Pigs at the trough 2016
Discussion
^^^^^^^^
Agreed. You mention workers enjoying some degree of recognition in the success of a company. Team work and good motivational management are old fashioned principles that are still worthy, not 'if you don't like it, move on' mentality. My banging on about social justice extends to the workplace fairness.
With the current situation of EU migrants more competition has and continues to undermine and suppress workers rewards. On the other side it's good for businesses of course.
Agreed. You mention workers enjoying some degree of recognition in the success of a company. Team work and good motivational management are old fashioned principles that are still worthy, not 'if you don't like it, move on' mentality. My banging on about social justice extends to the workplace fairness.
With the current situation of EU migrants more competition has and continues to undermine and suppress workers rewards. On the other side it's good for businesses of course.
fblm said:
crankedup said:
With the current situation of EU migrants more competition has and continues to undermine and suppress workers rewards. On the other side it's good for businesses of course.
I'm not sure how good for business it really is. It's one thing having lower costs but if you displace a local with a cheaper immigrant who will a) have less disposable income to start with and b) save money to send or return home with; you decrease the disposable income available to spend on your product, and if not for your product then for your customers products etc... On the one hand employers report immigrants work harder for less money which is great for the business, on the other hand if it displaces locals onto benefits it's bad for the country and ultimately those same businesses. The answer is to encourange locals to work harder and smarter but whilst you're also providing generous birth to grave benefits that seems insurmountable.br d said:
crankedup said:
Chance to blow my very old trumpet. When we introduced woodland burials the only other site was in Scotland. I wanted to provide a service choice away from the usual Victorian municipal cemetery with all its dreadful, imo, restrictive regulations. We introduced the concept of providing a burial space without headstones, instead we planned for trees to be planted instead. Bereaved were invited to a tree planting service whereby they could, if they so wished, to plant a tree. Also to sow wildflower seeds and plant native woodland bulbs. Memorial plaques could be purchased and attach these to a timber wall nearby. Many other new ideas included the provision of a Memorisl garden like no other introducing a large water pool, rustic seating and so on. One problem we had was to overcome the idea of coffins not being, at the time, traditional
.MDF with plastic adornment was not permitted to be used in woodland burials. I invited businesses involved in the industry to come forward with new ideas. This was all met with some hostility with some suggesting the concept would ruin business. Nothing further from the truth, it actually enhanced businesses by offering an alternative to the established.
It's the one thing that I can say gave the most satisfaction in my professional life and I remain today with pride that I was able to offer this service as the only business to do so in the UK except Scotland.
Now my cat is out of its bag.
I know nothing about your old line of business crankedup but those sound like very clever innovations, you should be proud of yourself and a bit of well deserved trumpet blowing is welcome!.MDF with plastic adornment was not permitted to be used in woodland burials. I invited businesses involved in the industry to come forward with new ideas. This was all met with some hostility with some suggesting the concept would ruin business. Nothing further from the truth, it actually enhanced businesses by offering an alternative to the established.
It's the one thing that I can say gave the most satisfaction in my professional life and I remain today with pride that I was able to offer this service as the only business to do so in the UK except Scotland.
Now my cat is out of its bag.
I often disagree with your views on stuff but it's nice to get a glimpse of the human being behind the posts, it's all too easy to think of other members here consisting entirely of their forum opinions, genuinely refreshing to read something personal. Well done!
Just felt that now, as I was asked about directorship, nothing to gain or lose. I will say that the stress associated with my professional initiatives at the time during the early 1990's up to 2000 was tiring but so worthwhile.
It would be good to read of other regular posters professional life experiences, as you say, it offers some insight into individuals as people not just keyboardist.
0000 said:
Yes, but no matter how good the guy is who changes the lightbulbs he's not going to turn around failing company or improve profitability by millions. Chances are if you do pay him extra you're just making your company less competitive against the next company who doesn't.
Very true, on the other hand if we pay the lightbulb person just a little more the Company could hold onto that person and attract the better applicants for positions. This is where the EU raises its ugly head, so many migrants that the worker has lost the bargaining edge. .Even the Polish are now complaining about being undercut by the latest wave of EU migrants.We check every year and usually find a less expensive supplier to which we obviously switch to. And now it's even easier to switch and save money.
