At last Shareholders speak-Barclays Bank

[crankedup]

Good to see Vince Cable's policy idea's is having influence, we understand that the major shareholders of Barclays are demanding, yes thats correct, DEMANDING, an improvement in performance of the bank within three months before 2.7 million pounds bonus is released to the C.O. This should signal the start of reality in the banks and corporations that 'out of this world' remunerations at the top cannot continue.

[crankedup]

Following a week away I come back to find zero interest in the Barclays Bank shareholders anger over the top bankers remuneration. Now we expect to see other shareholders follow the lead to start bringing down these 'out of real world' remunerations in other banks and Corporations.

[crankedup]

Edinburger said:

Only corporate and institutional share holders will be listened to though.

Why do you suppose that? Although I agree that it is most likely those two groups that must hold the lions share of the shares. Not sure when V.Cables policy suggestion of shareholders votes to be binding rather than the current arrangement of them being non-binding.
Either way this is all quite damaging for the banks top employees.

[crankedup]

Liszt said:

Because apart from the special write downs they made £2 billion profit?

More likely being the Chairman has admitted that the banks performance last year was simply not good enough to warrant the remunerations. Shareholders are seething over the issue. About bloody time these corporate shareholders started to look after the interests of the small shareholder who has his portfolio under management companies.

[crankedup]

DJRC said:

crankedup said:

Edinburger said:

Only corporate and institutional share holders will be listened to though.

Why do you suppose that? Although I agree that it is most likely those two groups that must hold the lions share of the shares. Not sure when V.Cables policy suggestion of shareholders votes to be binding rather than the current arrangement of them being non-binding.
Either way this is all quite damaging for the banks top employees.

Well it isnt really is it? Shareholders...and dont forget the call Barc put out for more private investor dosh...agreed the package in the first place so that was the carrot, now they are applying the stick. This is normal capitalist behavior. Its only an additional 2.7m aswell, dont forget Bobby boy has already pocketed several million. Your OP was also about 2 months late, as he got grilled in the performance report back then and was told it was only 50% acceptable.

Nothing late about my post, I was on about shareholders shouting out about excessive remuneration packages months ago. PH said at the time that I was *&%%&*$$^(*. I also disagree with your assertion that this is 'normal' capitalistic behaviour, whilst I agree that high performance must be recognised and rewarded those of us outside of the square mile seen those rewards as overblown and cutting short shareholders.

[crankedup]

Soovy said:

crankedup said:

Following a week away I come back to find zero interest in the Barclays Bank shareholders anger over the top bankers remuneration. Now we expect to see other shareholders follow the lead to start bringing down these 'out of real world' remunerations in other banks and Corporations.

That's because no one is interested



If they don't like it they should sell their shares, which as it happens they are doing very well out of.

No surprise you raised this, and no suprise that no one gives a sh t.

Only the misguided do not give a monkeys. Do you not see the time of overblown self reward is on the way out or are you deluding yourself. Remember the shareholders are the bosses.

[crankedup]

RYH64E said:

crankedup said:

Only the misguided do not give a monkeys. Do you not see the time of overblown self reward is on the way out or are you deluding yourself. Remember the shareholders are the bosses.

In my opinion the shareholders are the only ones entitled to question pay/profit levels within the bank. I'm not a shareholder of Barclays and as such I couldn't care less how much of the profits are distributed to shareholders and how much paid to executives, it's not my business and not my problem - it's also not the Government's concern and certainly nothing to do with Joe Public.

Well at least you concede the shareholders have a legitimate interest, the point is that most people saving into a pension scheme will have an interest in banking shares. Given that is the case most people will have a POV on the matter of remuneration within banks, whether they wish to express that POV or not is their concern, as you mention. This brings me to the public perceptions and how this is affecting society in general, not to mention that the investment banks had a role within the European and American financial collapse. Society it seems is deeply offended that top exec's can still be rewarded as though nothing has changed since 2008. Personally I see this as a problem which is not going away any time soon. (we are all in this together) has focused minds into unfairness.

[crankedup]

Use Psychology said:

crankedup said:

Edinburger said:

Only corporate and institutional share holders will be listened to though.

Why do you suppose that?

because they are all on each other's remuneration boards.

Thank you, for a while I didn't believe anyone would accept that.

