At last Shareholders speak-Barclays Bank
Discussion
heppers75 said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
heppers75 said:
They have as a rule made little or no journey of discovery of their own volition to reach a conclusion based on their own understanding and accept the writings of someone whose job is not to provide facts but sell news. Those opinions it seems are generally created and espoused by sensationalists to garner support and sell something be it themselves or a newspaper article etc.
Just the sort of pretentious twaddle I would expect from someone trying to sound clever but with little idea what's actually going on.My bet was you'd land on "about right" on the remuneration question, simply because it avoids forming any significant opinion of your own.
ETA - On re-reading I also note you chose to respond to a post on a question you asked me with my reply to someone else's post as opposed to the one I gave to the actual question you asked. Which actually very much re-enforces my argument that folks like yourself just can't cope and simply grasp at straws and cling to vitriol and others writings to justify your position. As opposed to address actual answers to the questions you ask. Also you accuse me of trying to sound clever but with little idea what's actually going on yet both you and crankedup were the ones using obviously incorrect facts calling these companies 'publicly owned' in a very clear way to try and incite some sort of view that they are 'public property'. However I notice you both have moved on very rapidly from that not addressed the fact you were currently I believe the only ones using incorrect information and you accuse others of being the ones lacking in knowledge mmmm
Edited by heppers75 on Tuesday 1st May 07:25
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
Nobody is worth, whatever that means, the multi millions of pounds that they decide they are worthy of paying themselves and the sooner it stops the better. Over to you.
See that is just the crux of the issue, you simply have a personal and fundamental problem with someone being paid what you consider to be an obscene amount of money.I will ask a simple question does anyone who is a mere employee of any company and never put a penny of their own money in just 'got a job' ever under any circumstances worth the sort of money we are talking about?
crankedup said:
I was the one who used the wrong term, of course public owned is just that. I have now lost the whole reasoning of my debate apparently. But I have never given up on any matter which I feel passionately about and I am not about to start now, unless somebody can provide some clear and concise reason as to why I am wrong in my POV. You seem unable to accept that not all people agree with you?
I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me at all, I do have a problem with them presenting opinion as fact, miss using terminology to misrepresent and try to gain the moralistic high ground while being possessed of cosmic scale double standards.ETA - Also resorting to personal insults when they run out of actual reasoned responses - which was more Ozzie than yourself I grant you.
Edited by heppers75 on Tuesday 1st May 11:42
bobbylondonuk said:
here is a simple question.
Board members hired on contracts with performance targets. Remuneration board agrees pay after assessment of performance and decide amount.
Is it right to then renege on that contract? share holders votes are not binding because the board already has authority to negotiate contracts of senior employees. So can that contract be reneged on?
Here is a simple answer.Board members hired on contracts with performance targets. Remuneration board agrees pay after assessment of performance and decide amount.
Is it right to then renege on that contract? share holders votes are not binding because the board already has authority to negotiate contracts of senior employees. So can that contract be reneged on?
Apparently many board members appear on each others boards, a cosy arrangement of you scratch my back?
Of course contracts should not be reneged on, (although in many businesses employees have been asked to ignore their contracts under extreme trading circumstances in order to keep the business afloat) but they should be shared and agreed with shareholders representatives on the remuneration board and those persons should hold binding voting rights. The remuneration board should consist of 50% shareholding members. Under those circumstances I personally would feel a much more transparent and reasonable pay award scheme would result. What is the point of advising shareholders of business matters when those shareholders votes can be and very often are ignored.
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
I was the one who used the wrong term, of course public owned is just that. I have now lost the whole reasoning of my debate apparently. But I have never given up on any matter which I feel passionately about and I am not about to start now, unless somebody can provide some clear and concise reason as to why I am wrong in my POV. You seem unable to accept that not all people agree with you?
I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me at all, I do have a problem with them presenting opinion as fact, miss using terminology to misrepresent and try to gain the moralistic high ground while being possessed of cosmic scale double standards.ETA - Also resorting to personal insults when they run out of actual reasoned responses - which was more Ozzie than yourself I grant you.
Edited by heppers75 on Tuesday 1st May 11:42
TwigtheWonderkid said:
heppers75 said:
See that is just the crux of the issue, you simply have a personal and fundamental problem with someone being paid what you consider to be an obscene amount of money.
I will ask a simple question does anyone who is a mere employee of any company and never put a penny of their own money in just 'got a job' ever under any circumstances worth the sort of money we are talking about?
