[cite]Posted By: Centenary_Shirt[/cite]If everyone is so intent on a witch hunt and finding people to blame for the global economic problems, why not blame the people who took out loans which they obviously have no chance of repaying, defaulted on their mortgages and which then lead to a big black hole of bad debt.
I assume we ignore them because its the banks fault for giving them the money in the first place. These will also be the same people who complain about a nanny state. And who read sensationalist newspapers.
I think going bankrupt, getting poor credit ratings and having their houses etc repossessed is probably enough punishment.
[cite]Posted By: Centenary_Shirt[/cite]If everyone is so intent on a witch hunt and finding people to blame for the global economic problems, why not blame the people who took out loans which they obviously have no chance of repaying, defaulted on their mortgages and which then lead to a big black hole of bad debt.
I assume we ignore them because its the banks fault for giving them the money in the first place. These will also be the same people who complain about a nanny state. And who read sensationalist newspapers.
I think going bankrupt, getting poor credit ratings and having their houses etc repossessed is probably enough punishment.
I read a story yesterday about a Subway "Sandwich Artist" in the US (California, I think) getting a mortgage for US$360,000 when his annual salary was - wait for it - US$15,000 per year!!!
That's right, they gave him a mortgage on TWENTY FIVE times his annual earnings!!! This whole thing is a farce, I remember back in the early 90's when my family were buying houses and being told that a bank would only lend you THREE times your annual earnings.
As the property market rose in recent years I remember thinking that either these buyers were getting massive pay rises at work or that the banks were simply giving out loans virtually indiscriminately.
[cite]Posted By: carly burn[/cite]Anybody defending this plank wants their head read.
They've fu#k*d this,and many other,countries up good and proper.
If the tax payers money was so good to bail them out of the shit ,let them come cap in hand to us for their bloody pension i say.
He did - he agreed the pension with the board of RBS and the goverment when he left - a fair part of it he'd paid into during a long working period with the company.
I very much doubt that. His contribution would have been a very small proportion of the total Fund. And apparently the Fund doubled in the last year. Methinks that a deal was done whereby the enhanced Pension amount would not get such publicity as a bonus/pay off etc but its backfired. But perhaps these are not the important issues.
The regulation of these banks has been appalling and for that we must blame the Governments of the last 20 years.
I cannot believe the comments above. talk about rose tinted glasses. it is all the fault of those that borrowed mortgages lol lol lol. How many of you are bankers?
the top bankers and probably as many as 2 - 5000 below them have committed crimes of mass corruption with the sole aim of lining their own pockets at the expense of customers and shareholders. their friends in government have now given them tax payers money too that will not be repaid in full. they HAVE broken laws but the Government cannot pursue them as they would then have to disclose their own complicity.
but have faith because, even though al qaeda may try but never succeed as they are far less of a risk than the scum in our banks, as things dive further over the next two to five years the system of government and finance led control will fall and these people will be brought to justice. the banks and the government will be nationalised for good by the now silent millions who are still in shock at the scale of the corruption and theft.
Perhaps the fairest solution is that Goodwin shouldn't draw any of his pension while RBS accepts government handouts? When the bank is sold off he can start collecting his pension again.
He only joined RBS in 1998. So he accrued his £690k pa for 10 years service with the bank and took it to oblivion. Seeing as its payable from age 50 and with a prospective average life expectancy of around 30 years (and probably inflation proofed as well) its probably a package worth in excess of £25m to Fred and his family (you could double that if he lives into his 90s). So the equivalent of £2.5m per year for the 10 successful years at RBS.
Not sure if Wiki is a reliable source but he seems to have made his mark in his early banking career because of his expertise in 'due diligence' and turning around failed banks.
[cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]I doubt if he's drawing a pension paid directly by RBS - or by Government intervention.
Company pension schemes are normally adminstered by a separate organisation from the commercial trading company.
The pension administration generate their own seperate funds and investments.
Im sorry Oggy thats plain wrong. Who administers the scheme is one thing be it day to day admin or investments. Who pays for it is another. Its quite possible that RBS run their own scheme but to some degree its completely irrelevant.
And the RBS scheme is non contributory to members. So Fred has not paid a bean. I have said before that I have no problem with big salaries and of course big pensions as a result. But this case is wholly different and it appears a large pension has been enhanced in 2 ways.
1) For Sir Freds early departure (granting him the next 10/15 years of service)
2) For its early payment at 50. Ordinarily that reduce a pension by half.
And someone has approved these and the capital cost of both enhancements is enormous. And we need an enquiry into who has approved what with taxpayers money and whether it can be reversed in my opinion.
I dont think RBS or the Government have a leg to stand on legally, somebody had to approve it and sign it off, their the real culprits in this IMO, I dont blame Goodwin for not wanting to hand it back, who would?
We can argue about his morals on it all day & night, but a contract is a contract.
Agree if it was offered to any of us we would take it, we would we give it back... I'm not so sure, its easy for us to say we never had it.
I dont know the answers but the world is in a mess not just this country and its gonna take a long time to turn this one around.
Lord Stevenson (ex Chairman of HBOS)
Andy Hornby (ex CEO of HBOS)
Fred Goodwin (ex CEO of RBS)
John McFall (MP and Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee)
Alistair Darling (Chancellor of the Exchequer)
Sir Terry Wogan (BBC Radio 2 Presenter)
Answer:- Sir Terry Wogan. He is the only one with a banking qualification.
I agree DA9 but there appears to be a wider and more technical problem.
The PPF (Pension Protection Fund) was set up to protect members of Final Salary Schemes where the employers go bust. It has maximum levels of payout which is about £20k per year for pensioners. Thats funded partly by Govt and also by a levy on solvent Pension Schemes. This levy is therefore in a way paid by ordinary members.
The PPF has already had to step in for some pretty well known Companies and will probably be very active in the next few years as Companies go to the wall. But it will only partially protect and to predetermined levels meaning that nobody will be better off as a result.
But when we come to the rescue of RBS and Sir Fred a whole set of different parameters seem to apply. It look like hes traded off a large pay off which would have got maximum adverse publicity for a rather under the carpet enhanced pension deal which may well end up being more costly to the taxpayer than other options.
To me its a disgrace and members of the public are being hoodwinked.
[cite]Posted By: Imissthepeanutman[/cite]I agree DA9 but there appears to be a wider and more technical problem.
The PPF (Pension Protection Fund) was set up to protect members of Final Salary Schemes where the employers go bust. It has maximum levels of payout which is about £20k per year for pensioners. Thats funded partly by Govt and also by a levy on solvent Pension Schemes. This levy is therefore in a way paid by ordinary members.
The PPF has already had to step in for some pretty well known Companies and will probably be very active in the next few years as Companies go to the wall. But it will only partially protect and to predetermined levels meaning that nobody will be better off as a result.
But when we come to the rescue of RBS and Sir Fred a whole set of different parameters seem to apply. It look like hes traded off a large pay off which would have got maximum adverse publicity for a rather under the carpet enhanced pension deal which may well end up being more costly to the taxpayer than other options.
To me its a disgrace and members of the public are being hoodwinked.
Totally agree, but the buck stops with whomever approved it, Goodwin certainly didn't write his own cheque (or did he?) or set the rate himself (or did he?), this Government are back tracking and looking for scapegoats to sway their own public persona with the masses, I suspect that people at the top in RBS and at cabinet level have had their fingers in this pie from way back and are now panicking due to their incompetence and greed.
1 - Fred Goodwins salary,bonus structure and pension details were all available and published in shareholders reports, so have been in the public domain. So I dont see that there has been an invasion of privacy.
2 - Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The board of Barclays took praise the other week for posting a profit and not requiring a government handout. This is the same board who tried to takeover ABN Amro. RBS's mistake was in making their bid a majority cash bid rather than shares.
3 - When the RBS was posting profits of £6bn-£10bn you had people criticising this as being obscene, yet the banking sectors company taxes alone took several pence of your tax rate.
