At last Shareholders speak-Barclays Bank

[heppers75]

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....

[plasticpig]

heppers75 said:

Fair comment and not that I am after a custard test However I am genuinely interested in increasing knowledge as always can you point me in the direction of some?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...

Some fund management company said:

We voted against the remuneration report because we do not believe the committee exercised sufficient discretion by granting substantial bonus awards for a year in which the company's performance was mixed," said George Dallas, head of corporate governance at fund manager F&C. "This is a significant statement of investor concern about the company's remuneration practices

[plasticpig]

will_ said:

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....

They do actually; in certain limited circumstances. See Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006.

[heppers75]

plasticpig said:

heppers75 said:

Fair comment and not that I am after a custard test However I am genuinely interested in increasing knowledge as always can you point me in the direction of some?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...

Some fund management company said:

We voted against the remuneration report because we do not believe the committee exercised sufficient discretion by granting substantial bonus awards for a year in which the company's performance was mixed," said George Dallas, head of corporate governance at fund manager F&C. "This is a significant statement of investor concern about the company's remuneration practices

Interesting... They also it appears have recently drawn down in full on a £50m facility with Barclays of you look at their annual report page 5 - http://www.fundnets.net/fn_filelibrary/File/uk_re_... and also they appear to be on somewhat of a crusade with Exec Pay having voted down 1/5 of them recently see here - http://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-p...

It is an indicator of sorts I grant you, I would however be more inclined for it to be indicative of an overall mood in that market place were there more of what are I am sure hundreds of sizeable funds invested in Barclays saying the same as they are seemingly the only sizeable one I could find apart from the CCLA but lets not go there, to come out and say so. It does I have to say seem a little isolated as an example and also possessed of its own motives not necessarily as pure as they might seem, had they not done so off the back of it seems like I said a bit of a crusade in general I think it would have added more weight to the credibility of them doing so.

But nonetheless very interesting, thanks.

ETA I have done a bit of research and George Dallas has some interesting things to say on the topic as it goes. There are a few links below but the one thing he does not disagree with is the amounts it is the way the amounts are calculated which interestingly enough I think were they done on Barclays the figures would have ended up being largely the same. Which lends itself to the conclusion that he is not rallying against the fact it is what it is but more how it got there.

http://www.fandc.com/FundNets_FileLibrary/file/co_...
http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2011-02-16/bin...
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2011/02/14/cr...
http://www.fandc.com/FundNets_FileLibrary/file/co_...

P.S. I do apologies to our resident anti-capitalist acolytes for doing actual research and availing myself of facts, I can assure you it won't happen again!

Edited by heppers75 on Tuesday 1st May 16:21

[will_]

plasticpig said:

will_ said:

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....

They do actually; in certain limited circumstances. See Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006.

In the circumstances which are the subject of this thread? Very, very unlikely.

The vast, vast majortiy of company activities require 50% or even 75% shareholder approval. I don't see why director remuneration should be any different. No-one is obliged to buy and hold shares in companies which are either not performing, or are over-paying their executives.

[RYH64E]

heppers75 said:

P.S. I do apologies to our resident anti-capitalist acolytes for doing actual research and availing myself of facts, I can assure you it won't happen again!

What exactly is anti-capitalist about wanting to see shareholders (capitalists, owners of the capital) rewarded in preference to their employees? Maybe you need to do a bit more research.

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

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.

Fair comment and not that I am after a custard test However I am genuinely interested in increasing knowledge as always can you point me in the direction of some?

So its a fair comment now! this means you do understand the reasons behind the shareholders 'angst'. Why could you not admit that to me some pages back rather than keep 'baiting me'.

[will_]

RYH64E said:

heppers75 said:

P.S. I do apologies to our resident anti-capitalist acolytes for doing actual research and availing myself of facts, I can assure you it won't happen again!

What exactly is anti-capitalist about wanting to see shareholders (capitalists, owners of the capital) rewarded in preference to their employees? Maybe you need to do a bit more research.

Nothing, if that is what the majority of the shareholders want. Is it? No evidence of that (so far).

Shareholders already have the power, they just aren't using it (nor should they be "forced to", and nor should the minority view be weighted) so I can't really understand how this thread has got to 11 pages.....?

[bobbylondonuk]

heppers75 said:

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....

Add the fact that a valid contract cannot be cancelled without sending out the wrong messages about the attitude of UK PLC when we are now courting more big business to come over and make money here!

Who in their right mind would invest and setup large business here if there is a potential of the remuneration being cut short due to public opinion?

With regard to remuneration committees...that again is an internal matter which is for the board and shareholders to decide. That has nothing to do with the public.

[heppers75]

crankedup said:

heppers75 said:

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.

Fair comment and not that I am after a custard test However I am genuinely interested in increasing knowledge as always can you point me in the direction of some?

So its a fair comment now! this means you do understand the reasons behind the shareholders 'angst'. Why could you not admit that to me some pages back rather than keep 'baiting me'.

Do you just select at random which posts you read and then respond to those without bothering with the rest, or are you just not able to?

[heppers75]

RYH64E said:

heppers75 said:

P.S. I do apologies to our resident anti-capitalist acolytes for doing actual research and availing myself of facts, I can assure you it won't happen again!

What exactly is anti-capitalist about wanting to see shareholders (capitalists, owners of the capital) rewarded in preference to their employees? Maybe you need to do a bit more research.

Nothing if that is what the shareholders by majority want, but they don't!

Also just exactly how would limiting the CEO's bonus help the shareholders? £17.7m as a fraction of £780m ???

[crankedup]

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....

As I have said time and time again, why should shareholders have to ditch stock because the managers are taking excessive remunerations? The fact is that shareholders must be given BINDING VOTING RIGHTS in a way spoken of by Vince Cable. Management must not be permitted to set their own targets and rewards through boards that self serve each other. The idea that senior management can only be judged upon the share price is wholly wrong and certainly unfair to that management. I may find excessive remuneration abhorrent but I still want to see good reward for good results. At the same time you can't judge performance on share price alone unless you are using that as a very long term judgement, in which case poor management would exist in the mix for years. Presume that performance indicators are used by line managers but the senior level of Directors is another issue.

[crankedup]

plasticpig said:

heppers75 said:

Fair comment and not that I am after a custard test However I am genuinely interested in increasing knowledge as always can you point me in the direction of some?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...

Some fund management company said:

We voted against the remuneration report because we do not believe the committee exercised sufficient discretion by granting substantial bonus awards for a year in which the company's performance was mixed," said George Dallas, head of corporate governance at fund manager F&C. "This is a significant statement of investor concern about the company's remuneration practices

Well thanks plasticpig for pointing out that insurance companies are wobbling about the remuneration packages, it was dismissed when I posted the point several days ago. Its because some people in here cannot bring themselves to face the facts when I bring them to attention perhaps. I have a word for that sort

[crankedup]

will_ said:

plasticpig said:

will_ said:

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....

They do actually; in certain limited circumstances. See Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006.

In the circumstances which are the subject of this thread? Very, very unlikely.

The vast, vast majortiy of company activities require 50% or even 75% shareholder approval. I don't see why director remuneration should be any different. No-one is obliged to buy and hold shares in companies which are either not performing, or are over-paying their executives.

The problem is Will that many shares are held in pension funds where millions of people have no real say and entrust pension fund managers, another pet hate and distrust of mine.

[will_]

crankedup said:

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....

As I have said time and time again, why should shareholders have to ditch stock because the managers are taking excessive remunerations? The fact is that shareholders must be given BINDING VOTING RIGHTS in a way spoken of by Vince Cable. Management must not be permitted to set their own targets and rewards through boards that self serve each other. The idea that senior management can only be judged upon the share price is wholly wrong and certainly unfair to that management. I may find excessive remuneration abhorrent but I still want to see good reward for good results. At the same time you can't judge performance on share price alone unless you are using that as a very long term judgement, in which case poor management would exist in the mix for years. Presume that performance indicators are used by line managers but the senior level of Directors is another issue.

You aren't really dealing with my point.

The majority of shareholders (i.e. owners) ARE happy. So what, exactly, is the problem - except that you (a non-shareholder) aren't happy? And if you are a shareholder, but are not impressed by the performance and/or remuneration packages, why should you be able to over-rule the majority? You can't, therefore your only option is to sell or put up with it - because the majority of the owners ARE happy.

Shareholders already have the power to make a stand against directors' remuneration. The fact is, they don't, either because they don't care, or because they are content with the performance of the company and/or the remuneration.

[will_]

crankedup said:

will_ said:

plasticpig said:

will_ said:

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....

They do actually; in certain limited circumstances. See Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006.

In the circumstances which are the subject of this thread? Very, very unlikely.

The vast, vast majortiy of company activities require 50% or even 75% shareholder approval. I don't see why director remuneration should be any different. No-one is obliged to buy and hold shares in companies which are either not performing, or are over-paying their executives.

The problem is Will that many shares are held in pension funds where millions of people have no real say and entrust pension fund managers, another pet hate and distrust of mine.

And? The pension funs are not compulsory to be invested in. If the investors don't like being invested in particular companies, they can withdraw their funds from the pension fund and you can bet your bottom dollar that if enough people did that the pension funds would take notice.

The fact is, the majority of shareholders are content. I'm sorry that you don't like that, but it would be wholly wrong for the minority to act against the evident wishes of the majority.

[Soovy]

crankedup said:

will_ said:

plasticpig said:

will_ said:

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....

They do actually; in certain limited circumstances. See Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006.

In the circumstances which are the subject of this thread? Very, very unlikely.

The vast, vast majortiy of company activities require 50% or even 75% shareholder approval. I don't see why director remuneration should be any different. No-one is obliged to buy and hold shares in companies which are either not performing, or are over-paying their executives.

The problem is Will that many shares are held in pension funds where millions of people have no real say and entrust pension fund managers, another pet hate and distrust of mine.

AHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

So it IS your pension that's behind your bile.

I was right all along.

Look - remember the document you signed when you took out your pension? There was a bit in there about "value of investments can go down as well as up". You signed up to that.

If you didn't want to trust someone with your money, you should have invested it yourself.

Edited by Soovy on Tuesday 1st May 17:09

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

heppers75 said:

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.

Fair comment and not that I am after a custard test However I am genuinely interested in increasing knowledge as always can you point me in the direction of some?

So its a fair comment now! this means you do understand the reasons behind the shareholders 'angst'. Why could you not admit that to me some pages back rather than keep 'baiting me'.

Do you just select at random which posts you read and then respond to those without bothering with the rest, or are you just not able to?

Ducking the issues seem to be a favourite tactic of yours. Your hypercritical nature of posts is now fully revealed, you insult me and yet agree with another poster despite the fact that we both alluded to the same issue. re Insurance Company boss calls time on excessive remuneration. Unfortunately I do not seem to have the time to find links and quotes to my posts, although I am retired from work. You must work at the speed of light 24 hours a day to fit it all in, that is not to criticise just a thought.

[crankedup]

will_ said:

crankedup said:

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....

As I have said time and time again, why should shareholders have to ditch stock because the managers are taking excessive remunerations? The fact is that shareholders must be given BINDING VOTING RIGHTS in a way spoken of by Vince Cable. Management must not be permitted to set their own targets and rewards through boards that self serve each other. The idea that senior management can only be judged upon the share price is wholly wrong and certainly unfair to that management. I may find excessive remuneration abhorrent but I still want to see good reward for good results. At the same time you can't judge performance on share price alone unless you are using that as a very long term judgement, in which case poor management would exist in the mix for years. Presume that performance indicators are used by line managers but the senior level of Directors is another issue.

You aren't really dealing with my point.

The majority of shareholders (i.e. owners) ARE happy. So what, exactly, is the problem - except that you (a non-shareholder) aren't happy? And if you are a shareholder, but are not impressed by the performance and/or remuneration packages, why should you be able to over-rule the majority? You can't, therefore your only option is to sell or put up with it - because the majority of the owners ARE happy.

Shareholders already have the power to make a stand against directors' remuneration. The fact is, they don't, either because they don't care, or because they are content with the performance of the company and/or the remuneration.

I think we know what the problem is. As for 70% of shareholders being happy, that simply is not the case is is pure supposition on your part. Millions of shares are held in management funds, I agree a certain percentage may not care a jot, although they are awaking now and this is why we see 30% extremely unhappy. Many shareholders are apathetic simply because they know their vote is non binding, that must change soon to binding votes. As pointed out some shares will be owned by bank employees, guess most of them are happy? No way sell or put up with it, that has gone on for too long and is partly the reason for these excessive remunerations. But its not just the issue of certain sectors being overpaid it is also a problem for the well being of society.

[crankedup]

Soovy said:

crankedup said:

will_ said:

plasticpig said:

will_ said:

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....

They do actually; in certain limited circumstances. See Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006.

In the circumstances which are the subject of this thread? Very, very unlikely.

The vast, vast majortiy of company activities require 50% or even 75% shareholder approval. I don't see why director remuneration should be any different. No-one is obliged to buy and hold shares in companies which are either not performing, or are over-paying their executives.

The problem is Will that many shares are held in pension funds where millions of people have no real say and entrust pension fund managers, another pet hate and distrust of mine.

AHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

So it IS your pension that's behind your bile.

I was right all along.

Look - remember the document you signed when you took out your pension? There was a bit in there about "value of investments can go down as well as up". You signed up to that.

If you didn't want to trust someone with your money, you should have invested it yourself.

Edited by Soovy on Tuesday 1st May 17:09

No, No soovy, my pension is secured by my own hard work and I retired years ago. Yes of course investments are risky but the top people still seem to gross out on their own rewards whether its been a good year or poor year, that is an insult
My objection (or bile as you call it )is more to do with the ethics and morals together with the effects seen growing within society in general over the ever increasing gap between wealthy and poor. A 400% increase in that gap over the past ten years cannot be justified by any measure IMO.