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

ShelfStacker_3

Francis63 wrote: »

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

Speaking not as a bank employee but as someone with a rudimentary grasp on business: b*llocks. To a business, the customers are a means to an end, the end being profit made for shareholders. Businesses only serve customers if doing so creates a return for shareholders, simple as - the customer will, with pretty much any company, lose out.

Extant

worldwheeler wrote: »

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?

Take the current situation as an example:

1. Interest rates get dropped due to a recession.
2. Lower interest rates means more people borrow more money.
3. More money being borrowed makes people go out to invest it.
4. As there is more money for investment than there are "good" investment opportunities, people increasingly invest in lesser investments.
5. These investments fail. An example of this is the mortgage backed bonds that we're currently seeing.
6. As the investments fail, debt is not repaid to banks.
7. Banks stopped lending money.
8. Credit crunch/recession happens.
9. Central bank panics, cuts interest rates to try and avoid recession.
10. See step 1.

Francis63

BarclaysManager wrote: »

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.

Except that these executives have not increased profits this year, they are down 33%.

BarclaysManager wrote: »

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

Doesn't affect your every day depositor with whose money you are gambling. In any case the share price has not done particularly well!

BarclaysManager wrote: »

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.

Not true and how rude! (I don't hate anyone, but I do hate greed).

For someone with a customer service based career you are not doing a good job of keeping your customers by insulting them!

Extant

Francis63 wrote: »

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.

They won't follow the CEO. They'll follow the success he delivers at the other company. This translates to you moving your money about to get the best interest rate. Or did you decide to ignore competition?

Also, this is business - there is no "moral" picture. You're trying to assign "good" and "evil" to market movements and management strategies.

Where exactly are you getting your system of morality from, and why should it govern business?

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.

Except you do, really. When you make an investment, that usually relies on the share price of other businesses.

And the share price of a bank, or any business, is important. What happens when the bank wants some more money to build a new branch? They rely on their share price and the fluctuations there of to attract investors.

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

The two are not mutually exclusive. You can please customers, which leads to more business, which in turn leads to pleasing the shareholders. So, sorry, but you're making no sense here, either.

Extant

Francis63 wrote: »

Except that these executives have not increased profits this year, they are down 33%.

And as has previously been said, we're not paying bonuses this year. So what's your point?

Doesn't affect your every day depositor with whose money you are gambling. In any case the share price has not done particularly well!

Because the average depositor doesn't have a pension? News to me. And share price isn't intrinsically linked to dividend.

Not true and how rude! (I don't hate anyone, but I do hate greed).

Allow me to rephrase then: you have an irrational dislike of people who earn large amounts of money which you hide as being a hatred of "greed." However, you cannot reasonably make an assumption of greed without knowing these people. Greed is an intense and selfish desire for the wealth.

You have no idea whether they have such a desire at all.

For someone with a customer service based career you are not doing a good job of keeping your customers by insulting them!

Except I don't work in a branch any more (i.e. my career isn't customer service based) and you're not my customer. Barclays doesn't pay me to be here.

And if you hate our pay scales so much, why would you ever be our customer?

Francis63

BarclaysManager wrote: »

Where exactly are you getting your system of morality from, and why should it govern business?

It's innate.

One man receives £21m one way or another by gambling with my money (and others' like me). I find that quite obscene and yes totally immoral. I don't want to condone that kind of greed and that's why I'll be moving my money to somewhere less greedy and with a better sense of proportion.

A lot of people feel the same way.

Remember without the customers there are no shareholders. There is no bank.

Mark7799

A thought has occurred to me....

Bank A offers the highest rates but is less ethical than Bank B which doesn't offer such good rates but pledges never to invest in unethical ventures.

Which Bank would Martin be plugging in his 'best buy' tables for MSErs?

Extant

Francis63 wrote: »

It's innate.

One man receives £21m one way or another by gambling with my money (and others' like me). I find that quite obscene and yes totally immoral. I don't want to condone that kind of greed and that's why I'll be moving my money to somewhere less greedy and with a better sense of propotion.

A lot of people feel the same way.

Remember without the customers there are no shareholders. There is no bank.

No, morality is not "innate." It's created and influenced by numerous different sources. That's why you'll find it considered to be "acceptable" and "just" to remove fingers for theft in some countries, but it is repulsive to our ideals here.

And again, you are having an emotional response to a business issue. There is no "greed" in investment banking. It is a lifeless process, it can't be greedy. And as said previously, you cannot judge somebody to be greedy without knowing them personally.

Also, I am pleased that so many people feel the same way as you. Customers moving their business creates competition, which is good for business.

But you're a fool if you think that people are going to walk away and ignore a higher savings rate when given the chance. They'll switch back just as fast - that's what competition, and the free market, is all about. Your comments would seemingly imply that there's a mass exodus away from the major high street banks. I'm sure you must take great comfort in the figures confirming this - oh wait, you can't, because no such figures exist.

Extant

Mark7799 wrote: »

A thought has occurred to me....

Bank A offers the highest rates but is less ethical than Bank B which doesn't offer such good rates but pledges never to invest in unethical ventures.

Which Bank would Martin be plugging in his 'best buy' tables for MSErs?

This is MoneySavingExpert, so Bank A, because that is the best buy. There's no two interpretations of that. This isn't MoralityMarket or MoralityMegaMan or whatever.

Lokolo

BarclaysManager wrote: »

This is MoneySavingExpert, so Bank A, because that is the best buy. There's no two interpretations of that. This isn't MoralityMarket or MoralityMegaMan or whatever.

And funnily enough, he did that in May, as thats what the site does. And yet people were complaining about him telling them to put money into Icesave. Jeez we have some stupid people on this forum don't we!