World's worst banker's £650k a year for life pension

[scorza]

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.

No, no, no - the primary duty of a CEO is not to maximise the profits of his company, it is to protect the investment of the shareholders. There is no definition by which it can be said he has achieved this - sure, some will have sold RBS shares at their peak and won out of this, but Goodwin's duty was to *all* shareholders.

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...

Yes, the government haven't exactly covered themselves in glory over this. Remember that scene in Mary Poppins when Mr Banks is fired from the bank? That is how Goodwin's sacking should have gone. Ironically the minister in charge of overseeing Goodwin's departure, Lord Myners, is himself a former banker. DYOC.

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.

I believe he waived an entitlement to one years salary - not including bonuses, share options. His salary was ~£1.5m in 2007.

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.

What did Goodwin put into the company except for excessive risk taking and over-leveraging? I say put the guy who lost the tax credit data in charge of RBS, lets face it, he can't exactly do a worse job can he?

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)

But the previous years profit are based on nothing. You can't say to RBS shareholders, "hey sorry your shares are worthless, but at least I made £50bn profit in the last few years". That's a bit like a doctor killing a patient and telling his family "hey, at least I gave him good treatment before I killed him".

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?

Can we complain? Hell yes - what do you think I'm doing? This isn't going to go away, the government are considering legal options. I'd be surprised if Goodwin ends up keeping all of his ill-gotten gains.

 

[caff]

It's a disgrace and we have the right to feel outraged. The government has handled bonuses and redundancy payouts incredibly badly.

 

[RDM]

Can we complain? Hell yes - what do you think I'm doing? This isn't going to go away, the government are considering legal options. I'd be surprised if Goodwin ends up keeping all of his ill-gotten gains.

As the government seemed to have agreed to it all I don't think anything more will come of them "considering legal options". Not to mention that I really hope that public opinion doesn't get to beat contract law as that is not a nice path to go down.

 

[Strife212]

Are you some sort of communist or are you just one of those who simply cannot accept that some people will always have more money than you? Perhaps you should have worked harder at school if you want a slice of his pie rather than posting threads about how he should have his contract nullified if you decide you dont like him.

There are loads of people richer than him. No one cares about his wealth. The thing people are angry about is the fact that he is incompetant, unfit to lead a business, responsible for the biggest corporate loss the UK has ever seen and yet he still gets this payment.

 

[mike62]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7911532.stm
Any RBS employees here care to confirm that they can draw their pensions aged 50?

If we'd done anything that screwed RBS like Goodwin we'd be sacked, not picking up a nice pension

Brown also has to answer questions; he has made sure that we will not get any bonus, profit sharing or pay rise this year because of the loss, yet allows that **** to happily walk away with hundreds of thousands a year.

 

[Ricochet J]

Strip the **** off his knighthood

 

[grenned]

Take it off him, give him community service

 

[Basher]

The pension terms were in his contract so he absolutely should not give it back. If I was in his situation I wouldn't and very few people would. The blame here lies with the government who didn't adjust his terms before his departure.

 

[mangobreeder]

TEchnically the guys done nothing illegal

And a lot of people are confusing what is morally right against what it it legally right.

Dont forget He negotiated this contract, so at some point both parties woudl have been happy with it.

also no way should he give it back. I certaintly wouldnt.

If someone said

"ill give you 650k a year for life"

and all you have to do it take a hell of a lot of greif for a few motnhs to a year.

i certainlty would take it. in ten years, no one will remember or care.

 

[aardvark]

take it off him, pass a law parliament, problem solved.

 

[mangobreeder]

take it off him, pass a law parliament, problem solved.

laws tend not to apply retrospectively,

hence that dodgy geezer who came out side aprliment

 

[starfighter]

He negotiated his contact when he was the leader of the bank. Wow that must have been hard? imagine the pain in deciding the number of zeros to give himself he must have gone through.

Now we own the bank we can pay him what we want.

But I do agree the gov should have said something when they took over the bank rather than now. but it is a technicality.

Even if they had mentioned it then he wouldn't have been able to do much, his options would be let the bank go bankrupt (no 1 to buy other than the gov) which would mean he wouldn't get much at all.

So by giving him something slightly more than the bankrupt pension he is getting what he deserves.

Simple.

 

[Basher]

He negotiated his contact when he was the leader of the bank. Wow that must have been hard? imagine the pain in deciding the number of zeros to give himself he must have gone through.

Now we own the bank we can pay him what we want.

Simple.

Afraid it doesn't quite work like that.

 

[aardvark]

laws tend not to apply retrospectively,

hence that dodgy geezer who came out side aprliment

but there is nothing in law that prevents a retrospective law being created and used - if the will is great enough it can be done.

 

[[TW]Fox]

He negotiated his contact when he was the leader of the bank. Wow that must have been hard? imagine the pain in deciding the number of zeros to give himself he must have gone through.

Thats not actually how it works. He was not 'god'.

Now we own the bank we can pay him what we want.

Simple.

No, its nowhere near that simple. Besides, YOU are not paying him - he has already built up a pension pot through years of profit at RBS and previous employment.

 

[starfighter]

But if the bank went bankrupt he would get a more normal pension, if the gov hadn't bought the bank who would?

 

[[TW]Fox]

But if the bank went bankrupt he would get a more normal pension, if the gov hadn't bought the bank who would?

No, thats not strictly true either.

 

[mangobreeder]

But if the bank went bankrupt he would get a more normal pension, if the gov hadn't bought the bank who would?

pension assets are ringfenced so he would probally get a very simmilar pension

edit: beaten to it

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Incidentally, would those who oppose this final salary pension also oppose those of the civil service (which are dramatically over market value and a massive black hole for taxpayers)?

If we think that taxpayer value is important, who is going to join the campaign for forcing more reasonable pensions from the civil service? (This is especially addressed to those complaining about this who work in the public sector).

Don't debunk the headline! The headline must and always will be true! There's nothing else to it!

 

[starfighter]

pension assets are ringfenced so he would probally get a very simmilar pension

edit: beaten to it

ok, it isn't quite so bad if that is the case, it's just the BBC make it sound like if it the Gov hadn't stepped in he would have got very little which to me means my tax money saved the company which in turn saved his pension so now my tax is paying his pension which he wouldn't have got.


Either way it is really about the message it sends out. Laws aside the government can do what they want, who can stop them, especially if the public are on their side. I can't imagine of ex Bank CEOs putting up much of a fight Vs the Army.