4 - The whole world banking system has been affected by the collapse of the housing market in the states, this isnt down to one individual person a la the Nick Leeson incident. It's true what they say - America sneezes and the world catches a cold.
5 - There may have been incompetence, but that doesnt mean he should lose his pension etc. If you got fired from your job for mistakes you have made would you say you will give up your pension? A contract is a contract - lets ask for the wages back from Marcus Bent, JFH etc etc for their incomptence
[cite]Posted By: MrOneLung[/cite]1 - Fred Goodwins salary,bonus structure and pension details were all available and published in shareholders reports, so have been in the public domain. So I dont see that there has been an invasion of privacy.
2 - Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The board of Barclays took praise the other week for posting a profit and not requiring a government handout. This is the same board who tried to takeover ABN Amro. RBS's mistake was in making their bid a majority cash bid rather than shares.
3 - When the RBS was posting profits of £6bn-£10bn you had people criticising this as being obscene, yet the banking sectors company taxes alone took several pence of your tax rate.
4 - The whole world banking system has been affected by the collapse of the housing market in the states, this isnt down to one individual person a la the Nick Leeson incident. It's true what they say - America sneezes and the world catches a cold.
5 - There may have been incompetence, but that doesnt mean he should lose his pension etc. If you got fired from your job for mistakes you have made would you say you will give up your pension? A contract is a contract - lets ask for the wages back from Marcus Bent, JFH etc etc for their incomptence
People keep blaming America for the financial state we find ourselves in.OUR government and banking system were making exactly the same greed driven mistakes as the yanks and should rightly be blamed for the shite we find ourselves chin high in.
If,as in your last point,i had made a fu*k up at work that meant billions of pounds of tax payers money was needed to put it right,then yes,i would expect a lot of heat and scrutiny as to what i was EARNING and could expect to EARN in the future.And that goes for everyone concerned,Not just 'greedy Goodwin'
Nick Leeson, a relatively lowly figure in Barings, got banged up when he took the rap for Barings going bust despite inadequate supervision by the many layers of management above him.
Why aren't Goodwin and his ilk bending down to pick up the soap in Belmarsh?
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]Nick Leeson, a relatively lowly figure in Barings, got banged up when he took the rap for Barings going bust despite inadequate supervision by the many layers of management above him.
Why aren't Goodwin and his ilk bending down to pick up the soap in Belmarsh?
actually he may have. The Serious Fruad Squad are looking into his and a few other cases at the moment.
mind you "serious fraud squad" so the other department would be the "not serious fraud squad" or " we are a tad miffed squad"
if any of us borrowed money from a bank with no hope of paying it back and no means to pay it back we would be in clink !! why the f**k shouldnt people who have turned the World upside down also get nicked ?
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]Nick Leeson, a relatively lowly figure in Barings, got banged up when he took the rap for Barings going bust despite inadequate supervision by the many layers of management above him.
Why aren't Goodwin and his ilk bending down to pick up the soap in Belmarsh?
Goodwin has done nothing illegal.
Maybe maybe not.
In simple terms Leeson misled the auditors by fabricating transactions meaning that the Barings accounts showed far higher profits than they had really made. Shortly after the "fat cats" creamed off their bonuses the whole edifice collapsed like a pack of cards.
RBS and other banks also declared high profits. Shortly after the "fat cats" creamed off their bonuses the whole edifice (s) collapsed like a pack of cards.
Unless you were incredibly stupid (in which case you would be highly unlikely to become CEO of a PLC) some at least of these losses must have been forseeable. Basic good accounting practice states that you provide for forseeable losses on discovery.
This does not appear to have happened with RBS and other banks, just like in the Barings case, I ask the question why?
EDIT: Just to clarify I'm not referring to the figures declared a few days ago but the previous period.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]Nick Leeson, a relatively lowly figure in Barings, got banged up when he took the rap for Barings going bust despite inadequate supervision by the many layers of management above him.
Why aren't Goodwin and his ilk bending down to pick up the soap in Belmarsh?
