Kent Reliance Building Society fat cats

dacouch

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/opinion/article.html?in_article_id=431527&in_page_id=19&in_author_id=3

nomoneytoday

Do you think people should run companies whilst being paid the minimum wage?

alared

dacouch wrote: »

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/opinion/article.html?in_article_id=431527&in_page_id=19&in_author_id=3

Lazenby's pay is now on a par with that of Richard Hornbrook, who runs Chelsea Building Society, which is five times bigger than Kent. In 2006, Hornbrook earned £413,000 (Chelsea's 2007 accounts are not yet published). No one doubts that Lazenby is doing a good job at Kent. But is he really worth every penny and every pound that his board thinks he is? I remain unconvinced.

Well so far Lazenby hasn`t been forced to to find a merger to save the K&R like the Chelsea has.

bristolleedsfan

alared wrote: »

Lazenby's pay is now on a par with that of Richard Hornbrook, who runs Chelsea Building Society, which is five times bigger than Kent. In 2006, Hornbrook earned £413,000 (Chelsea's 2007 accounts are not yet published). No one doubts that Lazenby is doing a good job at Kent. But is he really worth every penny and every pound that his board thinks he is? I remain unconvinced.

Well so far Lazenby hasn`t been forced to to find a merger to save the K&R like the Chelsea has.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/opinion/article.html?in_article_id=495876&in_page_id=19&in_author_id=3


"Rob Procter, Lazenby's deputy, and Bob Scruton, the finance director, both saw their remuneration increase to £337,000 - not far behind that of Yorkshire's Cornish who runs a society ten times bigger."

alared

By paying them less are the savings rates going to improve

---

NO.

Should salaries be based on results and if yes shouldn`t most of the bankers and politicians in this country be sacked.

If people are not happy vote against or move your dough.

dacouch

The executives (Executive and non executive directors) salaries for 2009 equated to around 80% of the 2009 profit of which Lazenby's wages represented circa 31% of the profits.

MarkyMarkD

So what? You could say that for any loss-making company, the directors' salaries amount to -1000% of the profits (or whatever). It doesn't mean anything! Obviously in a more difficult year, salaries (including directors') will be a larger proportion of net profits, stated after charging those salaries, than in a better year.

And, as the sensible objective for a mutual is to earn a minimum level of profits, directors' salaries (and other costs) will obviously be a higher proportion of profits than for a non-mutual.

Dabble26

This same situation seems to be continuing if you read the transfer just sent out. Lazenby and Scruton are already on the board of the new bank and have "generously" agreed to no pay rise or bonus for a year!. More concerning is that with this injection of £50m the same management as before are running the organisation and the lending which lead to bad debts could continue - even without Procter who has now left. It could be the management that needs changing not becoming a bank by the back door. Lazenby, in interviews, seems to be admitting the bad debts are increasing all the time. Could be better to transfer to another mutual - this does not seem to have been honestly explored by the existing board. Suggest a "No" vote could achieve this.