At last Shareholders speak-Barclays Bank

[RYH64E]

heppers75 said:

So you are discounting the fact it employs nearly 150k people and £2bn works out to £13k per employee then? Does not seem excessive to me for a business with the vast levels of profit it has. After all as a shareholder I would be the first one to say that the staff who make the money need to be taken care of first and foremost and as long as not to the exclusivity of myself as a shareholder I am happy as larry.

Also you do seem to like to dilute your argument when a counter point is made, we were up until recently talking about executive pay and now you seem to have lumped in every employee to try and assist in making your point.

I answered your point elsewhere:

'In 2011, Barclays paid out £2.15 billion in bonuses to staff - three times more than the £730 million it paid out in dividends.'

In support of my point that the balance has swung too far in favour of employees at the expense of shareholders. Note that the £2.15bn is bonus, not salary.

What is your view on this quote, which you like to dismiss as rhetoric:

'The Barclays row has been brewing for weeks, after the bank’s 2011 executive pay plans revealed Bob Diamond, chief executive, and Chris Lucas, finance director, had been awarded annual bonuses close to the maximum defined by the bank even though the share price slumped by a third, dividends stagnated and profits fell.'

Do you think that is a reasonable outcome for the owners of the business?

[heppers75]

RYH64E said:

heppers75 said:

As for Exec distribution coming ahead of shareholders, Exec distribution has been demonstrated to be fractional percentages of profit and shareholders have had 6%, that would seem to be the very oposite of what you are saying no?

6%? Your earlier figures, which I haven't checked, was £0.06 per share?

Apologies I meant 6p per share which would not equate to 6% apologies but point of maths not withstanding total dividend payments FAR exceed Exec payments. Which is exactly how it should be.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

crankedup said:

Your completely missing the point, this tired out old nonsense of having to pay top money for the best is simply common sense. However that top money is now completely out of control

It's only out of control when you're paying the person more than they are making you. Paying a bank CEO £17m a year to run a multinational bank that makes billions in profits is perfectly under control.

I pay the bloke who cuts my lawn and tidies my garden £25 a time. But I'd happily agree to pay him £25M if he could deliver £50m of buried treasure into my possession.

[heppers75]

RYH64E said:

heppers75 said:

So you are discounting the fact it employs nearly 150k people and £2bn works out to £13k per employee then? Does not seem excessive to me for a business with the vast levels of profit it has. After all as a shareholder I would be the first one to say that the staff who make the money need to be taken care of first and foremost and as long as not to the exclusivity of myself as a shareholder I am happy as larry.

Also you do seem to like to dilute your argument when a counter point is made, we were up until recently talking about executive pay and now you seem to have lumped in every employee to try and assist in making your point.

I answered your point elsewhere:

'In 2011, Barclays paid out £2.15 billion in bonuses to staff - three times more than the £730 million it paid out in dividends.'

In support of my point that the balance has swung too far in favour of employees at the expense of shareholders. Note that the £2.15bn is bonus, not salary.

What is your view on this quote, which you like to dismiss as rhetoric:

'The Barclays row has been brewing for weeks, after the bank’s 2011 executive pay plans revealed Bob Diamond, chief executive, and Chris Lucas, finance director, had been awarded annual bonuses close to the maximum defined by the bank even though the share price slumped by a third, dividends stagnated and profits fell.'

Do you think that is a reasonable outcome for the owners of the business?

My point was simply that until your post there we were only concerned about Exec pay, now you realise that for Execs alone you can't make the sums work you lump in every employee i.e. the tens of thousands of frontline tellers etc that would have had a few hundred to a few thousand a piece.

i.e. you shift your argument when the sums don't work in your favour! As you are now talking about the whole company not just execs which is where we have been up until now.

[RYH64E]

heppers75 said:

My point was simply that until your post there we were only concerned about Exec pay, now you realise that for Execs alone you can't make the sums work you lump in every employee i.e. the tens of thousands of frontline tellers etc that would have had a few hundred to a few thousand a piece.

i.e. you shift your argument when the sums don't work in your favour! As you are now talking about the whole company not just execs which is where we have been up until now.

That isn't an answer to my question, which was:

What is your view on this quote, which you like to dismiss as rhetoric:

'The Barclays row has been brewing for weeks, after the bank’s 2011 executive pay plans revealed Bob Diamond, chief executive, and Chris Lucas, finance director, had been awarded annual bonuses close to the maximum defined by the bank even though the share price slumped by a third, dividends stagnated and profits fell.'

Do you think that is a reasonable outcome for the owners of the business?

Edited by RYH64E on Sunday 29th April 16:10

[crankedup]

otolith said:

crankedup said:

In my case I find it abhorrent that the employees of this particular bank are taking three times more in remuneration packages then is being distributed to shareholders. That is quite clearly wrong and it has to be corrected.

Shareholders are paid out of net profit. Money required to pay the wages bill was never part of net profit, it was part of the cost of running the business. If shareholders feel that they can increase their profit by squeezing pay, that's their gamble to take, but it isn't some kind of moral issue of entitlement.

I'm sure there are plenty of businesses in which the pay bill is considerably larger than the amount the shareholders receive, there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

I suspect that you object to some people being very much richer than others and the rest of your argument exists solely to justify that point of principle.

Your last para is wholly wrong and frankly rather junior. The fact that shareholders have had to endure seeing their rewards being pitiful is one thing but when its shares wrapped up within management funds that's another. It is these shareholders which are less able to demonstrate or take action against the matter directly. For those that have shares held directly it is of course a different matter as we have recently witnessed. I for one believe that top pay is out of control and has risen 400% over and above average increases over the past ten years apparently. Further, I would suggest that there are plenty of younger talents just itching to take on more responsibility into the Senior and top ranks of Companies without the multi million reward packages currently drawn.
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.

[crankedup]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

crankedup said:

Your completely missing the point, this tired out old nonsense of having to pay top money for the best is simply common sense. However that top money is now completely out of control

It's only out of control when you're paying the person more than they are making you. Paying a bank CEO £17m a year to run a multinational bank that makes billions in profits is perfectly under control.

I pay the bloke who cuts my lawn and tidies my garden £25 a time. But I'd happily agree to pay him £25M if he could deliver £50m of buried treasure into my possession.

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.

[otolith]

I'm sorry, but I think you are annoyed because, like Martin, you think that it is immoral for somebody to be so highly paid. I suspect that you would still want to cut executive pay even if it could be proven that it would be counter-productive for shareholders to do so, because I think the root of your objection is dogmatic rather than utilitarian.

[heppers75]

RYH64E said:

heppers75 said:

My point was simply that until your post there we were only concerned about Exec pay, now you realise that for Execs alone you can't make the sums work you lump in every employee i.e. the tens of thousands of frontline tellers etc that would have had a few hundred to a few thousand a piece.

i.e. you shift your argument when the sums don't work in your favour! As you are now talking about the whole company not just execs which is where we have been up until now.

That isn't an answer to my question.

Apologies, you seem to be rubbing off on me (if you will excuse the phraseology!)

Yes I do believe that it is a reasonable outcome for the following reasons: -

1 - The share price and profits are still doing very well compared to the state of play when the current Exec team took the reigns.
2 - The dividend payment is still a good return for current market conditions and has gone up as my cheques are bigger!
3 - The payments to the Executive team are far below the total dividend payment

Could it be better? Yes, Do I think that based on their track record of improvement the team in place are the ones to do it? Yes

SO do I think that keeping them well paid and well incentivised is a good idea? Yes

[heppers75]

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!

[munky]

johnfm said:

heppers75 said:

So a firm makes a £2bn profit and pays out a more than acceptable dividend given the state of the global economy yet the 'shareholders' want the 'bosses' to have less remuneration.

Ahhh the politics of envy and jealousy makes for such a lovely society does it not!?

I think you may be forgetting that the shareholders are the only ones who have taken a haircut in all this. In fact shareholders in banks are like Soovy - no hair left worth mentioning.


Barclays investors have lost 65%, share price dropping from 750 to 200 since 2002.

Lloyds shareholders lost over 90% since 2002.

Probably worse for shareholder in RBS, NR etc etc.

A dividend of a few % really isn't much consolation.

Expecting management to share some of this massive downside isn't really envy, is it.

Have you any idea why Lloyds shareholders lost 90%? Clue: the management didn't do it.

[RYH64E]

heppers75 said:

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!

That's a very condescending statement, do you really think that those that disagree with your point f view are readers of the Sun who have no real interest in the subject?

Most of the respectable papers have published stories at least somewhat critical of the Barclays position, I quoted one earlier from the FT, there are a few articles in today's Times that I can't link to *(see below for one quote), and here's some negative reporting from the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...

I do find it surprising that the PH view tends to support the reward of employees rather than company owners, who have been royally shafted in recent years.

• Domnic Lawson for one reminding us that Bob Diamond 'had desperately wanted to do the deal that destroyed RBS. It was only because of a sudden weakness in the Barclays share price that he was beaten by Fred Goodwin in the preposterous, ego driven battle to take over the toxic loan book of ABN. Otherwise, Barclays rather than RBS would have been nationalised and the shareholders wiped out.'

[heppers75]

RYH64E said:

heppers75 said:

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!

That's a very condescending statement, do you really think that those that disagree with your point f view are readers of the Sun who have no real interest in the subject?

Most of the respectable papers have published stories at least somewhat critical of the Barclays position, I quoted one earlier from the FT, there are a few articles in today's Times that I can't link to *(see below for one quote), and here's some negative reporting from the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...

I do find it surprising that the PH view tends to support the reward of employees rather than company owners, who have been royally shafted in recent years.

• Domnic Lawson for one reminding us that Bob Diamond 'had desperately wanted to do the deal that destroyed RBS. It was only because of a sudden weakness in the Barclays share price that he was beaten by Fred Goodwin in the preposterous, ego driven battle to take over the toxic loan book of ABN. Otherwise, Barclays rather than RBS would have been nationalised and the shareholders wiped out.'

No I do not, I think that for the most part the people that like to propagate this kind of issue/story are doing so for a reason that is little or nothing to do with their belief in the issue it is to do with their desire to sell newspapers!

That quote from Mr Lawson being case in point he has zero real facts to back that up and could not substantiate it if he tried, sells papers though no doubt!

[Use Psychology]

munky said:

Have you any idea why Lloyds shareholders lost 90%? Clue: the management didn't do it.

hmm.

if they didn't do anything actively then they are still responsible for not doing anything. so really they did.

[RYH64E]

heppers75 said:

That quote from Mr Lawson being case in point he has zero real facts to back that up and could not substantiate it if he tried, sells papers though no doubt!

Not sure of that, there seems to be plenty of supporting evidence for his view:

'Barclays' stock-based offer has collapsed with the fall in its share price to just €59bn (£40bn) compared with the rival RBS-led consortium's largely cash €71bn bid.'

'Mr Diamond... Do we still want ABN? Yes.'

'Share falls weaken Barclays' bid'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2815537...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6968928.stm

[heppers75]

RYH64E said:

heppers75 said:

That quote from Mr Lawson being case in point he has zero real facts to back that up and could not substantiate it if he tried, sells papers though no doubt!

Not sure of that, there seems to be plenty of supporting evidence for his view:

'Barclays' stock-based offer has collapsed with the fall in its share price to just €59bn (£40bn) compared with the rival RBS-led consortium's largely cash €71bn bid.'

'Mr Diamond... Do we still want ABN? Yes.'

'Share falls weaken Barclays' bid'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2815537...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6968928.stm

Anyone can pull together different quotes and articles written at different times and from that extrapolate a scenario and dramatise the vernacular used to demonstrate that scenario.

The truth of the matter is nobody knows the facts of what actually happened outside a select few, but it does serve the purposes of many to take such disjointed bits of information and concatenate them up to present a view of what might have been.

That is the sad state of our current media driven society, the insatiable desire for yet more and more opinion masquerading as news leads to yet more opinion masquerading as fact! The worst thing I can see of late is that this has progressed from the tittle tattle that was mostly confined to the celebrity sections and has migrated to what people consider real news!

[Soovy]

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.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

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.

[Soovy]

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.

Exactly.

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.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Soovy said:

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.

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