Directors' pay up 50% in a YEAR

[turbobloke]

johnfm said:

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.

???

[chim]

johnfm said:

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.

[NorthernBoy]

shauniebabes said:

Average FTSE wage £2.7 million
Averge Local Authority CEO £150,000

Now using your rules of paying people more atrracts tallent what the taxpayer should actually be doing is paying civil servants far more money.

No, that only works if you can also get rid of people for underperformance, too. In the civil service the opposite is too often the case; a bad staff member cannot be sacked, so they are promoted to get rid of them, and make them someone else's problem.

[elster]

shauniebabes said:

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.

Luckily it is almost a free market and you can have an overseas private pension.

If they were all so bad then people can vote with their feet.

[NorthernBoy]

elster said:

Luckily it is almost a free market and you can have an overseas private pension.

If they were all so bad then people can vote with their feet.

His is the normal poorly thought out rant at "worthless" financial companies. If you don't like what they offer, don't buy it. This is not like car insurance, where you are forced by law to be a customer, if you want to drive.

Every last person whining on here about the evil banks still uses them, because what they offer is worth more than the cost.

[Gaspode]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Me too. A couple of years ago, when I was 50, I enquired as to how large a pension pot I would need to accumulate over the next 10 years to increase my private pension income by another £1,000 per month. I was told I would need to raise £250,000 - or effectively 20 year's worth of the pension payouts! Sod that for a game of soldiers, better to buy a bit more land and some more gold sovereigns.

[shauniebabes]

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
--

Ripping someone off and claiming its ok because someone else is ripping them off more isn't much of a defence

[shauniebabes]

NorthernBoy said:

His is the normal poorly thought out rant at "worthless" financial companies. If you don't like what they offer, don't buy it. This is not like car insurance, where you are forced by law to be a customer, if you want to drive.

Every last person whining on here about the evil banks still uses them, because what they offer is worth more than the cost.

They use them because there is no other mechanism for getting paid. To use your car analogy its like saying drivers can't complain about the state of the roads because they drive on them.

[elster]

shauniebabes said:

NorthernBoy said:

His is the normal poorly thought out rant at "worthless" financial companies. If you don't like what they offer, don't buy it. This is not like car insurance, where you are forced by law to be a customer, if you want to drive.

Every last person whining on here about the evil banks still uses them, because what they offer is worth more than the cost.

They use them because there is no other mechanism for getting paid. To use your car analogy its like saying drivers can't complain about the state of the roads because they drive on them.

Yes there are other ways.

You mean you haven't looked into them

[crankedup]

I've resisted for a while but just have to repeat yet again, shareholders really do need to start exercising their votes. If some bloke came and picked your pocket in the street you would be unlikely to offer him your second pocket for a dip, so why do shareholders sit back and do exactly this.

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

I've resisted for a while but just have to repeat yet again, shareholders really do need to start exercising their votes. If some bloke came and picked your pocket in the street you would be unlikely to offer him your second pocket for a dip, so why do shareholders sit back and do exactly this.

Fair point, those materially involved in any situation they perceive as detrimental need not just sit back.

In general are some posts (not yours crankedup) differentiating insufficiently between plc and ltd?

[elster]

crankedup said:

I've resisted for a while but just have to repeat yet again, shareholders really do need to start exercising their votes. If some bloke came and picked your pocket in the street you would be unlikely to offer him your second pocket for a dip, so why do shareholders sit back and do exactly this.

This is the thing though, shareholders if they wanted could speak in an AGM or with their feet. As customers can by using a different company.

[crankedup]

elster said:

This is the thing though, shareholders if they wanted could speak in an AGM or with their feet. As customers can by using a different company.

Indeed, its all down to laziness of shareholders in the end. They receive a divi on top of perhaps a reasonable increase in share price. then think they are doing OK. Well they are, but could do even better by becoming 'engaged' with the Company they support.
The other problem is the Corporate shareholders, 'don't kick up a fuss old boy' oh by the by are you coming over for our bash this weekend? (cynical-me!)

[alfaman]

crankedup said:

Indeed, its all down to laziness of shareholders in the end. They receive a divi on top of perhaps a reasonable increase in share price. then think they are doing OK. Well they are, but could do even better by becoming 'engaged' with the Company they support.
The other problem is the Corporate shareholders, 'don't kick up a fuss old boy' oh by the by are you coming over for our bash this weekend? (cynical-me!)

it is not just the Corp shareholders - eg: with murdochs business the family control many of the shares - so the other shareholders never have enough % vote to force change .

In theory the indep directors are meant to look after minorities interests - but reality is very different : as ID's are dependent on ED's for their (lucrative) fees to sit on: BOD/ audit committee/ rem comm/ advisory consultancy projects/ other special work ....$$$$

[don4l]

shauniebabes 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.

Ripping someone off and claiming its ok because someone else is ripping them off more isn't much of a defence

I'm not defending the management charges. In fact I have already said that I think they are too high. I'm just wondering why you are so bothered about them.

After all, if you really gave a toss about the pension funds, then you would complain about Brown's involvement. Your hypocrisy on the matter is clear.


Don
--

[NorthernBoy]

shauniebabes said:

They use them because there is no other mechanism for getting paid. To use your car analogy its like saying drivers can't complain about the state of the roads because they drive on them.

OK, your wage goes in. You can turn up that day and withdraw it all in cash, and not use them again for the rest of the month. Do you, or do you have a cash card, direct debits, standing orders, and use them for your Internet shopping?

I'm sick to the back teeth of gobstes whining about banks and then filling their boots with their services, through choice, all month long. If I think that a company gives poor value, I don't use it. It's weak-minded hypocrisy to claim that they offer poor quality and then still be an active customer.

The fact is, for 99% of the population they are a godsend, who make life massively better for virtually no cost.

[turbobloke]

coyft said:

NorthernBoy said:

The fact is, for 99% of the population they are a godsend, who make life massively better for virtually no cost.

Yet the drivers using roads analogy to retail banking is flawed since drivers pay through the nose and receive scant return whereas for many bank users their accounts and most services are free, though for how long remains to be seen. Clearly business customers and private banking clients pay charges but there are additional services for such people. Personal banking and personal mobility both improve quality of life but one is very costly and the other virtually free. Protesters as well as company Directors can afford to use High St banks, very egalitarian.