http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews/idUSLQ48474320090226
if you were in his shoes
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews/idUSLQ48474320090226
Go easy on these pensioners, they need every little bit of help they can get 
If it's in his contract, and I'd be surprised if it's not, then I'd tell one and all to go swing for it! I don't see how the Gov't can try and pull this kind of stunt when he was in place before they bailed the bank out. It's got nothing to do with them.
I have no objection to someone being paid for doing a good job but they should not be rewarded for being a failure too.
He should be paid per year as any ‘chief-executive or directors’ pay or pension should be in direct proportion to the company’s profit margin for that
year.
I this instant he’s should be paying the bank back
I'd tell the government where to go!!! Its a part of his legally binding contract and no matter how bad you might think the RBS's finances
are, they are nothing like as bad as this country's mounting debts!!!
You can hardly blame the CEO for the state of the Western world's economy - there are bigger issues at fault here than the overall management of
the banks.
Should have made things like this a condition when they decided to bail them out - bit late now - Gosh aren't our Government marvellous, must
vote them back in next time!!!
If I were him I would say thanks very much and take the £650k a year. As others have said, it's (presumably) in a legally-binding contract that
he would get this level of pension and let's not forget that it is a pension, not a performance bonus. E.g. both I and my employer put money into
a pension fund but, however I eventually leave the company, I would still expect to get the pension.
I think that's why the government has to "ask" him to forgo some of the pension, rather than "tell" or "force".
Lessons for the future might include companies thinking more carefully about the terms of pay and benefits (including pension provision) before
they employ top level executives, rather than after things have gone breasts skyward.
[Edited on 26.02.2009 by Humbug]
If it was his fault that the government had to bail RBS out, then he should forego any privilages including his pension. If he had done a good job and he can prove it was absolutely not his fault, then good luck to him. It's not his problem that I picked up the wrong careers leaflet at school........
They bring new meaning to the term "the buck stops here"
It is astonishing how bankers/share dealers/politicians et al are so willing to accept the plaudits/money when times are going well but seem very
unwilling to accept any consequences when they get it wrong.
Whether in his contract or not, a little bit of contrition at this point would go a long way.
I was listening to radio 4 this morning and the government "could" pass a bill specifically for this one guys pension to have it cut.
Legally binding contracts stand for nothing if that is done. but then it damages the reputation on the UK as a civilised country when they overrule
judicial matters like that - it would be like a dictatorship.
I find it interesting that there are specific people who keep getting spot lighted, but I bet there is a plethorar of fat cats elsewhere and lower
down the ladder who don't get focused on. In that sense its a bit of a witch hunt and so in my opinion a bit unfair.
quote:
Originally posted by Dangle_kt
I was listening to radio 4 this morning and the government "could" pass a bill specifically for this one guys pension to have it cut.
Legally binding contracts stand for nothing if that is done. but then it damages the reputation on the UK as a civilised country when they overrule judicial matters like that - it would be like a dictatorship.
I find it interesting that there are specific people who keep getting spot lighted, but I bet there is a plethorar of fat cats elsewhere and lower down the ladder who don't get focused on. In that sense its a bit of a witch hunt and so in my opinion a bit unfair.
simple; it is in my contract then pay me.
tough titties mr Brown and Darling.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
I this instant he’s should be paying the bank back
storm in a tea cup as far as I can see.
To put it in perspective these city types earn millions in bonuses per year. £650K is small change. The guy has every rite to claim the pension
(although he is only 50!) if he lives another 20 years it's only £13M
are pensions taxed?
GB just needs to arrange for 'a little accident' 
I'm sure they do this (maybe I watch too many conspiracy programmes).
What would I say?
Just been told pay rises frozen; bonuses (what little they were) 'deferred'; bonus scheme for next year binned.
I'd say well done, keep up the good work.
Not.
Seems like people need to differentiate between bonuses (which he definately shouldnt get) and a pension.
If the government do bring in legislation to stop this guy's pension then thats a witch hunt. This country is rapidly moving towards a
dictatorship already - where is it going to stop?? How many times have the government interfered with the running of private companies lately??
quote:
Originally posted by Hammerhead
are pensions taxed?
quote:
Originally posted by Paul TigerB6
Seems like people need to differentiate between bonuses (which he definately shouldnt get) and a pension.
If the government do bring in legislation to stop this guy's pension then thats a witch hunt. This country is rapidly moving towards a dictatorship already - where is it going to stop?? How many times have the government interfered with the running of private companies lately??
quote:
Originally posted by russbost
Should have made things like this a condition when they decided to bail them out - bit late now - Gosh aren't our Government marvellous, must vote them back in next time!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Paul TigerB6
If the government do bring in legislation to stop this guy's pension then thats a witch hunt.
quote:
Originally posted by Dangle_kt
RBS is hardly private, the government will own more than 80% if they proceed with the toxic debt "bad bank" proposal.
Them owning the company has nothing to do with being able to stop his pension though, they will need to pass that through parlament as any other bill would have to.
If this bloke had been in charge of a private enterprise he would have got nothing, and would probably have been taken to court.
1. It's not "tough titties Brown and Darling", it's "tough titties Simon and the British Taxpayer" - do you want to have
taxes increased to pay for this kind of thing?
2. Rewards for failure were a hallmark of certain workers in 70's UK. Why is this different? Only then, it wasn't their fault the place of
work was run by idiots who wouldn't modernise.
Remember, the whole western world financial system was manipulated to pay executives huge salaries and bonuses, by keeping things artificially
inflated. Basing financial instruments on the whim of the housing market, for example, is what got us into this thing. Not just the UK.
[Edited on 26/2/09 by RK]
quote:
Originally posted by designer
If this bloke had been in charge of a private enterprise he would have got nothing, and would probably have been taken to court.
quote:Bonuses are normally the mechanism for rewarding success. This is a pension that is being talked about (albeit a significant one). The comment above about execs & directors being paid in line with the performance of the company is a bit drastic. I am a director and although my company is not doing that well financially I work hard to keep it all together and my staff are still employed and get the same benefits as before and are all paid on time. Are you saying that, despite my hard work in achieving this, I should be paid less as my company is not doing as well as it should?
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
I have no objection to someone being paid for doing a good job but they should not be rewarded for being a failure too.
He should be paid per year as any ‘chief-executive or directors’ pay or pension should be in direct proportion to the company’s profit margin for that year.
I this instant he’s should be paying the bank back
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Quinn
...and when I make a complete success of it and retire, my pension payments should relate to the financial performance of the company when it is then in the hands of another, possibly completely incompetent, individual??
This is all spin and bluster. When the goverment took over the bank it was due to the regulation system failing and allowing it to happen. It was hardly surprising when the head of the regulators was one of those who set the banks on this path. The goverment knew exactly what they were doing getting an early retire ment and paid him what was in his contract. Now after all this fuss, they announce it was worse than they knew off with record losses and that the guy who is to blame has a big pension. So it throws the story from what a bunch of wankers we are for not doing this right, to what agreedy bastard Fred Goodwin is. Us discussing his pension is exactly what they wanted. We should be discussing why the regulation failed, why the goverment bought the bank not knowing the full picture and more importantly what are theydoing to get the economy going