[crankedup]

Use Psychology said:

it's the main reason we are seeing the massive inflation in executive pay which is categorically not in the interests of shareholders. It's clearly a 'you pat my back and I'll pat your's' arrangement. otherwise insurance and pension funds would look to minimise executive pay and maximise dividends.

Indeed, we are both of the same opinion regards this issue.

[crankedup]

RYH64E said:

crankedup said:

Well at least you concede the shareholders have a legitimate interest, the point is that most people saving into a pension scheme will have an interest in banking shares. Given that is the case most people will have a POV on the matter of remuneration within banks, whether they wish to express that POV or not is their concern, as you mention. This brings me to the public perceptions and how this is affecting society in general, not to mention that the investment banks had a role within the European and American financial collapse. Society it seems is deeply offended that top exec's can still be rewarded as though nothing has changed since 2008. Personally I see this as a problem which is not going away any time soon. (we are all in this together) has focused minds into unfairness.

My personal opinion is that bank employees at the highest level have been paid far too much for what has been pretty appalling performance, certainly in terms of share price for long term investors, and that rewards have been unfairly skewed towards employees rather than shareholders. If I were a shareholder I wouldn't be happy, but I'm not, I hold no Barclays shares and decided many years ago that pensions were a waste of money, so don't have any interest there either. Maybe a passing interest in Lloyds and RBS but imo the bigger mistake there was in not letting them go bust in the first place.

I do find it ironic to hear those on the left complaining about employees being paid too much, to the detriment of the evil, capitalist shareholders. I thought that the socialist ideal would be for the employees to be paid as much as possible, leaving nothing for the shareholders.

Well I don't know about the left complaining but my own concern over the issue is more centralist being how society is affected by excessive reward packages, not just in the U.K either. The political implications are also of concern, or should be, to us all.

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

RYH64E said:

crankedup said:

Well at least you concede the shareholders have a legitimate interest, the point is that most people saving into a pension scheme will have an interest in banking shares. Given that is the case most people will have a POV on the matter of remuneration within banks, whether they wish to express that POV or not is their concern, as you mention. This brings me to the public perceptions and how this is affecting society in general, not to mention that the investment banks had a role within the European and American financial collapse. Society it seems is deeply offended that top exec's can still be rewarded as though nothing has changed since 2008. Personally I see this as a problem which is not going away any time soon. (we are all in this together) has focused minds into unfairness.

My personal opinion is that bank employees at the highest level have been paid far too much for what has been pretty appalling performance, certainly in terms of share price for long term investors, and that rewards have been unfairly skewed towards employees rather than shareholders. If I were a shareholder I wouldn't be happy, but I'm not, I hold no Barclays shares and decided many years ago that pensions were a waste of money, so don't have any interest there either. Maybe a passing interest in Lloyds and RBS but imo the bigger mistake there was in not letting them go bust in the first place.

I do find it ironic to hear those on the left complaining about employees being paid too much, to the detriment of the evil, capitalist shareholders. I thought that the socialist ideal would be for the employees to be paid as much as possible, leaving nothing for the shareholders.

So I am a Barclays shareholder and bought a reasonable sum of shares in early 2009 and I have zero problem with the way the company is ran. I have seen my shareholding basically double in value over the period I have held them and I have had some dividend return on them also.

Also this is a business paying its Chief Exec <1% of its profit, can someone PLEASE for the love of god tell me what is wrong with that?

Your one happy individual holding some shares then, fine. Its a matter of the bulk remaining shareholders not sharing your view that is at the heart of this debate, as pointed out earlier those long term investors.

[crankedup]

jimothy said:

Maybe I'm being thick here (I've just got back from a beer festival so could be why), but according to the bad journalism of the BBC, 26.9% of those who voted said no.

Or, to be more correct:

73.1% of the voters spoke and said they're happy with the renumeration package.

Including abstainers, 31% against, or, to put it more accurately, 69% for.


So yes, they have spoken and its not what is claimed in the OP.

Almost one third of shareholders voted against the remuneration package. Hardly something the bank can be proud of and should be of deep concern to them. Just a decade ago this number would have been less than 10%. We are not talking of a few disgruntled, these are people who own the business.

[crankedup]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

heppers75 said:

So I am a Barclays shareholder and bought a reasonable sum of shares in early 2009 and I have zero problem with the way the company is ran. I have seen my shareholding basically double in value over the period I have held them and I have had some dividend return on them also.

Also this is a business paying its Chief Exec <1% of its profit, can someone PLEASE for the love of god tell me what is wrong with that?

What's wrong with it is that Bob Diamond is hugely successful, and I'm not, so rather than face up to the fact that he deserves to earn tonnes more than me, I reserve the right to bh and moan about it like an spoilt brat.

In my case I find it abhorrent that the employees of this particular bank are taking three times more in remuneration packages then is being distributed to shareholders. That is quite clearly wrong and it has to be corrected.

[crankedup]

RYH64E said:

heppers75 said:

SO just how is the remuneration package of the man that was not in charge at that point and has been in charge through a period where the share price and profits have increased something that should be moaned about? Surely he is doing exactly that job he is being very handsomely remunerated for is he not?

You could have said exactly the same about the man in charge up to the point in 2007 when everything went wrong.

I'm not comfortable with employees being paid huge sums without having the risk that shareholders carry. I have no problem with business owners earning whatever they can, especially those who risk their own money (like me...).

Indeed, and there lies a rub, people who risk their own capital and succeed are to be applauded, if they then go on to reap huge rewards then good for them, I have absolutely no problem with that. Its employees that are raiding company profits and self rewarding on an epic scale that is simply unsustainable both financially and politically, to say nothing of morals.

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

RYH64E said:

heppers75 said:

A very laudable post sir, I will however I am afraid to say ask the question again but perhaps do so slightly more directly.

Do any of your 10 employees get paid a wage and or wage + bonus that equals say a single digit percentage of your profit?

Of course, my turnover and profits are very modest in the grand scheme of things so salaries and bonuses represent a very large percentage of both turmover and profit.

Let me ask you a question, do you think that the bank executives in post leading up to the crash of 2007/2008 were worth the salary and bonuses they were paid in the preceding years?

Which was always going to be the answer, so therefore what I do not understand is that why is that a formula you are happy to propagate but not support?

As for your question - By and large yes, they were employees of businesses that were posting profits that sustained their remuneration. Did those people at those points make good decisions no they did not and I believe it is why they are no longer in those positions. Much like I suspect if one of your sales folks failed to perform you would get rid of him/her but by the same token I do not think you would hold his/her sucessor responsible for his/her predecessors mistakes - or would you? As you do seem to be doing that with regards to this argument.

I feel you are missing one vital ingredient in your counter points. We are in a very different world now, post 2008. The irksome point is that for those at the top of the tree very little has changed regarding remunerations, it is this 'we are alright mate' attitude accepting self rewarded overblown packages that is not acceptable to the vast majority of the society we live in. The party is over and the sooner its realized from the top the better for all. The real bosses of Barclays have spoken and the employees need to react in the manner expected by shareholders. At long last Insurance Company bosses are now voicing serious concerns over excessive bankers pay, the ball is rolling and will gather momentum rapidly.

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

So sorry chaps you still are not addressing the point where this thread started and as far as Barclays is concerned I am afraid the facts are unassailable and they are: -

1 - It never took a penny of bail out money
2 - It has consistently posted good profits
3 - Executive pay is and has always been even in the leanest of years a tiny fraction of a percentage of its profits.

If any of those above conditions were not met I would have all the sympathy in the world for the arguments being made and I would be banging the drum with you.

However they are all met and all that has been heard in contrary position to the actual pretty simple and logical facts above is quasi communist rhetoric and very petty envious comments about amounts of money involved.

You earlier mention your business ethos by the reward packages within your own company and those that you know. For my part I have acknowledged, indeed agree with the bonus culture of reward for extra performance. Also I strongly believe in the M@S business culture of shared ownership. What I do not agree with is the self reward over large rewards witnessed in many Corporations and banks, more so when it is ahead of shareholder distribution. You seem to over look the issue of shareholders rights and continually use the 'envy' which is frankly tiresome and not relevant.
Further more, although Barclays did not directly receive 'bail out' money this is not relevant to the debate, although I would assume Barclays along with almost all other banks befitting indirectly from the RBS bail out.
We are never going to agree on this subject but I will suggest that my argument seems to sit with a huge part of the media and society in general, not forgetting that the Insurance Companies are now becoming involved by uttering their disquiet thoughts over reward packages. This is simply shareholders of Insurance Companies now getting involved.

[crankedup]

10 Pence Short said:

crankedup said:

I feel you are missing one vital ingredient in your counter points. We are in a very different world now, post 2008. The irksome point is that for those at the top of the tree very little has changed regarding remunerations, it is this 'we are alright mate' attitude accepting self rewarded overblown packages that is not acceptable to the vast majority of the society we live in. The party is over and the sooner its realized from the top the better for all. The real bosses of Barclays have spoken and the employees need to react in the manner expected by shareholders. At long last Insurance Company bosses are now voicing serious concerns over excessive bankers pay, the ball is rolling and will gather momentum rapidly.

You could always hire a guy prepared to do the job for £500,000 a year. The chances are your shares would soon be worth sweet FA.

FFS, Barclays are one of those companies being seemingly well managed at a time when many are failing to provide value. If you're not prepared for those delivering that good management to be remunerated in line with the industry (the free industry, not that pot-of-st publicly bailed out rubbish), then I really don't know how you reconcile the concept of holding stocks at all?

Your completely missing the point, this tired out old nonsense of having to pay top money for the best is simply common sense. However that top money is now completely out of control and this is even acknowledged by some top business people. Why should owners (shareholders) sell their stock because they rate the remuneration packages as excessive. For me its long over due that a complete top down review is now taking place.

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

In my case I find it abhorrent that the employees of this particular bank are taking three times more in remuneration packages then is being distributed to shareholders. That is quite clearly wrong and it has to be corrected.

Erm is that even factually accurate?

I believe that there are billions of Barclays shares in circulation see here... http://reports.barclays.com/ar11/governance/direct... if you look in the table towards the bottom the four major holders have the best part of 3bn shares which equates to about 23% looking at the same table.

So that means just for those shareholders alone at 6p dividend they have had £180m no?

Or have I messed up my maths somewhere (I have form for that FYI!)?

If indeed I have not cocked up then the payout to shareholders VASTLY exceeds Executive pay.

Edited by heppers75 on Sunday 29th April 12:43

Your sums are different to what I have read, however I must confess and now realize that the distribution is 27% of profit. The shareholders are not screaming from the roof tops for no good reason.

[crankedup]

otolith said:

crankedup said:

In my case I find it abhorrent that the employees of this particular bank are taking three times more in remuneration packages then is being distributed to shareholders. That is quite clearly wrong and it has to be corrected.

Shareholders are paid out of net profit. Money required to pay the wages bill was never part of net profit, it was part of the cost of running the business. If shareholders feel that they can increase their profit by squeezing pay, that's their gamble to take, but it isn't some kind of moral issue of entitlement.

I'm sure there are plenty of businesses in which the pay bill is considerably larger than the amount the shareholders receive, there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

I suspect that you object to some people being very much richer than others and the rest of your argument exists solely to justify that point of principle.

Your last para is wholly wrong and frankly rather junior. The fact that shareholders have had to endure seeing their rewards being pitiful is one thing but when its shares wrapped up within management funds that's another. It is these shareholders which are less able to demonstrate or take action against the matter directly. For those that have shares held directly it is of course a different matter as we have recently witnessed. I for one believe that top pay is out of control and has risen 400% over and above average increases over the past ten years apparently. Further, I would suggest that there are plenty of younger talents just itching to take on more responsibility into the Senior and top ranks of Companies without the multi million reward packages currently drawn.
In summary I would also suggest that it is a tiny minority which may agree with the views held by most on this forum and perhaps you should ask yourselves why that is.

[crankedup]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

crankedup said:

Your completely missing the point, this tired out old nonsense of having to pay top money for the best is simply common sense. However that top money is now completely out of control

It's only out of control when you're paying the person more than they are making you. Paying a bank CEO £17m a year to run a multinational bank that makes billions in profits is perfectly under control.

I pay the bloke who cuts my lawn and tidies my garden £25 a time. But I'd happily agree to pay him £25M if he could deliver £50m of buried treasure into my possession.

Eh! You again do not seem to grasp the problems associated with your beliefs which seem to be stuck in the past two decades. Its not simply a matter of 17m a year in pay, its the whole reward ethos and process that is out of control.