Directors' pay up 50% in a YEAR
Discussion
chim said:
As for your nonsense about how much more the poor old pensioners would receive if we cut the wages of the greedy fund mangers, yea they would fly up, would probably gain them at least another 10p a week if they are really cut back in wages. Have you any concept at all of how large your average pension fund is, its many billions.
Pension funds are worth billions. Therefore it is party time if you are charging a 1.5% "management fee" no matter how well you do. This soon eats into the long term growth of a pension growing at 5% a year. And seriously reduces it if investment growth is flat or negative. In the last 3 years pension returns have fallen by 30%
Pension fund managers pay has gone up at least 50%
A typical UK private pension pays half as much as a private pension elsewhere in Europe. Thr UK pays its pension fund managers the most.
You might not have problem with rewarding failure and ripping off pensioners, but I do.
shauniebabes said:
He was a shareholder with a 2.5 Billion Dollar stake. And note he bought them, he wasn't given them. If Jobs was so good then only a bunch of idiots would fire him. These idiots being the other members of the Apple board, who as directors, you would have no problem paying high wages to.
You really have no clue what you are talking about, "he bought them". Of course he never "bought them". He returned to Apple on the back of Apple's purchase of his company NeXT. He was given share options, he was paid by performance, in fact he never picked up a wage. No, sorry, he did, 1 dollar. His main wealth in fact came from his shares in Disney in which he was the primary share holder. This came about when Disney purchased Pixar, a company jobs and bought for 10 million back in 86 and had developed into one of the largest in the Industry.As for the board being Idiots, again, you really need to research before spouting dumb comments. Gates was a wild card, Apple where struggling at the time he left, in fact the guy that eventually got him out was the one he had brought in, John Scully, the CEO of Pepsi Co. This is the guy that managed to lead Pepsi to the position where it overtook Coke as the market leading brand, an immense achievement. Scully and Jobs fell out and Jobs tried to lead a Boardroom coup against him to get him out, he lost. Jobs was a complete wild card and control freak, his staff where on the whole terrified of him and he was highly erratic, a complete Genius but very unhinged. Even Jobs acknowledges that there was very little he could have done at the time to turn around Apple and leaving was the best move he could make. This allowed him to start creating again and he came up with NeXT which eventually formed the basis for OSx.
So as for the Apple board being Idiots, just another rather silly comment from you.
chim said:
What is exactly is your point here, this only proves that not everyone is perfect, applegarth f
ked up, he is not the first and will not be the last.
I suppose you are absolutely perfect and have never screwed up. The difference here is that he had more to lose as he had fought his way to the top and when it was unraveling he tried to cover his mistakes.
Can you explain what he had to lose (as well as Fred the Shred and the boss of HBOS) ?ked up, he is not the first and will not be the last.I suppose you are absolutely perfect and have never screwed up. The difference here is that he had more to lose as he had fought his way to the top and when it was unraveling he tried to cover his mistakes.
If myself, or anybody else, made a mess of their job the'd be sacked with at most a months pay. They wouldn't be rewarded by being a millionaire for the rest of their lives
shauniebabes said:
Pension funds are worth billions. Therefore it is party time if you are charging a 1.5% "management fee" no matter how well you do. This soon eats into the long term growth of a pension growing at 5% a year. And seriously reduces it if investment growth is flat or negative.
In the last 3 years pension returns have fallen by 30%
Pension fund managers pay has gone up at least 50%
A typical UK private pension pays half as much as a private pension elsewhere in Europe. Thr UK pays its pension fund managers the most.
You might not have problem with rewarding failure and ripping off pensioners, but I do.
Aren't statistics just great, yes and that all the fault of the greedy fund manager. Do you actually think there is one little guy in a room somewhere picking up that 1.5% percent. It a fIn the last 3 years pension returns have fallen by 30%
Pension fund managers pay has gone up at least 50%
A typical UK private pension pays half as much as a private pension elsewhere in Europe. Thr UK pays its pension fund managers the most.
You might not have problem with rewarding failure and ripping off pensioners, but I do.
king company that charges this to manage it you pillock. Have you also noticed the fact that the previous Governments mismanagement of the Economy has managed to get us where we are today, the stock markets have been in free fall, the fact the fund managers have actually got a return on the funds at all is a bit of a miracle.Tell you what mate, you pop your funds out of the pension and try doing it yourself. Lets see how long your money lasts. Oh wait I hear you cry, you don't have the skills to do that, its to high risk.
Well here is an idea, give the money to someone that does have the skills and pay them to do it for you. Oh wait, thats the fund managers. Wonder if they would do it for nothing for me.
If you don't like what they charge you are perfectly welcome to do it yourself, tell me something. If a plumber comes in to fix your sink and charges you to much (or what you think is to much) what do you do, I know, go somewhere else next time. You have the same option for your pension, shop around, if you think the company is badly managed and pays its staff to much find one you are happy with. If you can't and you are a miserable git that is not prepared to pay market rates, go do it yourself. You will quickly find out why they charge what they do.
chim said:
As for the board being Idiots, again, you really need to research before spouting dumb comments. Gates was a wild card, Apple where struggling at the time he left, in fact the guy that eventually got him out was the one he had brought in, John Scully, the CEO of Pepsi Co. This is the guy that managed to lead Pepsi to the position where it overtook Coke as the market leading brand, an immense achievement. Scully and Jobs fell out and Jobs tried to lead a Boardroom coup against him to get him out, he lost. Jobs was a complete wild card and control freak, his staff where on the whole terrified of him and he was highly erratic, a complete Genius but very unhinged. Even Jobs acknowledges that there was very little he could have done at the time to turn around Apple and leaving was the best move he could make. This allowed him to start creating again and he came up with NeXT which eventually formed the basis for OSx.
So as for the Apple board being Idiots, just another rather silly comment from you.
They sacked someone who you freely admit was a genius after squabbling like small children. Not exactly an advert for high executive pay.So as for the Apple board being Idiots, just another rather silly comment from you.
shauniebabes said:
Can you explain what he had to lose (as well as Fred the Shred and the boss of HBOS) ?
If myself, or anybody else, made a mess of their job the'd be sacked with at most a months pay. They wouldn't be rewarded by being a millionaire for the rest of their lives
Oh for god sake, this is like trying to teach 2 year old to count.If myself, or anybody else, made a mess of their job the'd be sacked with at most a months pay. They wouldn't be rewarded by being a millionaire for the rest of their lives
Right, lets take old Applegarth. Lets start with the fact the he was a clever bloke, when the company where doing well and growing exponentially everyone loved him, the staff loved him, the board loved him, the markets loved him, the shareholders loved him. As stated, he was clever and negotioted a rather could contract which included termination clauses.
Then along came the crash, he had overstretched the mortgage book and some of this looked a bit dodgy based on the current and forecast market conditions. Fear took over and it was thought that default would cripple the bank. Lots of sensationalist press and a run on the bank commenced. Government step in and take over.
Now, move forward to present day (this by the way is something I know a lot about) and the bank has been remodeled, it is broken out and separated into to distinct entities, the so called good bank and the Bad bank. What the difference, well the good bank has all the savings account and about 20% of the Mortgages. The so called bad bank (NRAM) now has all the so called bad debt, which is in fact 80% of the mortgages. The Government will now always own the bad bank and will run it till the Mortgage book is gone, the good bank gets resold.
Now here's the good bit, the so called bad bank is actually doing a lot better than the good bank. It turns out that all those so called "dodgy mortgages" are actually doing rather well thank you, to the tune of some 250 million a month. The default rate on them is actually in line with all other default rates on all other banks Mortgage books. It turns out that the low interest rate means people can actually afford to pay these deals, as the years pass the security of this book will grow and grow as inflation takes care of any disparity that was in place back in the day.
So, back to our old Mr Applegarth, he never actually committed ANY crime, the bank he built is actually not to bad and in the long run will make our good old Government a s
t load of cash and already is in fact. His crime then, he managed to right a nice little termination contract, what a bd, had the the Government failed to honour this contract he would have sued their ass off as he had never actually done anything illegally, some bad calls yes.As for Sir Fred, one big mistake there, it was called ABN Amro. Had Barclays secured the deal back then (they where inches away from it) it would be them that are currently Government owned. Fred rode the wave of acquisitions, sub prime f
ked him. Again, smart guy with a good contract, he had not broken the law and like the vast majority of the rest of us his crime was he never saw the crash coming.Edited by chim on Sunday 30th October 10:48
shauniebabes said:
They sacked someone who you freely admit was a genius after squabbling like small children. Not exactly an advert for high executive pay.
Oh for gods sake grow up, so far I have managed to completely destroy every word and silly daily wail comment you have made and this is the best you manage to come back with, you really are a poor opponent of views and I was hoping for a lot better than this.Have they extended half term were you live.
Edited by chim on Sunday 30th October 10:47
chim said:
Aren't statistics just great, yes and that all the fault of the greedy fund manager. Do you actually think there is one little guy in a room somewhere picking up that 1.5% percent. It a fking company that charges this to manage it you pillock. Have you also noticed the fact that the previous Governments mismanagement of the Economy has managed to get us where we are today, the stock markets have been in free fall, the fact the fund managers have actually got a return on the funds at all is a bit of a miracle.
A typical City "heads I win, tails you lose" response.king company that charges this to manage it you pillock. Have you also noticed the fact that the previous Governments mismanagement of the Economy has managed to get us where we are today, the stock markets have been in free fall, the fact the fund managers have actually got a return on the funds at all is a bit of a miracle.Fund goes down - "Its Market conditions, nothing to do with us Guv."
Fund goes up - "Nothing to do with the Market, its our superb investment skills. Give us more money"
CEOs use simliar language in the annual report.
chim said:
Tell you what mate, you pop your funds out of the pension and try doing it yourself. Lets see how long your money lasts. Oh wait I hear you cry, you don't have the skills to do that, its to high risk.
Well here is an idea, give the money to someone that does have the skills and pay them to do it for you. Oh wait, thats the fund managers. Wonder if they would do it for nothing for me.
I have nothing wrong with paying people to manage my money. I do have a problem with being ripped off. British pension funds rip people off. Well here is an idea, give the money to someone that does have the skills and pay them to do it for you. Oh wait, thats the fund managers. Wonder if they would do it for nothing for me.
chim said:
If you don't like what they charge you are perfectly welcome to do it yourself, tell me something. If a plumber comes in to fix your sink and charges you to much (or what you think is to much) what do you do, I know, go somewhere else next time. You have the same option for your pension, shop around, if you think the company is badly managed and pays its staff to much find one you are happy with. If you can't and you are a miserable git that is not prepared to pay market rates, go do it yourself. You will quickly find out why they charge what they do.
Imagine looking in yellow pages for a plumber. You find one who charges too much and is useless. The next one charges too much and is useless. And the next. In fact you find out they all do. When you are forced to employ one to stop the house flooding you ask why they charge so much for a poor service. They reply "Thats the going rate, what ya gonna do ?". Thats how pension funds work in this country.shauniebabes said:
chim said:
Aren't statistics just great, yes and that all the fault of the greedy fund manager. Do you actually think there is one little guy in a room somewhere picking up that 1.5% percent. It a fking company that charges this to manage it you pillock. Have you also noticed the fact that the previous Governments mismanagement of the Economy has managed to get us where we are today, the stock markets have been in free fall, the fact the fund managers have actually got a return on the funds at all is a bit of a miracle.
A typical City "heads I win, tails you lose" response.king company that charges this to manage it you pillock. Have you also noticed the fact that the previous Governments mismanagement of the Economy has managed to get us where we are today, the stock markets have been in free fall, the fact the fund managers have actually got a return on the funds at all is a bit of a miracle.Fund goes down - "Its Market conditions, nothing to do with us Guv."
Fund goes up - "Nothing to do with the Market, its our superb investment skills. Give us more money"
CEOs use simliar language in the annual report.
chim said:
Tell you what mate, you pop your funds out of the pension and try doing it yourself. Lets see how long your money lasts. Oh wait I hear you cry, you don't have the skills to do that, its to high risk.
Well here is an idea, give the money to someone that does have the skills and pay them to do it for you. Oh wait, thats the fund managers. Wonder if they would do it for nothing for me.
I have nothing wrong with paying people to manage my money. I do have a problem with being ripped off. British pension funds rip people off. Well here is an idea, give the money to someone that does have the skills and pay them to do it for you. Oh wait, thats the fund managers. Wonder if they would do it for nothing for me.
chim said:
If you don't like what they charge you are perfectly welcome to do it yourself, tell me something. If a plumber comes in to fix your sink and charges you to much (or what you think is to much) what do you do, I know, go somewhere else next time. You have the same option for your pension, shop around, if you think the company is badly managed and pays its staff to much find one you are happy with. If you can't and you are a miserable git that is not prepared to pay market rates, go do it yourself. You will quickly find out why they charge what they do.
Imagine looking in yellow pages for a plumber. You find one who charges too much and is useless. The next one charges too much and is useless. And the next. In fact you find out they all do. When you are forced to employ one to stop the house flooding you ask why they charge so much for a poor service. They reply "Thats the going rate, what ya gonna do ?". Thats how pension funds work in this country."Never argue with an idiot, they will just drag you down to their level and beat you up with experience"
I feel that I am in just such a situation.
You are incapable of stating any specific cases, this no doubt is due your lack of knowledge other than that gained from gutter headlines, if you really want to learn something and move forward in your life may I suggest that you take the time to research the facts prior to parroting the gutter press that make a huge amount for their companies by spurting crap to idiots that soak it up as gospel.
If you take the time to do this, understand how these funds and companies operate you may then be able to spot opportunities, realise what a good investment actually is and be able to avoid the inevitable under performers. Most of all you might actually wake up to yourself.
Knowledge is a great thing, just a shme you don't actually have any.
turbobloke said:
shauniebabes said:
You might not have problem with rewarding failure and ripping off pensioners, but I do.
Regarding failure suggest sending concerns c/o Labour Party.Regarding ripping off pensioners through pension raids and 10p gestures, suggest sending concerns c/o Gordon Clown.
shauniebabes said:
Why, is he one of the 75% of large pension fund managers who return less than the stock market index (ie what you'd get picking enough stocks at random) and charge you between 1% and 1.5% of your capital for the privilege?
Try Googling "Gordon Brown raid on pensions", and then carry on moaning about 1.5% charges. I agree that the charges should be lower, but they are miniscule when compared to the slaughter wreaked by Brown.Don
--
shauniebabes said:
Why, is he one of the 75% of large pension fund managers who return less than the stock market index (ie what you'd get picking enough stocks at random) and charge you between 1% and 1.5% of your capital for the privilege?
Away again. Lets go for the specifics shall we, this is something you are not very good with, when joe blogs pays into his pension he has a choice, if you take out a personal pension you are asked a huge ream of questions on your attitude to risk, this then dictates the type of portfolio in which your money will be invested. Government regulation plays a HUGE part on how your money is managed by the fund holders, invariable these funds are hugely risk averse with all sorts of limits placed on them to avoid said risk. In effect that means they are placed in steady as you go shares. In slow markets the performance of these shares is not exactly earth shattering, they are restricted to very modest growth and that has been witnessed by these funds WORLDWIDE. If on the other hand you chose to take risk you could go for emerging markets, start ups etc, some of these funds have seen massive growth, 600% in some cases, on the down side you can also lose very heavily. Blaming fund managers is more than dumb, as for the Public sector, you will find that it the Government to blame here, due to the usual inept management the Government has stripped billions from their pension funds, pension funds that already invested in some of the poorest return portfolios available. Nothing to do with fund managers, if your fund manager is told that he can not take risk he will NOT take risk and will invest in the old reliables.
Edited by chim on Sunday 30th October 12:25
don4l said:
shauniebabes said:
Why, is he one of the 75% of large pension fund managers who return less than the stock market index (ie what you'd get picking enough stocks at random) and charge you between 1% and 1.5% of your capital for the privilege?
Try Googling "Gordon Brown raid on pensions", and then carry on moaning about 1.5% charges. I agree that the charges should be lower, but they are miniscule when compared to the slaughter wreaked by Brown.Don
--
Just one more point on the 1.5%, if you really want to cut this perhaps you could start with the Government again, if you had ever worked ofr a pension house you would realise just how much effort is taken up with adhering to regulation, at a guess I would say that 30% of the workforce are employed in ensuring that the company meets with all the regulation and red tape that they are tied up in. All of these organisations dance to the FSA's fiddle, if the FSA say jump these organisation say how high. Every company is terrified of the FSA, if action points come out of audits (and there are many many audits) the directors take personal ownership for these actions and they MUST be addressed, responded to and closed off.
Will give you one small example, recent audit found that an organisation was told to keep Email for 20 years in one audit, this audit was at the height of the collapse. An audit this year stated that this was an excessive time to keep data and it was against the data protection act. So two different finding from two different government audit bodies, it is costing said company some 5k a day to keep all this data and rising. So now the company is trying to get clarity on its obligation from said Government bodies, guess what, its a fking nightmare and is tying up lots of resource and costing a fortune. All because the good old Government could not make a decision in a convulsion.
Guess what, this cost has to go somewhere, guess where it goes.
Will give you one small example, recent audit found that an organisation was told to keep Email for 20 years in one audit, this audit was at the height of the collapse. An audit this year stated that this was an excessive time to keep data and it was against the data protection act. So two different finding from two different government audit bodies, it is costing said company some 5k a day to keep all this data and rising. So now the company is trying to get clarity on its obligation from said Government bodies, guess what, its a f
king nightmare and is tying up lots of resource and costing a fortune. All because the good old Government could not make a decision in a convulsion.Guess what, this cost has to go somewhere, guess where it goes.
turbobloke said:
don4l said:
shauniebabes said:
Why, is he one of the 75% of large pension fund managers who return less than the stock market index (ie what you'd get picking enough stocks at random) and charge you between 1% and 1.5% of your capital for the privilege?
Try Googling "Gordon Brown raid on pensions", and then carry on moaning about 1.5% charges. I agree that the charges should be lower, but they are miniscule when compared to the slaughter wreaked by Brown.I think I need an Aspirin.
Anyway, it is always fun watching socialists getting proved wrong while they think that they are winning the debate.
Don
--
I am pretty surprised that the usual PH suspects are defending the management/director class here against the shareholders. i would think the vast majority of defenders on here own their own business and would be pretty shocked if their managers colluded to transfer vast swathes of wealth at times when the company wasn't performing.
There is no real defence for the recent transfer of wealth from shareholders to boardroom - just lax corporate governance.
There is no real defence for the recent transfer of wealth from shareholders to boardroom - just lax corporate governance.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff