white, you may well be, but the industry as a sector is coming under the gaze from those that can, and will, change matters to the investors favour.

What has any of the above got to do with your allegations about fund managers not:
a) engaging with boards regarding CEO remuneration
b) not caring about remuneration despite it being fundamentally linked to share performance?

Happy to have a sensible, non-confrontational discussion about the other aspects mentioned above, if we can move on from the point I've repeatedly highlighted?

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 22 May 21:54

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

But your biased experiences are not aligning to reality. You continue to ignore the warnings from small shareholders and investors of the growing dissatisfaction regarding, lack of transparency, unfair charging %s, discreet and underhand excess charges and no doubt more will follow. You may think you are whiter than white, you may well be, but the industry as a sector is coming under the gaze from those that can, and will, change matters to the investors favour.

What has any of the above got to do with your allegations about fund managers not:
a) engaging with boards regarding CEO remuneration
b) not caring about remuneration despite it being fundamentally linked to share performance?

Happy to have a sensible, non-confrontational discussion about the other aspects mentioned above, if we can move on from the point I've repeatedly highlighted?

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 22 May 21:54

Blast the intervention, this was getting interesting.