Nail/head.I will ask a simple question does anyone who is a mere employee of any company and never put a penny of their own money in just 'got a job' ever under any circumstances worth the sort of money we are talking about?
The problem here is that some are just furious that others can earn millions a year. Doesn't matter what they do. They would complain if someone who simultaneously found a cure for cancer, aids and brought peace to the Middle East was given a multi million bonus.
Because as Martin84 (that's his IQ, not his year of birth I'm guessing) said about 8 pages ago "nobodies (sic) worth £2M a year, we've already established that."
I just wish people would be more honest about it. I'd have a modicum of respect for someone that came on and said "it's just not fair that someone can earn 100 times what I earn, just because I'm a failure and they're a success."
'The Young Ones', if only we could enjoy tele like that again!crankedup said:
bobbylondonuk said:
here is a simple question.
Board members hired on contracts with performance targets. Remuneration board agrees pay after assessment of performance and decide amount.
Is it right to then renege on that contract? share holders votes are not binding because the board already has authority to negotiate contracts of senior employees. So can that contract be reneged on?
Here is a simple answer.Board members hired on contracts with performance targets. Remuneration board agrees pay after assessment of performance and decide amount.
Is it right to then renege on that contract? share holders votes are not binding because the board already has authority to negotiate contracts of senior employees. So can that contract be reneged on?
Apparently many board members appear on each others boards, a cosy arrangement of you scratch my back?
Of course contracts should not be reneged on, (although in many businesses employees have been asked to ignore their contracts under extreme trading circumstances in order to keep the business afloat) but they should be shared and agreed with shareholders representatives on the remuneration board and those persons should hold binding voting rights. The remuneration board should consist of 50% shareholding members. Under those circumstances I personally would feel a much more transparent and reasonable pay award scheme would result. What is the point of advising shareholders of business matters when those shareholders votes can be and very often are ignored.
However we are talking about a business that made £4bn in profit, distributed £3/4bn to shareholders and the Execs got paid I think less than £50m between them.
I don't care which way you word it those numbers stack up and make sense, the issue you have is that you think the final number should probably be less than a 20th of what it is as you just have a problem within someone that was not a founding father having that sort of money as a reward.
Interestingly what is your take on say in 20 years time I have popped my clogs and my son has inherited my business never done a days work there in his life but the MD there makes a £2m profit and my son gets a £1m dividend and the MD gets £250k in salary and bonus, who is the wronged party in that equation or is indeed the equation a fair one?
crankedup said:
Only one point holds any truth and that I have acknowledged in my use of use of the wrong term. Can you please demonstrate as to why you choose to insult me with your 'cosmic double scale standards'. Is there something which is inherently wrong with trying to maintain moral standards? You say I use opinion as fact - demonstrate please.
Because you only wish to condem people earning that sort of money in a sector you clearly have a level of distaste for and would not apply the same logic or reasoning to other areas as you know it will make you sound a bit daft so you avoid answering the direct question on the subject which I have asked in various guises now and you seem to be avoiding. So I will ask it again: -
So then nobody under any circumstances if they are not an actual investor and have risked their own money is in any way shape or form, under any circumstances morally right to take a payment for anything they do over a certain amount correct?
The addition I made earlier based on some of your half answers to the above but not complete ones was: -
If that is the case what is this mythical threshold as an anual income figure?
crankedup said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
heppers75 said:
See that is just the crux of the issue, you simply have a personal and fundamental problem with someone being paid what you consider to be an obscene amount of money.
I will ask a simple question does anyone who is a mere employee of any company and never put a penny of their own money in just 'got a job' ever under any circumstances worth the sort of money we are talking about?
Nail/head.I will ask a simple question does anyone who is a mere employee of any company and never put a penny of their own money in just 'got a job' ever under any circumstances worth the sort of money we are talking about?
The problem here is that some are just furious that others can earn millions a year. Doesn't matter what they do. They would complain if someone who simultaneously found a cure for cancer, aids and brought peace to the Middle East was given a multi million bonus.
Because as Martin84 (that's his IQ, not his year of birth I'm guessing) said about 8 pages ago "nobodies (sic) worth £2M a year, we've already established that."
I just wish people would be more honest about it. I'd have a modicum of respect for someone that came on and said "it's just not fair that someone can earn 100 times what I earn, just because I'm a failure and they're a success."
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
bobbylondonuk said:
here is a simple question.
Board members hired on contracts with performance targets. Remuneration board agrees pay after assessment of performance and decide amount.
Is it right to then renege on that contract? share holders votes are not binding because the board already has authority to negotiate contracts of senior employees. So can that contract be reneged on?
Here is a simple answer.Board members hired on contracts with performance targets. Remuneration board agrees pay after assessment of performance and decide amount.
Is it right to then renege on that contract? share holders votes are not binding because the board already has authority to negotiate contracts of senior employees. So can that contract be reneged on?
Apparently many board members appear on each others boards, a cosy arrangement of you scratch my back?
Of course contracts should not be reneged on, (although in many businesses employees have been asked to ignore their contracts under extreme trading circumstances in order to keep the business afloat) but they should be shared and agreed with shareholders representatives on the remuneration board and those persons should hold binding voting rights. The remuneration board should consist of 50% shareholding members. Under those circumstances I personally would feel a much more transparent and reasonable pay award scheme would result. What is the point of advising shareholders of business matters when those shareholders votes can be and very often are ignored.
However we are talking about a business that made £4bn in profit, distributed £3/4bn to shareholders and the Execs got paid I think less than £50m between them.
I don't care which way you word it those numbers stack up and make sense, the issue you have is that you think the final number should probably be less than a 20th of what it is as you just have a problem within someone that was not a founding father having that sort of money as a reward.
Interestingly what is your take on say in 20 years time I have popped my clogs and my son has inherited my business never done a days work there in his life but the MD there makes a £2m profit and my son gets a £1m dividend and the MD gets £250k in salary and bonus, who is the wronged party in that equation or is indeed the equation a fair one?
crankedup said:
Only one point holds any truth and that I have acknowledged in my use of use of the wrong term. Can you please demonstrate as to why you choose to insult me with your 'cosmic double scale standards'. Is there something which is inherently wrong with trying to maintain moral standards? You say I use opinion as fact - demonstrate please.
Because you only wish to condem people earning that sort of money in a sector you clearly have a level of distaste for and would not apply the same logic or reasoning to other areas as you know it will make you sound a bit daft so you avoid answering the direct question on the subject which I have asked in various guises now and you seem to be avoiding. So I will ask it again: -
So then nobody under any circumstances if they are not an actual investor and have risked their own money is in any way shape or form, under any circumstances morally right to take a payment for anything they do over a certain amount correct?
The addition I made earlier based on some of your half answers to the above but not complete ones was: -
If that is the case what is this mythical threshold as an anual income figure?
The mythical threshold is one that will be decided by a remuneration board which will have 50% of non - executive shareholders with binding voting rights. Or something along those lines.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
crankedup said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
heppers75 said:
See that is just the crux of the issue, you simply have a personal and fundamental problem with someone being paid what you consider to be an obscene amount of money.
I will ask a simple question does anyone who is a mere employee of any company and never put a penny of their own money in just 'got a job' ever under any circumstances worth the sort of money we are talking about?
Nail/head.I will ask a simple question does anyone who is a mere employee of any company and never put a penny of their own money in just 'got a job' ever under any circumstances worth the sort of money we are talking about?
The problem here is that some are just furious that others can earn millions a year. Doesn't matter what they do. They would complain if someone who simultaneously found a cure for cancer, aids and brought peace to the Middle East was given a multi million bonus.
Because as Martin84 (that's his IQ, not his year of birth I'm guessing) said about 8 pages ago "nobodies (sic) worth £2M a year, we've already established that."
I just wish people would be more honest about it. I'd have a modicum of respect for someone that came on and said "it's just not fair that someone can earn 100 times what I earn, just because I'm a failure and they're a success."
crankedup said:
But you have yet again failed to to the whole point of the debate - question I keep asking is : why is it that over 30% of shareholders have voiced very serious objections to the remuneration packages. Can you not understand that I am not the only person with 'this problem' as you put it. Once again I state that only 10% raised objections to the issue just ten years ago, so a rise of 20% is a serious matter for the bank to address, the Chairman of the bank concedes on this matter, why can't you?
The mythical threshold is one that will be decided by a remuneration board which will have 50% of non - executive shareholders with binding voting rights. Or something along those lines.
I have answered the question a few times now, you are either not reading it or not understanding it as you have not responded to the answer simply re-asked the question... The mythical threshold is one that will be decided by a remuneration board which will have 50% of non - executive shareholders with binding voting rights. Or something along those lines.
See post below from a whole 2hrs and 45 mins ago!!!
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
Nobody is worth, whatever that means, the multi millions of pounds that they decide they are worthy of paying themselves and the sooner it stops the better. Over to you.
See that is just the crux of the issue, you simply have a personal and fundamental problem with someone being paid what you consider to be an obscene amount of money.I will ask a simple question does anyone who is a mere employee of any company and never put a penny of their own money in just 'got a job' ever under any circumstances worth the sort of money we are talking about?
Without going into a repost of a previous post, I believe the revolt has come about because there is simply a majority of people in this fair nation of ours that are so easily led by (no personal offence intended) people like yourself whom have a simple moral objection to the amount of money, have no real understanding of the complexities of the corporate world and the job it entails and have no desire to find that out therefore become influenced by the media and people again like yourself who bang the 'its wrong, its our money' drum using emotive miss placed terminology to gouge out a moral standpoint.
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
But you have yet again failed to to the whole point of the debate - question I keep asking is : why is it that over 30% of shareholders have voiced very serious objections to the remuneration packages. Can you not understand that I am not the only person with 'this problem' as you put it. Once again I state that only 10% raised objections to the issue just ten years ago, so a rise of 20% is a serious matter for the bank to address, the Chairman of the bank concedes on this matter, why can't you?
The mythical threshold is one that will be decided by a remuneration board which will have 50% of non - executive shareholders with binding voting rights. Or something along those lines.
I have answered the question a few times now, you are either not reading it or not understanding it as you have not responded to the answer simply re-asked the question... The mythical threshold is one that will be decided by a remuneration board which will have 50% of non - executive shareholders with binding voting rights. Or something along those lines.
See post below from a whole 2hrs and 45 mins ago!!!
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
Nobody is worth, whatever that means, the multi millions of pounds that they decide they are worthy of paying themselves and the sooner it stops the better. Over to you.
See that is just the crux of the issue, you simply have a personal and fundamental problem with someone being paid what you consider to be an obscene amount of money.I will ask a simple question does anyone who is a mere employee of any company and never put a penny of their own money in just 'got a job' ever under any circumstances worth the sort of money we are talking about?
Without going into a repost of a previous post, I believe the revolt has come about because there is simply a majority of people in this fair nation of ours that are so easily led by (no personal offence intended) people like yourself whom have a simple moral objection to the amount of money, have no real understanding of the complexities of the corporate world and the job it entails and have no desire to find that out therefore become influenced by the media and people again like yourself who bang the 'its wrong, its our money' drum using emotive miss placed terminology to gouge out a moral standpoint.
Again I ask, do you object to people having morals and those morals exhibited when debating? How about ethics then, where do you stand on that issue? Its all part of life and living of which nobody is excused, by that I mean you are not obliged to hold any of these instincts but its very poor form to make derisory comment about others that do.
crankedup said:
Thats not a factual answer though is it, your still shouting out about your own opinions on how the business world should work, rather fanciful TBH. Now you seem to want to lump in shareholders along with the media, members of public, Barclays Chairman within your world of non intellectual persons not understanding Corporate business and finance whilst being led by others. All rather insulting and formed from zero basis of fact.
Again I ask, do you object to people having morals and those morals exhibited when debating? How about ethics then, where do you stand on that issue? Its all part of life and living of which nobody is excused, by that I mean you are not obliged to hold any of these instincts but its very poor form to make derisory comment about others that do.
If you read my earlier posts when I proffered it I based it on the facts derived from my own conversations and researches into the matter and that has mostly been down to the fact I have a fairly varied and wide circle of friends and associates some of whom are at a level not dissimilar to Mr Diamond in none banking sector organisations and some who are at the other end of the spectrum. On a number of occasions in the last few years I have had similar conversations, discussions and debates. My experience of those debates and discussions is by and large the kind of people who have fallen on the side which you do have done so not through an informed position and as a rule readily admit they have little direct knowledge of the details and structures involved but they believe that is the case as that is what they read/are told/believe etc. Also when I have pointed out to them that the percentages of pay vs profit of the businesses is in reality what it is usually causes the more intellectually adept to think twice. The more robust and idealistic types will simply blow by the facts and leave them in a wake of their own dogma, much like you are doing.Again I ask, do you object to people having morals and those morals exhibited when debating? How about ethics then, where do you stand on that issue? Its all part of life and living of which nobody is excused, by that I mean you are not obliged to hold any of these instincts but its very poor form to make derisory comment about others that do.
The Chairman of Barclays actually said what in your eyes? From what I can find his comments were the likes of - "There is a significant minority of shareholders who feel that we got some of these judgements [on remuneration] wrong for 2011 and that we have not sufficiently taken their views on board," & "For this I apologise and I assure you that in the future we will be engaging differently and more purposefully with shareholders in order to ensure that we obtain a broader level of support on remuneration policy and practice,"
That is not in anyway shape or form an admission it was incorrect it was simply an admission that they ought to have consulted in a more structured way, which is a perfectly laudable undertaking.
As for morals and ethics the only one you seem to be arguing is that it is "too much money" and I have zero problem with morality and ethical behaviour and I ensure that I do practise both in my daily life. The issue I have is where peoples morals and ethics stray into dogma, rhetoric and vitriol and ignore facts which you are still doing.
I am assuming you do not dispute the figures of £4bn profit, £3/4bn in shareholder payments and £17.7m to the CEO. Yours and your ilks problem is that last number, you just can't get beyond it even though as a percentage of the remaining figures it stacks up perfectly well to the rest of the large and small corporate world, you simply have a dogmatic/moralistic/ethical/irrational issue with it. To the extent that out of the many situations that I and others have tried to explain to make you realise that it is perfectly acceptable by using all manner of examples you have to a tee ignored them all and carried on blindly.... e.g. blowing by the facts leaving them in a wake of your own dogma!
Edited by heppers75 on Tuesday 1st May 15:11
heppers75 said:
Without going into a repost of a previous post, I believe the revolt has come about because there is simply a majority of people in this fair nation of ours that are so easily led by (no personal offence intended) people like yourself whom have a simple moral objection to the amount of money, have no real understanding of the complexities of the corporate world and the job it entails and have no desire to find that out therefore become influenced by the media and people again like yourself who bang the 'its wrong, its our money' drum using emotive miss placed terminology to gouge out a moral standpoint
An assertion that doesn't stand up. A vote that large against the pay deals means that there were institutional shareholders (pension and insurance companies etc) voting against the bonuses. Their criteria will be that Barclay's performance just doesn't warrant the level of remuneration being handed out; as some of them have said publicly in the press. plasticpig said:
heppers75 said:
Without going into a repost of a previous post, I believe the revolt has come about because there is simply a majority of people in this fair nation of ours that are so easily led by (no personal offence intended) people like yourself whom have a simple moral objection to the amount of money, have no real understanding of the complexities of the corporate world and the job it entails and have no desire to find that out therefore become influenced by the media and people again like yourself who bang the 'its wrong, its our money' drum using emotive miss placed terminology to gouge out a moral standpoint
An assertion that doesn't stand up. A vote that large against the pay deals means that there were institutional shareholders (pension and insurance companies etc) voting against the bonuses. Their criteria will be that Barclay's performance just doesn't warrant the level of remuneration being handed out; as some of them have said publicly in the press. 
However I am genuinely interested in increasing knowledge as always can you point me in the direction of some? Isn't the point (really) that if 30% of the shareholders aren't happy, 70% are? And the majority rules? Or should the 30% over-rule the 70%?
The thing about shares is that if you aren't happy with the performance or the pay scales, you sell the shares and - if enough people do that - the share price falls and (eventually) the directors get the chop (not to mention the value of their own portfolios falling). If that isn't happening then (overall) it's clear that the share-holders are happy with the performance and the pay - right?
Personally I think share-holder activism is a good thing, but the minority of share-holders can't (and don't) have any right to hold sway over the majority....
The thing about shares is that if you aren't happy with the performance or the pay scales, you sell the shares and - if enough people do that - the share price falls and (eventually) the directors get the chop (not to mention the value of their own portfolios falling). If that isn't happening then (overall) it's clear that the share-holders are happy with the performance and the pay - right?
Personally I think share-holder activism is a good thing, but the minority of share-holders can't (and don't) have any right to hold sway over the majority....
will_ said:
Isn't the point (really) that if 30% of the shareholders aren't happy, 70% are? And the majority rules? Or should the 30% over-rule the 70%?
The thing about shares is that if you aren't happy with the performance or the pay scales, you sell the shares and - if enough people do that - the share price falls and (eventually) the directors get the chop (not to mention the value of their own portfolios falling). If that isn't happening then (overall) it's clear that the share-holders are happy with the performance and the pay - right?
Personally I think share-holder activism is a good thing, but the minority of share-holders can't (and don't) have any right to hold sway over the majority....
Get out of here with your common sense.The thing about shares is that if you aren't happy with the performance or the pay scales, you sell the shares and - if enough people do that - the share price falls and (eventually) the directors get the chop (not to mention the value of their own portfolios falling). If that isn't happening then (overall) it's clear that the share-holders are happy with the performance and the pay - right?
Personally I think share-holder activism is a good thing, but the minority of share-holders can't (and don't) have any right to hold sway over the majority....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff