Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 20,802
- Location
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
For that sorta money it would be cheaper for them to hire a hitman so they no longer have to pay him! 
World's worst banker's £650k a year for life pension
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
Uhm how was he a good deal for shareholders? Their shares are virtually worthless because he took the company to the brink of bankruptcy by chasing the short term profits that you handily have mentioned. Remember that profit is not cash, and RBS shareholders would only have seen a fraction of that £52bn figure in dividends.
Goodwin isn't the only person who failed RBS, but as CEO he is the one with ultimate responsibility for the state the company is in today. You mention the ABN AMRO takeover, and you're right that it does account for most of RBS' problems, but who else is responsible for that but Goodwin?
He's a clever boy; he chose early retirement, which increases his pension by a further £8m.
Surely most people forget what happened before the recession?
The banks were flying high. If we're gonna talk about what he did, then, as pointed out in earlier posts, it seems he created an awful lot of money for the bank itself, but made one mistake, which turned out to be crucial, and has affected a lot of people.
I also agree with the man himself though. He said to the select committee that interviewed those bankers, that sure, they could blame it all on him, but where does that get them? It doesn't make the problem go away. In my opinion he has worked for however many years, and has earned that pension, should he be forced to give it up for his one mistake? I doubt it. Although yes, that one mistake appears to be gigantic, and has affected our whole society, it's his money at the end of the day, he's had his turn, and he was forced out by public opinion. To be honest, I don't rekon there are many people out there that could do a better job given the current circumstances.
The banks were flying high. If we're gonna talk about what he did, then, as pointed out in earlier posts, it seems he created an awful lot of money for the bank itself, but made one mistake, which turned out to be crucial, and has affected a lot of people.
I also agree with the man himself though. He said to the select committee that interviewed those bankers, that sure, they could blame it all on him, but where does that get them? It doesn't make the problem go away. In my opinion he has worked for however many years, and has earned that pension, should he be forced to give it up for his one mistake? I doubt it. Although yes, that one mistake appears to be gigantic, and has affected our whole society, it's his money at the end of the day, he's had his turn, and he was forced out by public opinion. To be honest, I don't rekon there are many people out there that could do a better job given the current circumstances.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,563
- Location
- West Sussex
hope he dies aged 51
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
It would seem not.
I can't remember who but someone said earlier that no one could have seen what was coming (or similar) ........ WTF! ........ that's partly what they are paid huge salaries to do; attempting to predict what's coming next. If they were so ******* brilliant, they should have seen this coming ages ago and taken steps to minimise the damage; as it was, all these **** hot people 'who we can't afford to lose, because they are the best out there' were busy lending money that they didn't have to people who couldn't pay it back, and getting paid enormous bonuses for doing it!!
How can anyone in their right mind think that any of this is right and moral/ethical etc?
Gizza job ...... I'm sure that I could blag it for long enough to get a few perks organised so that when the government bails the bank out, I can **** off to do the same again without so much as a slap on the wrist from the FSA.
I've just listened to Mervyn King speaking before the Treasury Select Committee (BBC news site) where he raises the valid point that paying huge salaries and bonuses encourages these executives to go 'gambling' in the markets; the point being that if they win they get enormous rewards but if they lose the gamble, there's no penalty; talk about a win win situation.
How can anyone in their right mind think that any of this is right and moral/ethical etc?
Gizza job ...... I'm sure that I could blag it for long enough to get a few perks organised so that when the government bails the bank out, I can **** off to do the same again without so much as a slap on the wrist from the FSA.
I've just listened to Mervyn King speaking before the Treasury Select Committee (BBC news site) where he raises the valid point that paying huge salaries and bonuses encourages these executives to go 'gambling' in the markets; the point being that if they win they get enormous rewards but if they lose the gamble, there's no penalty; talk about a win win situation.
Last edited:
The share price went from 442p per share when he started to a peak of over 2000p per share, add that to the dividends and a lot of people made a hell of a lot of money from his reign.
ABN AMRO was a stupid decision, on the other hand the acquisition of Natwest worked out very very well for RBS, it's all swings and roundabouts, but to say ridiculous comments like 'does he have no shame' simply for taking the pension pot that his contract could give him.
Note also that he did 'give up' 15 months salary, which I believe was several million pounds worth, but Darling/Brown didn't think it right at the time to ask him to give up some/all of his pension as well as that, of course now this has come to light all of a sudden Darling and Brown are outraged at the injustice of it all
If he was so bad for the shareholders why did they not vote him out? Fact is that whilst the going was good the government, the shareholders and the public (including you, where do you think the interest on your savings comes from?) were fine with the banks (and hence Goodwin) taking silly risks, when it inevitably backfires everyone's up in arms about it...
All of which counts for nothing if you bankrupt your company. I can't believe I've had to explain that. Consider this: if the government didn't bail out RBS then Goodwin would be getting next to nothing for his pension. Oh how not bailing out the banks seems like such a tempting idea now.
Note also that he did 'give up' 15 months salary, which I believe was several million pounds worth, but Darling/Brown didn't think it right at the time to ask him to give up some/all of his pension as well as that, of course now this has come to light all of a sudden Darling and Brown are outraged at the injustice of it all
I heard on the radio that 15 months salary was worth a couple of million, the pension thing was worth £8m. Looks very much like he engineered this payout for himself at a time when time was short to bail out RBS. There's no doubt he's a clever man, but I think he is morally bankrupt too - he doesn't seem to have taken any sort of personal responsibility for his mistakes. Contrast his attitude with the low ranking civil servant who lost all those child tax credit records - he made a mistake and he did the correct thing and resigned. No bumper pay out for him.
Because shareholders are equally as greedy and short-termist as the RBS board. As long as profits were good, the institutional investors were actually encouraging RBS to take on risky investments.
I myself have contractual monies that are irrelevant to the company doing well or not. The company doesn't want to pay us this year due to the 'credit crisis'. I won't give up whats contactually mine and I don't expect him to either.
I find it even more laughable that any politician can question that morality.
If anyone should be hung it's the person that signed off that pension.
I'd **** you all over and leave you all homeless for a 650k a year age 50 pension.
I find it even more laughable that any politician can question that morality.
If anyone should be hung it's the person that signed off that pension.
I'd **** you all over and leave you all homeless for a 650k a year age 50 pension.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 May 2003
- Posts
- 9,361
- Location
- Limehouse
The company sacked him before his contract was up and therefore are legally bound to pay up. People are up in arms about the sums involved but you can't change the rules for one man...
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 8,501
- Location
- England
I'm sure the Board signed if off, along with the rest of the Boards huge pensions
HEADRAT
Don't get me wrong, morally he should give it back, but in the articile there are talks of going to court about this. If there's been a signed agreement for him to have this kind of pension then there's really not much they can do about it.
What I find pathetic is how everything seems to be attributed to the actions of a few select bankers. In every news item they mention those people who were 'encouraged' by the banks to take out heavy loans, without ensuring they had the means to pay them back. People go on about how these bankers need to accept responsibility, yet no blame is apportioned to the scrubbers thick enough to default on these loans in the first place.
Technically he didn't bankrupt his company, he was simply forced to get more capital via a rights issue that just happened to be underwritten by the government...
His job was the maximise the profits of his company, which he did, and during those years he accrued a pension pot that was rather hefty, with clauses in his contract to improve on that if he took early retirement, this is all fine imo.
He was then forced to take early retirement, and the new majority stakeholder (eg us, represented by the clowns in charge) were too dumb to take away as much pension from him as possible.
The banks should never have been 'bailed out', they screwed up to the point where the government should've nationalised RBS, HBOS and Lloyds, getting rid of the management (and actually doing a good job minimising the pension/remuneration payouts) but they didn't so we can hardly complain now when somebody takes what is 'owed' him...
I believe his pay was somewhere in the region of £8m a year in 2006/2007, so assuming it was still that much 15 months would be more than what was added to his pension pot, of course he shouldn't have had either but we screwed up.
Yes, and that's exactly the same, some guy who put relatively nothing into the company (or government in this case), and a **** up that was just as large and could be wholly attributed to him.
Basically what I'm trying to say is the following:
A: You cannot blame everything on him, but if you do you have to look at the results over his entire tenure, and the £16m pension pot is nothing compared to the profits that 'he' made the company (or even compared to the tax that he both personally and RBS as a company paid the government over those years)
B: We, as the new owners, represented by darling/brown, messed up, we had the chance to reduce his pension pot and we didn't do it, can we really complain now?
True, but the fact he can get away with it now whilst so much public money is propping up the bank is crazy.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,140
- Location
- Cotswolds
I think the problem is that the bank is being bailed out with taxpayers money and hence essentally, albeit in my naive view, he's pocketing a small amount of our money