At last Shareholders speak-Barclays Bank
Discussion
martin84 said:
RYH64E said:
it's also not the Government's concern and certainly nothing to do with Joe Public.
When that bank is 83% State Owned - which I am aware is not the case with Barclays specifically - then it is very much Joe Public's concern because Joe Public owns 83% of that bank. As a result of that the Government have to be interested and make top executive pay their concern because the taxpayer doesnt like funding big bonuses when the man in the street is losing his job.The Governments concern is whatever the public tell them it should be and a Conservative Government specifically cannot be seen to back bankers and the richest of London, that certainly won't play well so they have to at least talk a good game.
heppers75 said:
Now if the said execs were taking out ooo say £10bn and leaving £2bn I would be a bit ooo come on chaps a bit harsh but we are talking millions in pay to service billions in profit, so really what am I missing? Oh and by missing I don't want a socialist, envy driven diatribe give me a solid logical argument I double dare you!?
No business outside banking could stay afloat and grow if the top people took 84% of the business profit for their own salary. The Sandwich maker couldn't stay in business if he took 84% of his takings as salary. Surely the top bosses taking most of the money for themselves holds the bank back generally? We say Government sucking up too much money in taxation such as the 50p tax rate holds everybody else back. I'd apply the same principle to any top boss who sucks up most of the takings for himself, the Gordon Brown of the banking sector.Its not an evil socialist agenda to acknowledge no person is worth what these people are paid. They're suits who sit at a desk and push some buttons. The mere fact they think they're worth it - and in some cases demand more - shows how they have no connection to the real world. Pampered and sheltered are words which cant even begin to describe it. Believing they're worth it and we should fellate bankers is hardly a positive advert for the virtues of free market capitalism, it just alienates the majority. The other fact is the pay gap between the top and bottom is so staggering now that it has more in common with communist societies past and present than anything else.
I'm happy to admit the current status quo is the way it is, but I'll never say its good or anything to be encouraged.
As you say this bank is not got anything to do with the public/government and its only got the shareholders to answer to, so to rattle off a statement as if it was RBS is not at all relevant.
The board themselves decide what the bonus is that the CEO gets, so he has no choice in the matter, yet he is the one in the firing line.
if you had a company that made £10 million and he paid himself £2 million is he still as evil as Im sure the number of people doing that is much greater than the odd CEO of a bank.
RYH64E said:
Du1point8 said:
As mentioned before the major shareholders the are 'questioning' this are not the long term investors... they will be the ones that didn't do at all bad out of the situation, those that did will be the hobby investors that may have had 10-20k of shares in value that don't know the market.
There must have been an awful lot of hobby investors as I don't think the number of shares issued decreased as the price plummeted.Nokia has dropped more, not a lot is said of them, when the shares go up no one complains, yet everyone has an opinion when the shares drop and they are all experts.
Du1point8 said:
how is a CEO of a bank made £2 billion (was that after corporate write offs from previous years) not worth a 2 million bonus to be the head of tens of thousands of people under his charge?
Well nobodies worth £2million irrespective of what they've done, we've already covered that. Also I'd say the tens of thousands of footsoldiers probably did more work than he did anyway. In my experience the indians do more work than the chiefs.Du1point8 said:
The board themselves decide what the bonus is that the CEO gets, so he has no choice in the matter, yet he is the one in the firing line.
The board decides what he's awarded but the CEO can opt to refuse if he wants to, like in the case of Steven Hester. He's not forced to take the money. For the record I felt the focus on Hester's bonus was unfair because he was not at the bank when it collapsed therefore he didn't make the problems. He is tasked with sorting out somebody elses problems and I don't envy his position. Theres plenty of top city execs making more than him who largely escaped the wrath of Ed Miliband and the media, so on that basis I feel the focus on Hester was harsh.
heppers75 said:
Please provide me with the direct evidence that the board of Barclays took 84% of the whole business profit?
I dont know that they did. I was speaking hypothetically based on what you said which was Now if the said execs were taking out ooo say £10bn and leaving £2bn I would be a bit ooo come on chaps a bit harsh but we are talking millions in pay to service billions in profit, so really what am I missing?84% of 12 is 10.
You're the one who was talking about taking £10billion and leaving £2billion, you proceeded to ask what'd be wrong with that. I told you.
Du1point8 said:
no one is worth 2 million... please!!
No one has established that, there is only people stating their opinions that they think he's not worth it but don't explain why... tell me why he's not worth it and people might take you more seriously.
I think you need to explain why any individual person could be worth - emphasis on the word worth - £2million without resorting to an argument based on statistical averages.No one has established that, there is only people stating their opinions that they think he's not worth it but don't explain why... tell me why he's not worth it and people might take you more seriously.
Tell me how a person could be worth that sort of money? Leave out any argument like 'because the bank made 100 million billion' and actually answer the question.
martin84 said:
Du1point8 said:
how is a CEO of a bank made £2 billion (was that after corporate write offs from previous years) not worth a 2 million bonus to be the head of tens of thousands of people under his charge?
