Jump to content
Complete France Forum

Could you bear another Banking Story?


mint

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

News item yesterday said that RBS was halving its sports sponsorships. So the likes of Greg Norman and Andy Murray will be getting less dosh.

Why does the RBS still sponsor any sports? Greg Norman hardly needs more cash.

Is Sir Humphrey going to get the seats at Ascot, Wimbledon, Brands Hatch, Twickenham etc?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir Humphrey indeed.  Where were all those highly-paid Treasury bods when the government needed advice?

Are they seriously telling us that no one looked at the details of this man's pension?

What are the civil servants paid to do, pray?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  They knew when he was asked to go and give up a years pay over a million that he was going into early retirement..was being pushed into early retirement and as such his pension rules would apply...Ministers just make themselves look stupid by shouting after the event and suggesting legal ways round the payment ..He was not sacked he was eased into retirement....they have to pay  the pension .....he knows it  and the Chancellor does now .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Clair"]I can't help thinking this story is a convenient diversion and that this man is an ideal scapegoat.

[/quote]

Of course Clair, but I'll bet that there are loads of these 'walk away with fat cheque' barstwards, currently keeping their heads down.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing devils advocate for a minute, nobody said anything when he first took over the job and started making loads of money for both the bank and the shareholders, it was all sunshine and champagne then. Now the bank has all but gone to the wall its a different story. To those that employed him initially and rode on the crest of the wave the saying "you reap what you sow" comes to mind.

Personally I think he could easily give up half his pension as a sign of good will and still have a good life, well I could on £375k a year. Min d you I could live well on £35k a year and I bet the pension is indexed linked. You also have to consider that he will probably never work again, the thought of which may well please some people.

When people take on these sorts of jobs they well and truly put their neck out on a block which is often why they are offered such a good package. When they do well these sort of things seldom get in the media. I fear this will either drag on through the courts for years or he will simply say no (to giving all or part of it up) and the story will gradually slip away. I understand he is 'not at home' at present. If he has any sense he has probably done a runner and taken his pension with him. Its probably an 'Off Shore' one anyway.

I think the continued bailing out of the banks sends a clear message that its OK to be incompetent and fail as the government i.e. the UK tax payer will always bail you out. They need to be taught a very hard lesson and the sure way to do that is to say NO to the banks and let one or two go to the wall. Banking, its a way to print money and name your own salary. [;-)] I fear my grandchildren, when they arrive, will be paying for this for years unless they emigrate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Quillan"]

When people take on these sorts of jobs they well and truly put their neck out on a block which is often why they are offered such a good package. When they do well these sort of things seldom get in the media. .

[/quote]

These jobs are a merry-go-round they swap jobs every few years giving each other golden goodbyes and platinum hellos.

They do not put their heads on the chopping block they put lots of other peoples on the chopping block. Can you furnish an example where someone in this category loses out?

With your contacts couldn't you arrange for a bridge accident?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know much about the banking industry, I have had said that on more than one occasion but I do know a reasonable amount about my old industry, IT.

Some of the things did make it in to the national press on rare occasions. There was a company back in the 90's working in the public sector who got it terribly wrong on several occasions, it was on a scandalous level. Some of us made huge amounts of money going in afterwards putting things right. In fact its true to say that they made me (and my fellow workmates) a fortune. However if you got it wrong like one or two of my competitors you didn't get your bonus and never worked at that level ever again. Its a risk, albeit a calculated risk, when you take on this sort of work.

I doubt this bloke will ever get work again at this level, his reputation has now gone. If he had got it right he would have gone on and earned even bigger money and probably another pension. I doubt that this pension is his only one anyway, I suspect he has one or more from previous companies he has worked for. He probably holds quite a few shares in companies he has worked for in the past, another common method of rewarding good performance. This is the risk he takes and why at his peak he could command such rewards.

Of course the real fault lays with those that employed him in the first place and wrote his contract. Personally I always took a small salary with a massive bonus, it keeps you focused and ensures you perform, it also shows you are happy to put your money where your mouth is. If I failed, or more to the point my company failed, then obviously no bonus plus my reputation would be in shatters and I would never have been offered work again.

What does annoy me is that bonus's are normally a reward for those that do well. Here we have all these banks getting money from the government because they have got it terribly wrong and lost a shed load of money yet they those that are "guilty" still get their bonus's. On the other side of the coin you have Barclay's who didn't take government (i.e. tax payers) money and used their profit to write off their debts and turn in a poultry (by banking standards) £6 Billion profit and as a result have stopped bonus's this year. Now pardon me for being thick but this seems to indicate that those that are incompetent get rewarded and those that do it right get nothing. Surely this is not the right signal to send out to people and only encourages people not to care.

Still theres is nothing much we can really do. Those that still have money in the UK could concider moving their money to more "ethical" banks, I don't know how the Coop bank has faired but that may be one worth considering as an example. I can't find anything bad (money wise) about it on the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Quillan"]

Of course the real fault lays with those that employed him in the first place and wrote his contract. Personally I always took a small salary with a massive bonus, it keeps you focused and ensures you perform, it also shows you are happy to put your money where your mouth is. If I failed, or more to the point my company failed, then obviously no bonus plus my reputation would be in shatters and I would never have been offered work again.

What does annoy me is that bonus's are normally a reward for those that do well...

[/quote]

Exactly.  Think of them not so much as underperforming bankers but as consummate contract negotiators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Quillan"]

I don't know how the Coop bank has faired but that may be one worth considering as an example. I can't find anything bad (money wise) about it on the internet.

[/quote]

The mutual sector is the way to go.  We made a profit this year but the directors' waived their bonuses because of the market conditions and because they didn't want to reduce the return to members. Nevertheless they have ensured that ordinary staff have been given a bonus this year as a reflection of the good performance of the underlying business and the very heavy workloads that have fallen on many of the staff due to the crisis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thing I thought of over lunch was what about the other banks that are in trouble like Lloyd's TSB?

What deal has the new chap got for going to RBS? If I were him I would want a very good one, performance related, possibly along the same lines as the guy that left. Well think about it, if you had to go in and clear this lot up wouldn't you want at least the same if not more than the guy that f*cked it all up in the first place?

I think the ex RBS chap is only the tip of the iceberg. As time goes on there are going to be a lot more coming out of the woodwork and probably a lot worse its just we don't know yet who they are and what the deals are. It's unfortunate for this chap that he is the first in the public eye. If GB does manage to get out of paying him it might set a precedence so I guess its in GB's interest to proceed with haste so as to make an example of him and stop the others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think something that may be on Goodwin's (and all the boards of directors in every bank in the worlds) minds is that they lost so much money on their stock holdings (because large parts of their pay was in shares they were not allowed to sell) that the only option they have, is to wait for their pensions. It is all in the public domain, but in many banks where bonuses have been paid, a large portion of pay from the last few years has become worthless, so in effect the calls by public for bankers to repay a portion of past years bonuses has actually happened. It doesn't help the shareholders but this is a fact. So to re-iterate, where board directors have lost their fortunes on share holdings, they may well be clinging on to their pensions as their only valuable asset. This is clearly Goodwin's thinking, whether or not you agree with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example

Goodwin held 2,732,572 shares, the last of which he recieved in Jan 2008 at around 330 pence.

So the value was £9,017,487=60.

As of today the shares are worth 24 pence, so value today is £655,817=28

So he has lost, or more accurately not been able to realise, £8,361,669=72 on his shares.

I would guess, that he sees the pension as some form of recompense. I will leave that to you as to whether or not you feel it is justified.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="powerdesal"]At 24p are they worth a 'punt'?
[/quote]

usual rules - i am not qualified to comment blah blah blah

all i would say is that if you think nationalisation is a possibility then in that event, shares would be worth zero. If they dont nationalise but have further share dilution (via UK treasury injections) then the shares will tend to zero as the dilution takes place and as has happened in the past few months.

You pay your money and takes your choice.

 

By the way, I don't trade stocks n shares.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...