Breaking news on BBC - Fred Goodwin refuses reduced pension

mrposhman

Cor vigilante mob on here tonight!!

I don't agree with what goodwin did at RBS and could see the logic in claiming his bonus back from him as surely that was "engineered" due to poor business models, but to claim his pension is ridiculous.

Remember he didn't set his pension, he was provided it as part of a benefits package that has to be agreed by a remuneration committee and the entire board of directors.

Whats more (and I know nothing of the pension scheme at RBS) this is probably a normal pension scheme that many others in RBS also belong to so he probably hasn't "created" a fantastic scheme for himself and only himself.

Finally and probably the most important part is that he will have contributed to his own pension scheme from his once again remuneration committee agreed remuneration package.

If this was bonuses I would agree wholeheartedly but to bring up the pension is non-sensical.

The one part I would like to know (and someone may be able to tell me) is whether or not this is a reduced pension as he must have taken early retirement based on his age?

Ps. I'm not a banker so go easy on me.

Graham_Devon

Dylanwing wrote: »

So does this mean that we have effectively given RBS an unsecured, no questions asked loan, with no controls whatsoever - Just relying on the honesty of Bankers? Would any Government really be that stupid??

I wouldn't know yet. But the answer is no, not an unsecured loan, but there seems to be some confussion as to what exactly RBS are required to do. I can't really explain it properly, but George Osbourne was on 5live talking about it, regarding it as highly dangerous, though he doubt's MP's will get to vote on this one.

Basically he was saying it was not tight enough and gave the reasons why, the lack of a vote on these shares being one of them. He said the government is doing right getting them to lend, but thats only part of it, it needs to do right on the actual contract before it rushes ahead for the second time to get money into our pockets via loans.

I think we all have to admit, he was indeed right on the first bailout saying it wasn't tight enough, so I am keen to hear what more he has to say, but the lack of a vote says it all for me with this government.

But like I say, I don't know enough about it, apart from George had clear reasons as to why he was tetchy, he said it needs to be done, but we don't need a 3rd bailout becuase this one also was not done right.

Masomnia

Surely the government confiscating pensions to satisfy the mob baying for the blood of a scapegoat sets a dangerous precedent?

Dylanwing

I wouldn't know yet. But the answer is no, not an unsecured loan, but there seems to be some confussion as to what exactly RBS are required to do.

Thanks for the answer - I was putting the bailout in Banking parlance somewhat sarcastically. It just seems to me that we are handing money to the same incompetent oafs who wrecked the Banks, and getting nothing in return, nor imposing any controls on aforementioned oafs. If that is the case, is it not a tad stupid? And will it not blow up big time as the plebs suffer, whilst Bankers carry on as before?

cogito

One way to deal with this might be for the shareholders to take legal action against this !!!! for mismanagement. The potential damages would be colossal and could empty his pension pot.

ps2659

Jockey Lester Piggot lost his title for tax evasion I think Goodwin should lose his title for destroying the Royal bank of Scotland.

tomstickland

£650,000 pa pension.
That's a lot of money.

Masomnia

cogito wrote: »

One way to deal with this might be for the shareholders to take legal action against this !!!! for mismanagement. The potential damages would be colossal and could empty his pension pot.

They weren't complaining when they were getting dividend yields of 16%; bit rich of them to turn round now and say they're not happy!

Optimist

Dylanwing wrote: »

So does this mean that we have effectively given RBS an unsecured, no questions asked loan, with no controls whatsoever - Just relying on the honesty of Bankers? Would any Government really be that stupid??

To the first question as far as I can see we the tax payer get a load of shares some none voting plus £325 billion of toxic assets well that's more like £32 pounds worth of assets on the books as £325 billion !

To the second question errr Yes !

Degenerate

Masomnia wrote: »

They weren't complaining when they were getting dividend yields of 16%; bit rich of them to turn round now and say they're not happy!

TBH I've no sympathy for the shareholders in these situations, they never seem to acknowlege that they are collectively responsible for appointing these clowns and allowing them to take ridiculous remuneration.

The key point to me is that it's self-evident from the scale of the required capital injections that RBS was insolvent. If it had been forced into bankruptcy then pension obligations would have been far back in the queue. Bankruptcy would have had disasterous consequences, so it is right that the Government stepped in, but there is no way this parasite should have been allowed to effectively loot a bankrupt firm via his pension.