Because Leeson knowingly and wilfully set out to decieve. He invented clients, and deliberately tried to hide what he was doing. Ultimately he was unlucky with the earthquake as I believe his positions were actually going to make a profit up to then, but he still willingly committed fraud. As an ex employee (18.5 years) I have had a lot of money invested in their shares which has gone to pot, but I dont believe for one minute it is due to criminal activity. Naivety,egotism,incompetence from the board maybe, but not a deliberate crime.
The news is breaking today that Sir Freds pension was approved by the RBS Board on a discretionary basis and was doubled?
I am not and have never talked about this mans statutory and contractual rights or any other bankers for that matter. In fact I would be rather worried if peoples statutory Trust holdings could be easily swept aside by Govt.
Comments
I think going bankrupt, getting poor credit ratings and having their houses etc repossessed is probably enough punishment.
I read a story yesterday about a Subway "Sandwich Artist" in the US (California, I think) getting a mortgage for US$360,000 when his annual salary was - wait for it - US$15,000 per year!!!
That's right, they gave him a mortgage on TWENTY FIVE times his annual earnings!!! This whole thing is a farce, I remember back in the early 90's when my family were buying houses and being told that a bank would only lend you THREE times your annual earnings.
As the property market rose in recent years I remember thinking that either these buyers were getting massive pay rises at work or that the banks were simply giving out loans virtually indiscriminately.
Turns out it was the latter.
I very much doubt that. His contribution would have been a very small proportion of the total Fund. And apparently the Fund doubled in the last year. Methinks that a deal was done whereby the enhanced Pension amount would not get such publicity as a bonus/pay off etc but its backfired. But perhaps these are not the important issues.
The regulation of these banks has been appalling and for that we must blame the Governments of the last 20 years.
the top bankers and probably as many as 2 - 5000 below them have committed crimes of mass corruption with the sole aim of lining their own pockets at the expense of customers and shareholders. their friends in government have now given them tax payers money too that will not be repaid in full. they HAVE broken laws but the Government cannot pursue them as they would then have to disclose their own complicity.
but have faith because, even though al qaeda may try but never succeed as they are far less of a risk than the scum in our banks, as things dive further over the next two to five years the system of government and finance led control will fall and these people will be brought to justice. the banks and the government will be nationalised for good by the now silent millions who are still in shock at the scale of the corruption and theft.
Not sure if Wiki is a reliable source but he seems to have made his mark in his early banking career because of his expertise in 'due diligence' and turning around failed banks.
I dont think 'fairness' comes into it.
Company pension schemes are normally adminstered by a separate organisation from the commercial trading company.
The pension administration generate their own seperate funds and investments.
I thought Fred (Goodwin) did a good job as Brum Manager , to be fair to him.
And lose his pension.
But seriously just another example of the exxcessessss of the time.
Im sorry Oggy thats plain wrong. Who administers the scheme is one thing be it day to day admin or investments. Who pays for it is another. Its quite possible that RBS run their own scheme but to some degree its completely irrelevant.
And the RBS scheme is non contributory to members. So Fred has not paid a bean. I have said before that I have no problem with big salaries and of course big pensions as a result. But this case is wholly different and it appears a large pension has been enhanced in 2 ways.
1) For Sir Freds early departure (granting him the next 10/15 years of service)
2) For its early payment at 50. Ordinarily that reduce a pension by half.
And someone has approved these and the capital cost of both enhancements is enormous. And we need an enquiry into who has approved what with taxpayers money and whether it can be reversed in my opinion.
We can argue about his morals on it all day & night, but a contract is a contract.
I dont know the answers but the world is in a mess not just this country and its gonna take a long time to turn this one around.
Lord Stevenson (ex Chairman of HBOS)
Andy Hornby (ex CEO of HBOS)
Fred Goodwin (ex CEO of RBS)
John McFall (MP and Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee)
Alistair Darling (Chancellor of the Exchequer)
Sir Terry Wogan (BBC Radio 2 Presenter)
Answer:- Sir Terry Wogan. He is the only one with a banking qualification.
