Anti Fat Cat Bank CEOs? Let's go! & teach them a lesson!

PROLIANT

Francis63 wrote: »

The Prime Minister earns £163,000 annually. Does that put some perspective on it?

And the rest.....£21,000,000 is allot of coin but there is not a great deal we can do about that is there? Waving our umbrellas at giants is not going to phaze them is it?

Francis63

PROLIANT wrote: »

And the rest.....£21,000,000 is allot of coin but there is not a great deal we can do about that is there? Waving our umbrellas at giants is not going to phaze them is it?

Yes there is! Banks are nothing without us, the customers.

I'm only one person, I can't make much difference by myself, but if everyone moved to say the co-op bank (I haven't done my homework there yet, but it's just an example) then that will faze them big time. Easy.

Extant

ahai1 wrote: »

Yes instead of been controlled by the British Government Barclays will be controlled by a Middle Eastern Government.

Okay, substantiate that statement. How will Barclays be controlled by a "Middle Eastern" government? Consider:

• Barclays is a British bank, operated from, and registered in, London.
• The investors are from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Two different countries.
• The funds are coming from sovereign wealth investment funds and won't be buying controlling shares.
• They have expressed no interest in controlling the bank.
• They won't be able to appoint members to our board.

Now please go ahead and tell me how exactly they're going to be controlled by this mysterious (and in reality, non-existent) "Middle Eastern" government.

You should write for the Daily Mail.

storminbalder

It makes me laugh, the number of people on here prepared to defend the indefensible. The banking industry stinks and always has done so. It's just that they've got caught out this time through their reckless gambling in the pursuit of greed.

It is just a pity that so many innocent people also have to suffer, and I include in this the rank and file workers of banks now losing their jobs because of the stupidity of their bosses.

Barclays is a case in point, grasping at hugely expensive foriegn money in order to protect their bloated executive pay packets. This company still hasn't learnt that greed above all else doesn't always work. It is a cynical act, I hope they fail and their executives go the same way as RBS's.

Extant

Francis63 wrote: »

The point is we have a bank president 'earning' £21m in salary and shares. You say he could easily go elsewhere and earn that. Well that could be true but it doesn't make it right. These people pay themselves huge bonuses each year and then justify it by saying 'everyone does it'.

And what makes it WRONG? You're yet to answer that. Are you, perhaps going to say because of all the recent troubles? In which case, would you have no problem with this sum of money if things were all fine?

We live in a world where people are free to earn money doing whatever they choose. Why should there be any cap or restriction on it? We live in a system based off capitalism and democracy.

Again, we are free to do as we please in life. I personally am grateful to live in such a society.

The Prime Minister earns £163,000 annually. Does that put some perspective on it?

And? So what? That's the value currently put on his services by, funnily enough, the government itself. The value put on Red's services is £21 million. This is entirely subjective, please explain why this should be capped or restricted in any way. Please also explain who should be the judge of this cap.

Please also explain how you expect the economy to cope with the inevitable brain drain, due to the limitation on earnings having an effect similar to the tax rates post war.

If we all moved to a bank that paid it's chiefs a more realistic salary yet still did a good job for its customers then perhaps we can pass on a message and put an end to this hideously greedy culture.

Ah yes, because there exists a magical bank where the chief executive does it all for the love of the customer - and not because it's a job. I mean, that's why you go to work, right? It's not for the money or anything.

This is what happens: say everyone flocks to the Co-Op. It becomes the world's biggest bank. However, there is a new bank - Hippy Bank - aiming to compete with the Co-Op. So they hire Co-Op's chief, luring him away with offers of more money, so he can buy a nicer house for him and his family. But then, a third bank, Sandalswithsøks Bank (it's Norwegian) appears. They want a bit of this chief executive, so they offer him even more money. And so the cycle continues. It's almost like supply and demand or something.

Extant

storminbalder wrote: »

Barclays is a case in point, grasping at hugely expensive foriegn money in order to protect their bloated executive pay packets. This company still hasn't learnt that greed above all else doesn't always work. It is a cynical act, I hope they fail and their executives go the same way as RBS's.

Except it's these executive that have allowed us to considerably grow our business over the years, and increase our profits. Which in turn has allowed us to pay better and better dividends.

Dividends, which I again remind you, go mostly to pension firms and private investors.

So, of course we're going to pay to keep them. All you have is some sanctimonious and evidently unjustifiable hatred of people who seem to get paid more than you see fit. Or perhaps it's more accurate if you take the "see fit" bit off.

worldwheeler

There is a natural cycle of boom and bust when it comes to the economy. It is as unavoidable as it is unfortunate, but what are these job losses you're referring to?

Please explain this statement? WHY is boom and bust natural?

PROLIANT

Would you despise/dislike yourself if you won £30,000,000 on the lottery? Would you then be a "fat cat"?
Think about it.

Francis63

BarclaysManager wrote: »

This is what happens: say everyone flocks to the Co-Op. It becomes the world's biggest bank. However, there is a new bank - Hippy Bank - aiming to compete with the Co-Op. So they hire Co-Op's chief, luring him away with offers of more money, so he can buy a nicer house for him and his family. But then, a third bank, Sandalswithsøks Bank (it's Norwegian) appears. They want a bit of this chief executive, so they offer him even more money. And so the cycle continues. It's almost like supply and demand or something.

You actually don't get it at all! You really can't see the moral picture. No customer is going to follow the CEO to a new bank just because it pays him more. Why should they? The shareholders might go where they think they will get a better return in the short term, but they are just gamblers.

To us customers, banks are pretty much the same, they have to be as they compete for our money. As long as the terms are fair, we don't really care about the share price.

Banks are trying (mostly failing though) to please shareholders - at the expense of the customer. This is a mistake. The customer is king here.

PROLIANT

At the end of the day it is give and take on both sides, we dont pay for the facilities that we given i.e Visa Debit card...very usefull tool, cheque book etc so if we managed our money better and did not treat the bank like an enemy I think the Bank/Consumer relationship would improve. I wonder what will happen when we have to pay for banking facilities in the near future? :eek: