Pigs at the trough 2016

[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'

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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:

[crankedup]

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

100% agree, but we can't have any impact upon pay board recommendations, that is us small shareholders. And that is the crux of my dissatisfaction with the current system. Small shareholders are of course allowed to vote regards pay board recommendations, but our votes are non binding or put another way, advisory. The board are not obliged to accept and implement any small shareholder votes on the matter, they are non binding. And that is the most annoying part of the process.

[crankedup]

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?

[crankedup]

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.

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

[crankedup]

legzr1 said:

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.

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.

[crankedup]

Hol said:

sidicks said:

legzr1 said:

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.

Sorry, didn't you get the memo?

Apparently, rather than justify your comments you can simply respond with:

legzr1 said:

There is no need

Is it just me, or does he also remind you of the whingey interrogator in a really ste low budget spy movie.
You know the one I mean - he tells the good guys friend he is lying, even she he is telling the truth, because it wasn't what he wanted to hear.

You financial institution types are not supposed to have fertile imaginations, careful you may start enjoying yourself.

[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

[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.