Investment in "Investment Opportunities

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Some people have more honourable motives than just how much money they can get for themselves. These are the sort of people who ought to be running the FCA (and other parts of public service.) Believe it or not, there are such people who are competent and prepared to serve the public for less than 20 times the average pay.

My thought would be, sure, shop around for who is available at what price point but being willing to do the top job for a low pay does not qualify you to do it. It is not necessarily true that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys, but it can be false economy to offer a role at way less than a competing salaries.

For example, some people will be shocked and angry like that a FTSE100 exec got paid £800k salary while the company lost £100m ; without considering that recruiting someone on £100k salary might have lost them £400m instead in the same timeframe, or knocked a billion off the company's valuations due to the different strategies implemented.

It is great that there are seasoned execs prepared to take on a role with an impressive title for under £400k, some lower multiple of 'the national average wage' for a job that is clearly not 'the national average job'. But certainly with some of them that is due to their ego and self interest and what 'legacy' they might create for themselves which can be used to bolster their professional networks and create future opportunity (maybe move on to a hedge fund advisor role at £2m a year if you don't make a complete pig's ear of the FCA role).

For example, Trump is going to decline the US presidential $400k salary, but it doesn't make him the best man for the job and a complete altruist - he will certainly keep all the other 'perks' of office and being called Mr President with a free security team for the rest of your life is probably pretty positive for your sideline businesses. Even the $400k itself is set low to avoid people wanting high office just for the money, but the job title of 'leader of the free world' is worth a lot more than $400k so the apparent low salary is irrelevant.

How about we offer the top FCA job to a 60 year old retiree who already has enough money for a comfortable retirement for the rest of his life so he will do it for just £40k plus the car and driver, not $400k or £400k? Well, how motivated is he to bust his chops for sixty hours a week, or put in a good performance to make sure he doesn't get fired, when he doesn't need the money or career development anyway?

If you are sourcing an FCA CEO from the pool of talent in the private sector, particularly those in the financial services sector, you are looking at people who could earn higher salaries being CEOs or board members of big listed companies or private financial firms. It would certainly be a big pay cut if someone left their role as a top regulatory partner at a Big 4 advisory firm or law firm that was netting them £1m a year+++, to go and be head of the FCA for a 50-75% pay cut.

You could instead look at taking someone from outside the financial services sector who has experience of leadership but doesn't know financial services regulation, and being from outside the industry might have lower salary expectations. That would shake things up a bit and give fresh perspective, but the people working for him at the FCA and all the regulated firms would moan that he doesn't understand their issues or the way they want to work or how to deal with his compatriots at the other international financial regulators who all know their shizzle.

If fresh perspective without a huge knowledge gap is being sought, you could perhaps draw in that fresh perspective by recruiting someone who had worked in a similar post overseas and done a decent job. However, as well as market salary you are also looking at high relocation costs, so that's a non starter as a cost cutter, and for example you didn't like Carney coming into our country and telling us how things should work and having some policies that you judged to be imperfect. Not that you like any politician or any high profile senior person in the public eye, it seems. To you they are all overpaid and inadequate and not accountable enough.

Glen_Clark wrote: »

I asked the question first

I am not saying £460k is the exact right amount of salary. It is you who said that you had demonstrated they were overpaid by demonstrating that they were paid £460k, which is a failure of logic.

There are tens of thousands of leaders of small, medium or large businesses making six figures. At least 2% of the population has an income of £100k+. This includes hundreds of headteachers, a few of whom are at £200k+, and oodles of skilled specialists in healthcare and other services where people think of 'the average' person earning a relatively modest salary.

Financial services is a relatively large part of the UK GDP (and a relatively large part of our exports) and relies on regulation to function effectively, and prevent damage to its firms and the interests of the rest of the country through firms doing things that society or economics might view as bad. So in my view it is not unexpected that the roles of head of the industry regulators FCA and PRA should carry a pretty hefty salary. Otherwise the people who have the skills and experience needed might just go off and be a partner at a compliance consultant or hedge fund or Big 4 or financial firm for much greater total compensation.

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Why would they?
Like other companies the FCA directors salary is decided by fat cats voting for each other's pay increases. Why would they admit that it was possible to get someone more competent for any less than they are being paid themselves?
This forum is dominated by finance professionals who are in favour of stratospheric salaries for finance professionals. :rotfl:

Donald Trump is foregoing his salary apart from a token $1 per year. It doesn't sound such good value does it?

Glen_Clark wrote: »

The only way a mediocre exec can justify a huge salary is if other mediocre execs get similar.

Do I detect a hint of cynicism in your world view?