Well nobodies worth £2million irrespective of what they've done, we've already covered that. Also I'd say the tens of thousands of footsoldiers probably did more work than he did anyway. In my experience the indians do more work than the chiefs.heppers75 said:
Please provide me with the direct evidence that the board of Barclays took 84% of the whole business profit?
I dont know that they did. I was speaking hypothetically based on what you said which was Now if the said execs were taking out ooo say £10bn and leaving £2bn I would be a bit ooo come on chaps a bit harsh but we are talking millions in pay to service billions in profit, so really what am I missing?84% of 12 is 10.
You're the one who was talking about taking £10billion and leaving £2billion, you proceeded to ask what'd be wrong with that. I told you.
However do you even know what % of the Barclays profit is that these persons have partaken in?
Assuming you do not let us do one more conceptual exercise and reach a figure and lets use £2bn vs £2m is a person worth even as a manager worth 1% of your business or any business as bottom line?
Forget the fact you have a problem with the amount as that is just I am sorry jealous stupidity! Think about the %....
Answers on a postcard...
martin84 said:
Du1point8 said:
no one is worth 2 million... please!!
No one has established that, there is only people stating their opinions that they think he's not worth it but don't explain why... tell me why he's not worth it and people might take you more seriously.
I think you need to explain why any individual person could be worth - emphasis on the word worth - £2million without resorting to an argument based on statistical averages.No one has established that, there is only people stating their opinions that they think he's not worth it but don't explain why... tell me why he's not worth it and people might take you more seriously.
Tell me how a person could be worth that sort of money? Leave out any argument like 'because the bank made 100 million billion' and actually answer the question.
your company makes £100 million and you get a 100k bonus, but because the figures are higher you think its wrong?
Yet public sector bonus like at a certain public sector Chief Ex made circa £150k in bonuses yet the organisation made heavy losses...
heppers75 said:
Do not disagree John, but as mentioned below if you are a portfolio / share based investor do you not work your portfolio and manage it and try and stay aware? Or do you be a lazy twunt and then b
h and moan when your ineptitude results in a loss!.
You did skilfully avoid my actual question so well done, have Barclays ever posted a loss as I think you did use that as an explicit argument!? You I have to say are making a very compelling case but it was based on X being greater than Y X being remuneration and Y being profit. IF and BTW you can't do it but IF you could prove that I am sold.
Sorry Heps, missed the question and got caught up with Friday night tv!h and moan when your ineptitude results in a loss!.You did skilfully avoid my actual question so well done, have Barclays ever posted a loss as I think you did use that as an explicit argument!? You I have to say are making a very compelling case but it was based on X being greater than Y X being remuneration and Y being profit. IF and BTW you can't do it but IF you could prove that I am sold.
I was equating you as a single business owner with millions of shareholders. I was equating loss of share value to loss of enterprise value for a single business owner. I am aware it is non a perfect analogy.
As you say, barc P&L makes profit. As it happens, I don't have great issue with exec pay - though I think it has diverged substantially from performance metrics.
I think if execs want to make millions and millions, they should maybe take some risk with their own money.
heppers75 said:
Assuming you do not let us do one more conceptual exercise and reach a figure and lets use £2bn vs £2m is a person worth even as a manager worth 1% of your business or any business as bottom line?
Forget the fact you have a problem with the amount as that is just I am sorry jealous stupidity! Think about the %....
Well lets compare it to a different business. Take Sainsbury's for instance. They made pre-tax profits of £827million last year. Justin King takes home around £3.5million a year according to news sources, which is around 0.4% of the companies profits. So with that example, 1% looks like a very large amount indeed.Forget the fact you have a problem with the amount as that is just I am sorry jealous stupidity! Think about the %....
martin84 said:
heppers75 said:
Assuming you do not let us do one more conceptual exercise and reach a figure and lets use £2bn vs £2m is a person worth even as a manager worth 1% of your business or any business as bottom line?
Forget the fact you have a problem with the amount as that is just I am sorry jealous stupidity! Think about the %....
Well lets compare it to a different business. Take Sainsbury's for instance. They made pre-tax profits of £827million last year. Justin King takes home around £3.5million a year according to news sources, which is around 0.4% of the companies profits. So with that example, 1% looks like a very large amount indeed.Forget the fact you have a problem with the amount as that is just I am sorry jealous stupidity! Think about the %....
surely you figure that out from your own figures, even if you look at all the figures he took 6.3 million which is what 0.3% of the profits.
Du1point8 said:
martin84 said:
heppers75 said:
Assuming you do not let us do one more conceptual exercise and reach a figure and lets use £2bn vs £2m is a person worth even as a manager worth 1% of your business or any business as bottom line?
Forget the fact you have a problem with the amount as that is just I am sorry jealous stupidity! Think about the %....
Well lets compare it to a different business. Take Sainsbury's for instance. They made pre-tax profits of £827million last year. Justin King takes home around £3.5million a year according to news sources, which is around 0.4% of the companies profits. So with that example, 1% looks like a very large amount indeed.Forget the fact you have a problem with the amount as that is just I am sorry jealous stupidity! Think about the %....
surely you figure that out from your own figures, even if you look at all the figures he took 6.3 million which is what 0.3% of the profits.
You do seem to be blissfully missing the point Martin and I am unsure why when I ask one question you are happy to take it as a conceptual exercise then when I ask another you then slide yourself back to a real world example, which actually also illustrates the point I was trying to make yet you happily missed or avoided it still.
I will echo Du1point8 - Do you think that a CEO's remuneration is too high when it is equal to a fractional percentage of the companies profit?
As by the way if you are of that belief then one of the businesses I am working with currently turns over £15m, Gross Profit is around £1.8m and the MD has a salary and benefits package of about £175k a year so by your rationale I am guessing we ought to hang him and/or reduce his salary to £12k a year!
Edited by heppers75 on Saturday 28th April 09:04
johnfm said:
heppers75 said:
Do not disagree John, but as mentioned below if you are a portfolio / share based investor do you not work your portfolio and manage it and try and stay aware? Or do you be a lazy twunt and then bh and moan when your ineptitude results in a loss!.
You did skilfully avoid my actual question so well done, have Barclays ever posted a loss as I think you did use that as an explicit argument!? You I have to say are making a very compelling case but it was based on X being greater than Y X being remuneration and Y being profit. IF and BTW you can't do it but IF you could prove that I am sold.
Sorry Heps, missed the question and got caught up with Friday night tv!h and moan when your ineptitude results in a loss!.You did skilfully avoid my actual question so well done, have Barclays ever posted a loss as I think you did use that as an explicit argument!? You I have to say are making a very compelling case but it was based on X being greater than Y X being remuneration and Y being profit. IF and BTW you can't do it but IF you could prove that I am sold.
I was equating you as a single business owner with millions of shareholders. I was equating loss of share value to loss of enterprise value for a single business owner. I am aware it is non a perfect analogy.
As you say, barc P&L makes profit. As it happens, I don't have great issue with exec pay - though I think it has diverged substantially from performance metrics.
I think if execs want to make millions and millions, they should maybe take some risk with their own money.
What I thought and I am happy to be wrong is that a larger percentage of the exec pay structure is profit related is it not? After all his basic salary was only £1.4m of the however many millions he ended up with so surely therein lays his risk, no profit no bonus surely?
martin84 said:
Tell me how a person could be worth that sort of money? Leave out any argument like 'because the bank made 100 million billion' and actually answer the question.
Yeah..that's right. Explain to me what 2+2 equals. Leave out any argument like "it equals 4", and actually answer the question. 
TwigtheWonderkid said:
martin84 said:
Tell me how a person could be worth that sort of money? Leave out any argument like 'because the bank made 100 million billion' and actually answer the question.
Yeah..that's right. Explain to me what 2+2 equals. Leave out any argument like "it equals 4", and actually answer the question. So essentially it is jealousy then and / or you are a card carrying Communist and all property is theft etc etc.
Up the workers comrade!
RYH64E said:
crankedup said:
Only the misguided do not give a monkeys. Do you not see the time of overblown self reward is on the way out or are you deluding yourself. Remember the shareholders are the bosses.
In my opinion the shareholders are the only ones entitled to question pay/profit levels within the bank. I'm not a shareholder of Barclays and as such I couldn't care less how much of the profits are distributed to shareholders and how much paid to executives, it's not my business and not my problem - it's also not the Government's concern and certainly nothing to do with Joe Public.it's the main reason we are seeing the massive inflation in executive pay which is categorically not in the interests of shareholders. It's clearly a 'you pat my back and I'll pat your's' arrangement. otherwise insurance and pension funds would look to minimise executive pay and maximise dividends.
crankedup said:
Well at least you concede the shareholders have a legitimate interest, the point is that most people saving into a pension scheme will have an interest in banking shares. Given that is the case most people will have a POV on the matter of remuneration within banks, whether they wish to express that POV or not is their concern, as you mention. This brings me to the public perceptions and how this is affecting society in general, not to mention that the investment banks had a role within the European and American financial collapse. Society it seems is deeply offended that top exec's can still be rewarded as though nothing has changed since 2008. Personally I see this as a problem which is not going away any time soon. (we are all in this together) has focused minds into unfairness.
My personal opinion is that bank employees at the highest level have been paid far too much for what has been pretty appalling performance, certainly in terms of share price for long term investors, and that rewards have been unfairly skewed towards employees rather than shareholders. If I were a shareholder I wouldn't be happy, but I'm not, I hold no Barclays shares and decided many years ago that pensions were a waste of money, so don't have any interest there either. Maybe a passing interest in Lloyds and RBS but imo the bigger mistake there was in not letting them go bust in the first place.I do find it ironic to hear those on the left complaining about employees being paid too much, to the detriment of the evil, capitalist shareholders. I thought that the socialist ideal would be for the employees to be paid as much as possible, leaving nothing for the shareholders.
What interests me is that after all that has happened regarding the "too big to fail" financial businesses, risks taken, misaligned compensation schemes and subsequent bailouts little has really changed. New banks didn't fill the gaps, the size of many financial businesses previously deemed "too big" has continued to increase and there has been little appetite for reform towards a stable system.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff