Typical- Fred the Shred getting 650k pa

Old_Slaphead

vivatifosi wrote: »

There's some more information on this story coming out this morning.

First, the board members appear to have voted themselves massive pension increases in 2007, with Goodwin's 'pot' raising in value from £8.4m then to £16m now.

I presume that his pension pot hasn't slumped by 35% like most of ours have.

I also assume that the PF managers were wise enough not to invest in RBS shares.

Old_Slaphead

lynzpower wrote: »

Im with Cleaver, really on this issue.

Id love to know how Darling thinks he can get away with stopping someones pension as the general public & peston et al up in arms. If the general public werent bothered, then im sure it would have sailed through unquestioned.

I wonder what sort of precedent this would set, could the chancellor put a stop to any of our pensions as rthey do or dont see fit

If public opinion is a factor - then maybe Eyebrows should stop all MPs grotesquely lavish pensions too.

Anyway - re. RBS what were the non exec Directors doing while all this was going on?

Clearly the last Government review was a complete waste of time (but aren't they all?)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2674007.stm

vivatifosi

Dylanwing wrote: »

If the Government had let RBS go bust (As it should have done), would Fred still be able to draw this pension?

Largely as a result of the Maxwell fiasco, company pensions have to be held separately now so he would certainly have received a pension. However, if the scheme is in deficit (a distinct possibility given stockmarket falls though I don't know the scheme), the compensation scheme would have limited payments. I can't remember the exact terms of the safety net scheme, but I seem to remember that there's something in there about taking pensions early too. The other issue is that if a big scheme like this goes under, it will have a massive impact on the safety net as a whole. Perhaps one of the pensions experts can clarify the exact numbers on this for me.

JP45

treliac wrote: »

It's indefensible to give anyone that sort of a pension pot. Particularly someone who has caused such devastation to the very fabric of our society.

Makes me laugh at the indignant outpourings from MSE'ers at other public sector workers and their tiny, by comparison, pensions.

This man has failed his company, failed it's investors and we, the public, should in no way have to fund an incredibly comfortable and lengthy retirement for him.

The head of Baby P's social services department was 'released' without pension. Don't say it's not possible.

Fred, this woefully inadequate banker, should be chased for some of the losses he has been responsible for, which have seen men and women lose their jobs, businesses, homes, etc. etc. In fact, for the damage he has caused, he should lose his knighthood.

If it's not possible, the law should be changed to make it so. Otherwise, what hope is there of really changing the behaviour of these all powerful people? If there can be no consequences, things will eventually settle down and they'll be back to their immoral ways.

I agree. But beyond the specific case of Sir Fred Goodwin - and let's face it he's not alone in the bankers hall of shame - there remains the key issue of ensuring that from here on bankers' pay is no longer a one way bet.

It is now abundantly clear that the remuneration / bonus regime for bankers was a significant contributory factor in bringing about the current crsis, for which the taxpayer and shareholders are having to foot the bill.

Bankers were richly rewarded for expanding their empires, via bonus payments that were often many multiples of their basic salaries, with apparently no possibility that the money might one day be clawed back if the deals they struck turned sour. To my mind, that's a one way bet.

How anyone could conceive of such a system without recognising the inherent dangers is beyond me.

matthewcb

What bothers me is not that he's to blame for all this. Clearly one individual is not.

What upsets me is that by anyone's standards, he was an exceptionally poor leader of RBS. His ego and hubris has basically ruined them.

However, his rewards for catastrophic failure are mind-boggling. I always thought people at the top got higher salaries because they were the ones taking the risk, but presumably he would have got a £650k pension regardless of how well he performed?

So clearly, there is only punishment for failure if you're near the bottom of the heap - those at the top are invulnerable to normal processes.

vivatifosi

I do wonder if there's something bigger going on behind the scenes. Something along the lines of if you go quietly and forego your pension, we won't come after you for damages due to negligence.

RecoveringAlcoholic

And The Fat Cats Just Get Fatter.


Let them eat cake.

Attrib: Marie Antoinette, Maria Theresa.

itsnever2lateisit?

Shame Sir Fred was unable to take the same care with RBS shareholders assets as he did with his own:rolleyes:

chewmylegoff

Cleaver wrote: »

No, the board and HR team at RBS I guess. Isn't it the same pension scheme and payments that every RBS employee gets?

no, it's the directors' scheme, and is most probably not based on length of service or contributions inwards.

Andy_L

treliac wrote: »

The head of Baby P's social services department was 'released' without pension. Don't say it's not possible.

It's not possible, Shoesmith didn't get her pension when she left because she wasn't old enough. She will get it when she reaches retirement age