Co-op bank

Anthorn

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Oh really.


You have, again, not got your facts straight. There are 2 Executive Directors on the Coop Bank board, according to http://www.co-operative.coop/corporate/aboutus/Board/#Banking

But it doesn't matter whether they are Execs or Non-Execs when it comes to competence. Either they have it or they don't, and evidence suggests none of them did.

Yes there are the two chief executives and they don't actually need to be chief executives. Those two places are filled by the Co-operative Group itself and are not elected by the membership and serve as advisors. But the board does not make decisions because by its nature it is unqualified to make those decisions. By way of a simple analogy it makes suggestions or rubber stamps decisions or at any rate that's the way it should be.

For example, you could sign up for membership, get involved with your local area committee, get elected to the Area Board and then get elected to the Group board. But that doesn't mean that you have the experience and qualifications to make decisions affecting the company especially financial decisions. By most accounts that's where the appointment of Rev. Flowers fell down but there is still no confirmation and they remain unproven allegations.

Atidi

Jean_Newton wrote: »

I have heard that I should leave the Co-op bank where I have a current account in light of its current problems. Is this true?

I can't be 100% certain as I wasn't there when you were told, but I have no reason to disbelieve you, if that's any help

Edit: Big existing thread here on the subject
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4824840
May that was where you heard it?

Archi_Bald

Anthorn wrote: »

Yes there are the two chief executives and they don't actually need to be chief executives.

There aren't actually two Chief Executives - there is one Chief Executive and one Deputy Chief Executive. I understand 1 and 1 equals 2, but one apple and one pear doesn't make two apples.

Whether you believe they need to be where and what they are or not is neither here nor there - the fact is that they are there. But more to the point, they are Executive directors of the Coop bank whilst you previously claimed "the bank board are all without exception non-executive."

Anthorn wrote: »

But the board does not make decisions because by its nature it is unqualified to make those decisions.

I wouldn't totally disagree with you on that point - they are probably not qualified to making the sorts of decisions that need to be taken by a bank's board, not by the nature of the Coop bank board, but by the nature of their qualifications and competences.

But I don't think that's what you meant. You said

Anthorn wrote: »

But the board does not make decisions because by its nature it is unqualified to make those decisions. By way of a simple analogy it makes suggestions or rubber stamps decisions or at any rate that's the way it should be.

Are you actually serious? They aren't qualified to make decision but they are qualified to rubber-stamp them? That sounds like the lunatics are ruling the asylum.

The board you describe seems an awful waste of money and should, in the spirit of ethical behaviour, immediately be eliminated, together with their not insignificant remuneration.

Anthorn

I'd say you don't understand the way the Co-operative Group is currently run and why at this time its governance is being restructured.

People are not appointed to the board because they have expertise or experience. They are elected to the board after being promoted by friends. That in itself implies cliques. That's essentially what the new non-executive chairman of the bank was saying when she said on BBC News that it's governance is "fragmented". That fragmentation comes from all the separate co-operatives which merged and formed the Co-operative Group.

Therefore the board is not qualified to run the Co-operative Group. However they might be good at baking jam tarts!

Where it all falls down is when non-executive directors without experience nor qualification nor expertise are allowed the powers of executive directors.

Archi_Bald

Sounds you agree now that the Coop bank board has been incompetent. You also didn't try to correct me on the facts about the Exec/Non-Exec people on the board, so I take it you accept that you got it wrong initially.

May be we should just leave it as that.

Anthorn

What we say about the board at one time might be right but at another time might be wrong simply because the Co-operative Group can appoint people at will which don't have to be elected but they are advisory and not members of the board. Where we find executive directors are on the specialised subsidiary boards but there is not really a lot of them.

Difficulty and confusion arises where we find for example Euan Sutherland who is Chief Executive of the Co-operative Group serving on a board in a non-executive capacity.

The Co-operative Group Board is entirely non-executive, and consists of 20 directors, fifteen of whom are elected from our Regional Boards while the remaining five are elected from Independent Co-operative Societies. Each year one-third of Board members are required to seek re-election. Three Subsidiary Boards are responsible for our major business units.

.
http://www.co-operative.coop/corporate/aboutus/Board/

Scroll down for details of subsidiary boards from where your original flawed quote comes from.

The Co-operative Bank plc

Non-executive directors

Richard Pym, Chair of The Co-operative Bank plc
Richard Coates, Independent Professional Non-Executive Director
Anne Gunther, Independent Professional Non-Executive Director
Merlyn Lowther, Independent Professional Non-Executive Director
Euan Sutherland, Group Chief Executive
Ben Reid, Group Director
Graeme Hardie, Independent Professional Non-Executive Director

Executive directors

Rod Bulmer, Deputy Chief Executive
Niall Booker, Chief Executive

The operative word here is subsidiary so it should come under the direction of the main Co-operative Group board which is basically elected and not qualified.

The Co-operative Group is the product of its history which is democratic. I'm not saying the governance is incompetent but saying that it needs improving mainly because it's based on bygone eras.

If you need spoon feeding any more I'd say look to someone else because I'm bored with it now.

ColdIron

I'd say you don't understand the way the Co-operative Group is currently run

I'd agree

People are not appointed to the board because they have expertise or experience.

Again we are at one

They are elected to the board after being promoted by friends.

At risk of being too fulsome, there is little between us to date although I prefer the term anointed

Therefore the board is not qualified to run the Co-operative Group. However they might be good at baking jam tarts!

Hurrah

I disagree with you at a molecular level and accuse you of working to an agenda, but anyone that likes jam tarts can't be all that bad

Can they?

Anthorn

ColdIron wrote: »

I'd say you don't understand the way the Co-operative Group is currently run

I'd agree

People are not appointed to the board because they have expertise or experience.

Again we are at one

They are elected to the board after being promoted by friends.

At risk of being too fulsome, there is little between us to date although I prefer the term anointed

Therefore the board is not qualified to run the Co-operative Group. However they might be good at baking jam tarts!

Hurrah

I disagree with you at a molecular level and accuse you of working to an agenda, but anyone that likes jam tarts can't be all that bad

Can they?

We are essentially in agreement but I think you're not grasping my point on incompetence: Incompetence is relative to the actions they perform or approve and relative to they advice they get. That's also where Group politics comes in.

There are also events which have not hit the headlines mainly because they are not as far as we know alleged to be connected with Rev Flowers. One such event is the acquisition of Somerfield which went to the wall after its acquisition of Gateway. That acquisition placed the Group under stress.

We can look at events and see very clearly the Group's attempts to expand at all costs. Is that the result of board actions or not and if the board is not making the decisions who is making the decisions? Well, that's the 1.5 billion pounds question!

Archi_Bald

You seem to now be starting to make the case for the whole group to be unfit for business. To paraphrase you, nobody in the entire group seems to be responsible for, or qualified to make, any decisions. In a word: omnishambles.

Anthorn

My whole case has been the untrue propaganda about the Co-op Bank and the injection of the true facts.

For example if we believe the government and the media it was Rev. Flowers who was responsible for the acquisition of Britannia which broke the bank. But in fact he was appointed to the bank board as non-executive chairman after the acquisition of Britannia was completed. "The man who broke the bank" (Mr. Cameron) lol

The other part of my case is while we're listening to the propaganda and demonising Rev. Flowers the real people are getting away.

The bubbles of truth have a habit of rising to the surface and we get little snippets but they are quickly denied and buried.

The Co-op Bank is not a mutual and is wholly owned by Co-operative Group and so can't be divorced from Co-operative Group when we discuss it.