One of my Bro's never switches supplier, I asked him why not and he replied'I can't be bothered with the hassle '. Our Bro in law had never switched from day one, he reckoned the savings were not worth he hassle. I said to both of them would you walk down the road and give a stranger passing by £300? Of course not came the expected reply from them both. Then why are you doing just that with uncompetitive energy suppliers? Bro in law switched and was chuffed to save hundreds of pounds that year. Hasn't switched since and that's about six years now. Multiply those situations and no wonder the big six are laughing to the bank, literally
One of my Bro's never switches supplier, I asked him why not and he replied'I can't be bothered with the hassle '. Our Bro in law had never switched from day one, he reckoned the savings were not worth he hassle. I said to both of them would you walk down the road and give a stranger passing by £300? Of course not came the expected reply from them both. Then why are you doing just that with uncompetitive energy suppliers? Bro in law switched and was chuffed to save hundreds of pounds that year. Hasn't switched since and that's about six years now. Multiply those situations and no wonder the big six are laughing to the bank, literally
sidicks said:
Mr Whippy said:
Jockman said:
Mr Whippy said:
Well move to anyone who is cheaper and isn't one of the big boys.
.....Cripes, you could even just boycott the supplier whose CEO makes the most money if you wanted.
They'd soon lower his remuneration packages.
Dave....the majority of cheap deals are with the big boys. I'm currently with them !!.....Cripes, you could even just boycott the supplier whose CEO makes the most money if you wanted.
They'd soon lower his remuneration packages.
They have scale economies others can only dream off. They pay their CEOs petty cash. Less than 0.01% of revenues was a figure established on another similar thread.
They are veritable 'monsters'.
But if people do care they can put the CEO out of a job if enough of them work together and boycott them.[/b]
My point is the people have the power if they want to exercise it.
Their apathy makes them victims.
And I'm happy with that. I'd rather there be victims when they allow themselves to be victimised, than have no victims because the state controls everything to the Nth degree removing all freedoms in the process.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
I really do not understand the 'envy' part of the debate. Why would shareholders who wish to see their Company grow and prosper be envious of their CEO pay? It doesn't make sense.
And yet the examples above emphasise that the CEO pay has an immaterial impact on the profitability of the company, but the CEO can have a massive impact on the company's growth prospects.That's why informed happy to support large remuneration to get the right person for the job.
crankedup said:
Some shareholder meetings that vote upon the Company recommendations for the forthcoming year are seeing around a 50% vote against CEO and board pay recommendations. It is said that small shareholders are simply ticking the box accepting all recommendations as its so much easier and quicker, in other words being lazy. Should that be the situation it becomes difficult for active shareholders to be able to reign in what the objectors call excessive pay.
Presumably if they are most focused on what is easier and quicker they deem this to be of greater importance than the CEO's remuneration. It's a judgement they are entitled to make.crankedup said:
Shareholders will need to become far more involved and active with the decision making made upon their behalf relating to CEO and Board member pay.
Informed shareholders already are actively involved with these matters. They just might have different opinions to yours...Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 11th May 17:24
I don't agree with your assumption regarding shareholders not attaching importance to CEO pay recommendations attaching importance to other factors. Those shareholders attaching importance of the Company prospectus will be those that attend the AGM and cast votes, the remaining shareholders are the small holders content to tick a box and post back
You say active shareholders already involved but may hold a different opinion to my own, very true of course. However, this discounts my earlier comment that around 50% of shareholders casting votes disagree with the pay board recommendations regarding CEO pay. Seems a fair number do share my POV regarding this issue.
Mr Whippy said:
crankedup said:
sidicks said:
Mr Whippy said:
Jockman said:
Mr Whippy said:
Well move to anyone who is cheaper and isn't one of the big boys.
.....Cripes, you could even just boycott the supplier whose CEO makes the most money if you wanted.
They'd soon lower his remuneration packages.
Dave....the majority of cheap deals are with the big boys. I'm currently with them !!.....Cripes, you could even just boycott the supplier whose CEO makes the most money if you wanted.
They'd soon lower his remuneration packages.
They have scale economies others can only dream off. They pay their CEOs petty cash. Less than 0.01% of revenues was a figure established on another similar thread.
They are veritable 'monsters'.
But if people do care they can put the CEO out of a job if enough of them work together and boycott them.[/b]
My point is the people have the power if they want to exercise it.
Their apathy makes them victims.
And I'm happy with that. I'd rather there be victims when they allow themselves to be victimised, than have no victims because the state controls everything to the Nth degree removing all freedoms in the process.
But I can see why. My pension provider charges me 1% AMC and 5% selling charge so even exercising my desire to choose company X over company Y, is hugely costly.
Exercising your preferences is costly. Another reason I want to be able to shift my pension pot into some kind of pension ISA that I manage at much more competitive rates, then I can vote with my feet rather than have a pension fund manager and/or investment fund manager voting for me (with apathy and indifference probably)
Dave
With your anylisis, the pension fund industry is coming under investigation which is long overdue imo, talk of company coasting just meeting average is not exactly confidence inspiring when people rely upon them for their retirement income.
Edited by crankedup on Wednesday 11th May 21:54
sidicks said:
Mr Whippy said:
But I can see why. My pension provider charges me 1% AMC and 5% selling charge so even exercising my desire to choose company X over company Y, is hugely costly.
5% "selling charge"? You mean a surrender penalty to clawback expenses incurred in setting up the policy and / or commission?If only people were happy to fund the costs up front when they were actually incurred...!
Mr Whippy said:
Exercising your preferences is costly. Another reason I want to be able to shift my pension pot into some kind of pension ISA that I manage at much more competitive rates, then I can vote with my feet rather than have a pension fund manager and/or investment fund manager voting for me (with apathy and indifference probably)
Given that a pension, same as an ISA, is just a wrapper, the above makes very little sense.Why don't you just transfer your pension into a SIPP then you can hold the shares directly and buy and sell as and when you want. You'll be surprised as the amount of costs you incur if you frequently trade, even ignoring the cost of your time.
crankedup said:
Looking forward to reading Sidicks return post regarding your points, he/she will take issue for sure.
Only those bits which are fundamentally wrong, obviously.crankedup said:
Me? I agree wholeheartedly
With your anylisis, the pension fund industry is coming under investigation which is long overdue imo, talk of company coasting just meeting average is not exactly confidence inspiring when people rely upon them for their retirement income.
You keep making the same claims, and repeatedly misunderstand the issues.With your anylisis, the pension fund industry is coming under investigation which is long overdue imo, talk of company coasting just meeting average is not exactly confidence inspiring when people rely upon them for their retirement income.
Your mention of costs involved with buying and selling admitting how these costs rack up. These costs need to be investigated and no doubt will be, obviously fair charge rates are not objectionable, neither is a fair profit. Those Companies operating as such should welcome investigation as a means of bring the less scrupulous to less favourable reporting.
Edited by crankedup on Wednesday 11th May 22:18
No accountability being sought after the spectacular collapse of RBS. Not enough evidence apparently!!! Great if your a board member of a bank, you can run it into the ground and simply walk away with a fat pension. Having filled your boots with cash in the form of excessive pay and bonus payments of course.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Are you saying that there are no Companies in the pension fund market that do not coast? Let's wait for the reports following investigation.
Again you need to explain what you mean by coast?The fund manager's income is directly linked to the value of the fund - better performance means greater income and higher profitability. Why would they not mange the fund accordingly?
crankedup said:
Your mention of costs involved with buying and selling admitting how these costs rack up. These costs need to be investigated and no doubt will be, obviously fair charge rates are not objectionable, neither is a fair profit. Those Companies operating as such should welcome investigation as a means of bring the less scrupulous to less favourable reporting.
You implied that it was the fund management charges being investigated. As an example, a 1% management charge on pensions gives £6 for year 1 for someone paying £100 per month. That has to cover upfront costs (admin and marketing), commission (unless funded separately), ongoing admin, contribution to overheads etc and investment management, plus regulatory capital costs etc.
What do you think should be achievable for less than one hour of minimum wage?
It was you that brought he issue of charges racking up, I m agreeing. So far as the overall charges are concerned, I look forward to the investigators report. Maybe the industry will be found to be a bastion of integrity. I hope so, really.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Coast = not putting in maximum effort..
Do employees in other businesses put in maximum effort at all times?Regardless, you haven't explained why an investment management firm would act in a way that would reduce performance and hence their fee income (and the individual manager would reduce his potential bonus). It makes no sense.
crankedup said:
It was you that brought he issue of charges racking up, I m agreeing. So far as the overall charges are concerned, I look forward to the investigators report. Maybe the industry will be found to be a bastion of integrity. I hope so, really.
Once again you don't appear to understand what you are talking about - the only income the manager has is from the 1% AMC - that has to cover everything.When buying and selling assets, there are other costs - stamp duty, brokers fees etc which are incurred and passed on to the client. I've no idea what you think this has to do with the pension industry?
Now you continue to say that I do not understand what I am talking about, I trust that the investigations into the industry will perhaps throw some light onto the subject. Perhaps as you rightly say, other costs are relevant, but the issue is one of investment value, are we, as investors, truly being served to the best ability of those charged and paid ensuring best returns. I am not saying we are and equally I am not saying e re not, others will judge.
Hol said:
NOTE: Pension Fund Management and Asset Management have been very vocal in using the large shareholdings that they operate on behalf of people like Mr Whippy to influence and often lower the payments to CEO's and other C class executives.
First example I found on the interweb:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-3...
This has been a very long time coming, only pressure via the National media is prompting these actions. It's a start with a long way to go. For far to long these fund managers have simply grunted and nodded through massive hikes in Corporate Board pay, time for change.First example I found on the interweb:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-3...
Hol said:
crankedup said:
Hol said:
NOTE: Pension Fund Management and Asset Management have been very vocal in using the large shareholdings that they operate on behalf of people like Mr Whippy to influence and often lower the payments to CEO's and other C class executives.
First example I found on the interweb:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-3...
This has been a very long time coming, only pressure via the National media is prompting these actions. It's a start with a long way to go. For far to long these fund managers have simply grunted and nodded through massive hikes in Corporate Board pay, time for change.First example I found on the interweb:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-3...
Its just not 'news' enough to make the press.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
This has been a very long time coming, only pressure via the National media is prompting these actions. It's a start with a long way to go. For far to long these fund managers have simply grunted and nodded through massive hikes in Corporate Board pay, time for change.
Rubbish - it's been happening forever. Just that you don't know about it!sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Indeed so, although when a big player starts to play fairly that becomes newsworthy.
Except the key players have been doing this for years - in the last they just haven't had any problems with the remuneration, despite why you claim.sidicks said:
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. And that is where the old age problem lie. In the past 20 years the average CEO pay has grown from 247x median to 1000x median.. As sidicks himself admits ,they haven't, had a problem with this, you read it hear first'!!!!!
It's amazing how you read what you want to hear, but continually fail to understand.These are experts whose focus is on investing to achieve the best returns for their clients and whose interests are entirely aligned with those clients - if they thought that remuneration was excessive and would detract from company share / bond performance they would vote and / or invest / divest accordingly.
The alternative position is held by someone that frequently harps on about 'inequality', who seemingly believes that there is a magic number that is 'fair' for CEO salaries and median salaries, but fails to recognise the extent of changes in the role and requirements of the CEO which simply doesn't apply to the average worker. The same person has zero understanding of how fund managers are involved and engage with boards and their policies, including remuneration.
I know which side is best informed to make those decisions / judgements...
As I have mentioned several times, let's wait for the outcome of the investigatory board. As for changes to the role of CEO of the FTSE companies, I don't buy it. Next you will be telling us they work 25 hours a day.
sidicks said:
Except the key players have been doing this for years - in the last they just haven't had any problems with the remuneration, despite why you claim.
Your innocent statement sums up in one sentence the whole problem surrounding CEO pay and fund manager lindifference to small shareholders concerns and real world life for ordinary workers. Like I have said for years, Fund Managers simply wave through any pay board recommendations.sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Your innocent statement sums up in one sentence the whole problem surrounding CEO pay and fund manager lindifference to small shareholders concerns and real world life for ordinary workers.
Small shareholders making judgements on the basis of ignorance or envy are not the sort of people who should be deciding on corporate policy.ceankedup said:
Like I have said for years, Fund Managers simply wave through any pay board recommendations.
You've said lots of things that are incorrect (and continue to do so).Fund managers are aligned to do the right thing for the business - they need the businesses to perform to increase shareholder value.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
No matter what you may think of small shareholders, they and in some companies, we are the owners of the company.
Indeed, the owners are entitled to run the businesses as they see fit. You just seem to be in denial that the larger shareholders do exactly that.crankedup said:
You really are just another pen pusher button presser that appears to have lost sight of values.
Please stop making personal remarks about things you demonstrably know nothing about.As a reminder:
crankedup said:
I have no objection at all to a good debate or argument, but to simply post this personal insult with worse to follow is unacceptable.
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 18th May 20:37
This is about CEO and Board pay, not the running of the company, you seem to be confused.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff