Harriet Harman on Sir Fred Goodwin

RabbitMad

There are mins and maximums on pensions due to the favourable tax treatment they receive on contributions - but I am coming from a FS perspective - I know a bit about them being in that industry and working for a company that still provides one

bubblesmoney

RabbitMad wrote: »

I had you down as a clever person GG. Of course he would sue, of course he would win and of course we (the tax payer) would end up picking up the tab.

Why waste all that money on legal fees.

This is all just hype and a smoke screen to divert attention to the fact Brown caused this whole mess.

Also a few point to others on here - earliest retirement age is 50 (up to 55 in 2010) except for a few professions. The max rate a pension can be accured at is full pension (2/3rds of final salary) after 20 years.

the rbs final salary pension scheme is a 1/60th scheme and is index linked. by the way the RBS pension scheme is noncontributory and the employees would have paid nothing into the scheme and the employer pays 100% of the contributions into the scheme! but this changed recently only for new employees.

fred goodwin joined rbs in 1998, so he had just 10y service when he left RBS. are you telling that any other RBS worker can leave RBS and will be allowed a full pension which is index linked with just 10y of service? the normal retirement age at RBS is 60y so he retired 10y early. i think for every year of less service one loses 4% of the pension that comes to 40% deduction from full pension. so he should have got 40% less than was allowed. what was allowed was a discretionary hike of 40% of his pension for 10y less service and that when he made phenomenal losses which are the largest corporate losses to date in the uk and further made the bank go bust and is 95% owned by govt and probably will get nationalised soon.

the RBS pension pot is limited and the bigger the amount taken out by these fatcats the less there is left for the ordinary worker in the pot and the more the govt/taxpayer will have to bailout RBS to make up for the shortfall till eternity.

if this is allowed then every other RBS employee will need to be allowed the same benefits of full pension at 50y when having just 10y service at RBS or they will have this evidence to take RBS to court for discrimination in how the pension benefits are awarded.

it is common for companies, particularly large enterprises, to include a clause in their pension schemes that could result in the forfeiture of some pension benefits. But there would need to be a ‘monetary obligation’ — an amount owed to the business as a result of criminal negligence or fraud. rbs has just posted the biggest loss in uk and the company is bust and needed govt bailout and is 95% owned by taxpayer due to fred goodwins crazy overspending aquisition policies that broke RBS in the process. so this is gross negligence that has lead to rbs being in this mess. govt can use this clause to review his pension.

errors in pension are made by many companies and when noted they can claw back the overpayment. i am sure this wont be the 1st case of pension clawback and it wont be the last that lands in courts. this would have happened in other companies as well previously for admin errors in pensions that later landed in court. the minister has clearly said he was not aware that the pension was discretionary, so based on that the govt can review its decision in the interest of the RBS pension scheme not facing undue burden from such atrocious approval giving full pension for just 10y service.

the minister who approved this and the entire board should be sacked as well for such atrocious decisions they made. when an example is set by sacking them without pensions for gross negligence then the boards of all banks will learn a lesson not to take the shareholders and the public for a ride.

bubblesmoney

In October 2008, we issued a 'Dear CEO' letter to bank CEOs. All banks are expected to take account of the comments in that letter and be operating remuneration policies that fall within the good practice it outlined.

see
FSA draft Code of practice on remuneration policies

• • The principles in this Code of practice ("Code") are relevant to all FSA-regulated firms.
  • The principles embodied in the Code are not concerned with levels or quantum of remuneration, which are a matter for firms' boards.
  • The aim of the Code is to ensure that firms have remuneration policies which are consistent with sound risk management, and which do not expose them to excessive risk.
  • The principles in the Code will be used by the FSA to assess the quality of a firms' remuneration policies and linkage, if any, between such policies and excessive risk-taking by staff.
  • We may also ask the committee with overall responsibility for a firm's remuneration policies to provide us with evidence of how well its policies measure against these principles, together with plans for improvement where there is a significant shortfall. We will also ask firms to use the principles in assessing their exposure to risks arising from their remuneration policies as part of the ICAAP process

they already have notified the banks about excessive risk taking and link to remuneration. they should use this communication sent to all banks in oct08 by FSA as proof that they didnt follow FSA guidance in approving this full pension and review the decision.

mewbie_2

Ahh now I remember - Harriet Harman.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-496940/Donor-scandal-Deputy-Harriet-Harmans-future-question-axed-debate.html

Is there really no one in the government that has a shred of what we might call old fashioned honesty?

I know, I know, I know. The Tories are no better. But at least let's kick this lot out before they get any worse.

nrsql

>> so he should have got 40% less than was allowed. what was allowed was a discretionary hike of 40% of his pension for 10y less service

Maybe what he should have got but not what was negotiated. Its in doubt that it was discretionary but there's no doubt it was agreed.
Remember they were in a rush to get rid of him and this was the price they were willing to pay.
I suppose there is an option (if Fred would agree) to recind the agreement, put Fred back in charge, pay him the back pay he has missed then re-negotiate from there?

>> if this is allowed then every other RBS employee will need to be allowed the same benefits of full pension at 50y when having just 10y service at RBS or they will have this evidence to take RBS to court for discrimination in how the pension benefits are awarded.

Not at all. They also don't get the same bonus or pay as the top bods.

I'm not happy with what was agreed but it was an agreement and I would be less happy for it to be found not binding.
I'm even more worried that HH thinks it's a good idea to say that the government will just follow public opinion and ignore the law - although that may just be stating how they have acted in the past.

Bankers are the new Jacobites?

julieq

It's surely just pretty basic policital populist opportunism on the part of Harman, who is clearly manoeuvring for the leadership?

She says that the PM will have to do something because of the judgement of the court of public opinion (lovely phrase that, I'm already polishing my pitchfork and soaking my torch in finest paraffin in anticipation of being able to lynch peados (sic) on the basis of the new legal paradigm).

She knows he can't do anything at all, so he's going to end up looking rather silly and weak. She steps in post election defeat and makes a few populist "fat cat" statements without any possiblity whatsoever of having to implement them and bingo. Milliband will win though, he seems a nice bloke.

Forget Sir Fred. His pension is irritating but it's irrelevant. He negotiated it, nice day's work that, and it's done with. The real issue is the fact the government presided for years over an illusory credit based boom which is now having to be paid for. It's not the end of the world, but it is going to be painful, and ineptitude of a scale not seen since the 1970s ought to be punished. It's far more important to realise that Labour have been engaged for years in a populist con-trick and punish them for that then to take on one fat cat in a crowd of fat cats.

Labour's first thought in the face of a crisis is "Can I be blamed for it?". The second thought is "Can I gain personal advantage from it?". Then "Can I spin it to damage the opposition?". Somewhere a long way down the list is "What is the right thing to do to fix it?". (Brown would include the words "new deal" in his list too).

And that's where despite much of the mythology from the hard and soft left, Mrs Thatcher won the battle, and why she was a great leader. She piled in handbag swinging and fixed basic structural problems, whoever it offended, without a great deal of thought for her own political future.

handful

julieq wrote: »

Labour's first thought in the face of a crisis is "Can I be blamed for it?". The second thought is "Can I gain personal advantage from it?". Then "Can I spin it to damage the opposition?". Somewhere a long way down the list is "What is the right thing to do to fix it?". (Brown would include the words "new deal" in his list too).

And that's where despite much of the mythology from the hard and soft left, Mrs Thatcher won the battle, and why she was a great leader. She piled in handbag swinging and fixed basic structural problems, whoever it offended, without a great deal of thought for her own political future.

Very eloquently put, thanks for that.

Dave101t

isnt it amazing?

we need 'new laws' to strip corrupt bankers of their ill gotten gains,
we need 'new laws' to deport known terrorists calling for death to the English, and burning the Union Jack on English ground.

if this was any other country, any other, the government would simply do it.

The recent milk scare in China where around 6 babies died and hundreds were taken ill due to the adding of toxins to bump up the nutrition of the milk in their most reputable brand, what is the milk companies owners sentence? she has been sentenced to death.

no new laws were needed, just a sensible reaction brought about by the peoples anger. surely we are angry enough to be heard by our government?

julieq

The one thing we definitely don't need is new laws. We've got far too many of them already.

As soon as legislation is framed to appease angry mobs for political expediency or because it makes a good headline in the Sun, you're into mob rule.

I'm sorry, but I don't want anyone obessing about one banker (amongst many) who happened to negotiate a good severance deal anywhere near the statute book with their crayon collection. Reducing his pension, IF you can do it, which is unlikely, is about jealousy and vengeance, not government. It's a waste of time and money, and it's being cynically used as a smokescreen.

Love_bargains_2

I think that they should make him give all his money to Jade Goody, the poor girl really deserves it, having given so much to society and international relations and getting so rich off all that wonderful hard work she did.