The PPF (Pension Protection Fund) was set up to protect members of Final Salary Schemes where the employers go bust. It has maximum levels of payout which is about £20k per year for pensioners. Thats funded partly by Govt and also by a levy on solvent Pension Schemes. This levy is therefore in a way paid by ordinary members.
The PPF has already had to step in for some pretty well known Companies and will probably be very active in the next few years as Companies go to the wall. But it will only partially protect and to predetermined levels meaning that nobody will be better off as a result.
But when we come to the rescue of RBS and Sir Fred a whole set of different parameters seem to apply. It look like hes traded off a large pay off which would have got maximum adverse publicity for a rather under the carpet enhanced pension deal which may well end up being more costly to the taxpayer than other options.
To me its a disgrace and members of the public are being hoodwinked.
Totally agree, but the buck stops with whomever approved it, Goodwin certainly didn't write his own cheque (or did he?) or set the rate himself (or did he?), this Government are back tracking and looking for scapegoats to sway their own public persona with the masses, I suspect that people at the top in RBS and at cabinet level have had their fingers in this pie from way back and are now panicking due to their incompetence and greed.
Although I know in detail how my own company pension scheme operates, pensions isn't my specialist subject, so I was only generalising.
If your comments are specific to RBS, then I'm happy to accept what you say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Goodwin
;o)
2 - Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The board of Barclays took praise the other week for posting a profit and not requiring a government handout. This is the same board who tried to takeover ABN Amro. RBS's mistake was in making their bid a majority cash bid rather than shares.
3 - When the RBS was posting profits of £6bn-£10bn you had people criticising this as being obscene, yet the banking sectors company taxes alone took several pence of your tax rate.
4 - The whole world banking system has been affected by the collapse of the housing market in the states, this isnt down to one individual person a la the Nick Leeson incident. It's true what they say - America sneezes and the world catches a cold.
5 - There may have been incompetence, but that doesnt mean he should lose his pension etc. If you got fired from your job for mistakes you have made would you say you will give up your pension? A contract is a contract - lets ask for the wages back from Marcus Bent, JFH etc etc for their incomptence
People keep blaming America for the financial state we find ourselves in.OUR government and banking system were making exactly the same greed driven mistakes as the yanks and should rightly be blamed for the shite we find ourselves chin high in.
If,as in your last point,i had made a fu*k up at work that meant billions of pounds of tax payers money was needed to put it right,then yes,i would expect a lot of heat and scrutiny as to what i was EARNING and could expect to EARN in the future.And that goes for everyone concerned,Not just 'greedy Goodwin'
Why aren't Goodwin and his ilk bending down to pick up the soap in Belmarsh?
The people at the top of the system look out for themselves .... ?
Goodwin has done nothing illegal.
mind you "serious fraud squad" so the other department would be the "not serious fraud squad" or " we are a tad miffed squad"
if any of us borrowed money from a bank with no hope of paying it back and no means to pay it back we would be in clink !! why the f**k shouldnt people who have turned the World upside down also get nicked ?
SHOW ME THE MONEY !!!!
Maybe maybe not.
In simple terms Leeson misled the auditors by fabricating transactions meaning that the Barings accounts showed far higher profits than they had really made. Shortly after the "fat cats" creamed off their bonuses the whole edifice collapsed like a pack of cards.
RBS and other banks also declared high profits. Shortly after the "fat cats" creamed off their bonuses the whole edifice (s) collapsed like a pack of cards.
Unless you were incredibly stupid (in which case you would be highly unlikely to become CEO of a PLC) some at least of these losses must have been forseeable. Basic good accounting practice states that you provide for forseeable losses on discovery.
This does not appear to have happened with RBS and other banks, just like in the Barings case, I ask the question why?
EDIT: Just to clarify I'm not referring to the figures declared a few days ago but the previous period.
I am not and have never talked about this mans statutory and contractual rights or any other bankers for that matter. In fact I would be rather worried if peoples statutory Trust holdings could be easily swept aside by Govt.
But what has happened here is plain wrong.