At last Shareholders speak-Barclays Bank
Discussion
Ozzie Osmond said:
Namely because Barclays remco is just one part of the overall club. It's the whole system which is rotten, not just one part of it.
Compare for instance Leveson. Who is he going to blame? Murdoch? The Met? Politicians? No. It's the whole darned lot of them. All with their snouts in the trough. All scratching each others' backs.
The Bishop of Scotland (or whatever) has a very valid point. Cardinal O'Brien,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17878806
I would have responded sooner but I had to wait for the laughter to subside... Compare for instance Leveson. Who is he going to blame? Murdoch? The Met? Politicians? No. It's the whole darned lot of them. All with their snouts in the trough. All scratching each others' backs.
The Bishop of Scotland (or whatever) has a very valid point. Cardinal O'Brien,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17878806
A senior member of an organisation that makes the banking sector look like my corner shop in relation to Tescos when it comes to net worth and whose income is based on essentially brainwashing and fear of eternal damnation lecturing on morality of income and sharing of the wealth.
Smashing one there Ozzie love that, I would put that in the Sean Connery Joke thread if I were you!
k OFF AND DIE!!!
Soovy said:
crankedup said:
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.
Perhaps because a lot of people on here are well educated and actually understand the issues because they work in the City, rather than being ranting spittle flecked devotees of student politics?If shareholders don't like the decisions of Barclays RemCo then perhaps they should just sell their shares? But they don't. Perhaps you should ask yourself why that is.
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
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.
I am actually genuinely interested in your take on why that is? For the most part the people I know with whom I have had this discussion with most those that agree tend to do so from a position of knowledge and understanding of how companies work, have experience in doing so themselves and will have at least a rudimentary understanding of the banking industry.
For those that tend to disagree they will freely admit they don't know and have no interest in actually finding out the real facts or learning enough about the topic to reach a conclusion of their own, they are happy that is the state of affairs as that is what the media is telling them! Usually the Red Tops or the Wail!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
crankedup said:
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.
You don't seem to grasp the fact that the reason you deem it to be out of control is because you're gut feeling tells y u that £17m a year is obscene. When others are struggling to live this bloke is picking up a huge sum. That's it. No economic arguement, just one based on your little world.But Tom Cruise gets $25m for 12 weeks work on 1 movie. Messi picked up €35m last year for kicking a ball around. If Bob Diamond gets £17m, good on him I say. I wish I was on £17m a year. The reason I'm not is because I haven't done anything to deserve it. Once you come to terms with your own failings, you're far more able to accept other people's success without bitterness and envy.
You should give it a try. Just look in the mirror and say "I am a hopeless failure." Believe me, it's easy.
roachcoach said:
crankedup said:
Another PHer slumps to this tired worn out nonsensical puffed up rhetoric. Everybody is wrong except those that actually work in the city, funny that!
I don't work in the city and I don't have issue with it. I'll never work 'in the city' and I do not want to.crankedup said:
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
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.
I am actually genuinely interested in your take on why that is? For the most part the people I know with whom I have had this discussion with most those that agree tend to do so from a position of knowledge and understanding of how companies work, have experience in doing so themselves and will have at least a rudimentary understanding of the banking industry.
For those that tend to disagree they will freely admit they don't know and have no interest in actually finding out the real facts or learning enough about the topic to reach a conclusion of their own, they are happy that is the state of affairs as that is what the media is telling them! Usually the Red Tops or the Wail!
And I asked a genuine question and in no way shape or form resorted to rhetoric I simply gave you what I believe my answer to it was while asking you yours.
I mean if you want to avoid the question as you can't think of a decent answer then fair enough!
Ozzie Osmond said:
heppers 75 - what's your view of top executive remuneration in UK public companies? ... and why?
Why limit the analysis to just top executives? Footballers, celebrities, BBC presenters etc.We are now in an age of the 'specialist' - if you are very good at doing specific things [which are in demand] whether it be kicking a football around, running a Council, or making people laugh on prime-time television, then you will get mega-bucks compared to Common Man. I don't know what the solution is, or if it is even a problem, but bleating about Bob Diamond just because he earns alot won't make a difference. In his industry, taking onto account the performance of Barcap compared to its peers and how it has emerged from the credit crunch relatively unscathed, he's done pretty well.
Ozzie Osmond said:
heppers 75 - what's your view of top executive remuneration in UK public companies?
I choose B Bob.... - Too low?
- About right?
- Too high?
- Don't care?
I think it is about right. My reasoning for that is that I believe in a majority of instances (and I am sure not all) they are pretty much at the same level percentage wise as the likes of Barclays. By which I mean that the Exec pay when expressed as a percentage of group profits is a fractional percentage and that I believe is fundamentally the best way to run a a rail road so to speak. In that I believe the same fundamental principles apply to a "top exec" as apply to the likes of my sales team. They have a basic pay, they get that come what may and that is about their worth skills set and ability to perform the job in hand. They then in turn get benefits associated with their position so pension, car etc. They then on top of that get a rewards structure based on a combination of theirs and the companies performance. If they reach their personal targets then they will get a certain percentage of their bonus and if the business reaches its targets (by and large through their hard work) they will get the remainder.
I believe that is how it should and does work. My team get a percentage bonus based on a combination of theirs and company profits we also operate an EBT (5% set aside) scheme whereby some of the folks also get to participate in the dividends we get as directors so if the company makes £20m dividend payment from nothing to do with them personally bringing in any direct business (as it could just as easily been me that did it and is actually more likely to be at the moment!) for that then they will get share of that £1m. I do not begrudge them that share of £1m in anyway shape or form why should I?
For those businesses that make a loss but individuals still perform to their targets then I think there is then a complex balancing act to take into consideration that being the need to have the right level of people to bring the business around vs payments. Again if I were (and I hope I won't be!) in the position where we were making very little profit as a business but sales person X reached their personal targets I would still have to pay that person and it would be to my personal detriment of course. But they have T's and C's so mea culpa. What they would not get of course would be the portion of their bonus that was dependent on company profit.
Also there has been a very curious falsehood bandied about that these companies are 'publicly owned' - other than the ones that now have government stake holding due to bail out none of them are publicly owned they are publicly traded but the shareholding is down to private individuals choice. If you don't like it get out and buy stock in a company you do like the management ethos of i.e. like many things in life vote with your feet!
ETA - After re-reading it and preempting perhaps some responses. I would have the same feelings were I to take a complete step back from my business in 5 years time (which I intend to do FYI) insert an MD and have him as an employee and myself as a majority shareholder so for those who may be about to make the CEO does not equal Sales person the same principles apply IMO.
Edited by heppers75 on Monday 30th April 14:01
crankedup said:
Your use of an actors earnings are irrelevant in this discussion. We are looking at companies that are publicly owned and the management are of course employees. Why would anyone feel bitter having seen their stock fall from the sky to the toilet and yet the management still have the audacity to self reward at obscenely high levels. As you seem to imply, these managers should be applauded and praised for their outstanding performance, go on get stuck in and fill your boots why should the owners be rewarded. Unbelievable.
You have overlooked the fact that the senior management will, as well as being employees, are also co owners, and I suspect hold many more shares that your average punter.The performance of Barclays cannot be looked at in isolation, but must be gauged against the rest of the sector.
So how has Barclays performed under the stewardship of Bob Diamond, compared to others in the sector, Lloyds TSB, RBS et al. The answer is as you are well aware, is brilliantly.
I wonder if RBS shareholders would begrudge paying £17m to be able to turn back the clock and to swap Diamond for Goodwin?
Rather than moaning about Diamonds pay, you should be kissing the ground he walks on.
crankedup said:
Your use of an actors earnings are irrelevant in this discussion. We are looking at companies that are publicly owned and the management are of course employees. Why would anyone feel bitter having seen their stock fall from the sky to the toilet and yet the management still have the audacity to self reward at obscenely high levels. As you seem to imply, these managers should be applauded and praised for their outstanding performance, go on get stuck in and fill your boots why should the owners be rewarded. Unbelievable.
No they are not! They are publicly traded not owned! They are very much private companies. Soovy said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
crankedup said:
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.
You don't seem to grasp the fact that the reason you deem it to be out of control is because you're gut feeling tells y u that £17m a year is obscene. When others are struggling to live this bloke is picking up a huge sum. That's it. No economic arguement, just one based on your little world.But Tom Cruise gets $25m for 12 weeks work on 1 movie. Messi picked up €35m last year for kicking a ball around. If Bob Diamond gets £17m, good on him I say. I wish I was on £17m a year. The reason I'm not is because I haven't done anything to deserve it. Once you come to terms with your own failings, you're far more able to accept other people's success without bitterness and envy.
You should give it a try. Just look in the mirror and say "I am a hopeless failure." Believe me, it's easy.
Diamond is worth every penny of the package he gets. He delivers multiples of this in profit and value.
Contrast, if you will, with a thug footballer who earns 30m for kicking a piece of pigskin around a field.
Go and b1tch about the footballer, not Bob.
Life has never been fair, it isn't fair now, and it never will be. There will always be winners.
And losers.
crankedup said:
Soovy said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
crankedup said:
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.
You don't seem to grasp the fact that the reason you deem it to be out of control is because you're gut feeling tells y u that £17m a year is obscene. When others are struggling to live this bloke is picking up a huge sum. That's it. No economic arguement, just one based on your little world.But Tom Cruise gets $25m for 12 weeks work on 1 movie. Messi picked up €35m last year for kicking a ball around. If Bob Diamond gets £17m, good on him I say. I wish I was on £17m a year. The reason I'm not is because I haven't done anything to deserve it. Once you come to terms with your own failings, you're far more able to accept other people's success without bitterness and envy.
You should give it a try. Just look in the mirror and say "I am a hopeless failure." Believe me, it's easy.
Diamond is worth every penny of the package he gets. He delivers multiples of this in profit and value.
Contrast, if you will, with a thug footballer who earns 30m for kicking a piece of pigskin around a field.
Go and b1tch about the footballer, not Bob.
Life has never been fair, it isn't fair now, and it never will be. There will always be winners.
And losers.
I totally agree and I am a shareholder - next argument? Also there is little or no difference between Barclays and Manchester United they are both publicly traded private limited companies yet you seem to not want to address this why is that?
Edited by heppers75 on Monday 30th April 20:38
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
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.
I am actually genuinely interested in your take on why that is? For the most part the people I know with whom I have had this discussion with most those that agree tend to do so from a position of knowledge and understanding of how companies work, have experience in doing so themselves and will have at least a rudimentary understanding of the banking industry.
For those that tend to disagree they will freely admit they don't know and have no interest in actually finding out the real facts or learning enough about the topic to reach a conclusion of their own, they are happy that is the state of affairs as that is what the media is telling them! Usually the Red Tops or the Wail!
And I asked a genuine question and in no way shape or form resorted to rhetoric I simply gave you what I believe my answer to it was while asking you yours.
I mean if you want to avoid the question as you can't think of a decent answer then fair enough!
I look forward to investment banking having to stand alone to sink or swim with those that own the banks having the rights to decide on matters of management and reward.
fido said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
heppers 75 - what's your view of top executive remuneration in UK public companies? ... and why?
Why limit the analysis to just top executives? Footballers, celebrities, BBC presenters etc.We are now in an age of the 'specialist' - if you are very good at doing specific things [which are in demand] whether it be kicking a football around, running a Council, or making people laugh on prime-time television, then you will get mega-bucks compared to Common Man. I don't know what the solution is, or if it is even a problem, but bleating about Bob Diamond just because he earns alot won't make a difference. In his industry, taking onto account the performance of Barcap compared to its peers and how it has emerged from the credit crunch relatively unscathed, he's done pretty well.
crankedup said:
fido said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
heppers 75 - what's your view of top executive remuneration in UK public companies? ... and why?
Why limit the analysis to just top executives? Footballers, celebrities, BBC presenters etc.We are now in an age of the 'specialist' - if you are very good at doing specific things [which are in demand] whether it be kicking a football around, running a Council, or making people laugh on prime-time television, then you will get mega-bucks compared to Common Man. I don't know what the solution is, or if it is even a problem, but bleating about Bob Diamond just because he earns alot won't make a difference. In his industry, taking onto account the performance of Barcap compared to its peers and how it has emerged from the credit crunch relatively unscathed, he's done pretty well.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
crankedup said:
Your use of an actors earnings are irrelevant in this discussion. We are looking at companies that are publicly owned and the management are of course employees. Why would anyone feel bitter having seen their stock fall from the sky to the toilet and yet the management still have the audacity to self reward at obscenely high levels. As you seem to imply, these managers should be applauded and praised for their outstanding performance, go on get stuck in and fill your boots why should the owners be rewarded. Unbelievable.
You have overlooked the fact that the senior management will, as well as being employees, are also co owners, and I suspect hold many more shares that your average punter.The performance of Barclays cannot be looked at in isolation, but must be gauged against the rest of the sector.
So how has Barclays performed under the stewardship of Bob Diamond, compared to others in the sector, Lloyds TSB, RBS et al. The answer is as you are well aware, is brilliantly.
I wonder if RBS shareholders would begrudge paying £17m to be able to turn back the clock and to swap Diamond for Goodwin?
Rather than moaning about Diamonds pay, you should be kissing the ground he walks on.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff