If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Barclays shareholders are revolting. Why yes, ...yes they are   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 16
    More: Obvious, incentive payments, executive pay, finance director, chief investment officer, shareholders, Institute of Directors  
•       •       •

1626 clicks; posted to Business » on 30 Apr 2012 at 10:40 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



16 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-04-30 09:18:34 AM
Don't mess with British pensioners. They're nothing like those silly wrinklies AARP throws up on our TV screens. Look beyond the Brits' pleasant chatter and their gardens, and you'll see a bunch of white-haired goblins.
 
2012-04-30 10:52:02 AM
www.startrek.com

LOL WUT
 
2012-04-30 10:54:32 AM
And you look like the piss boy!
 
2012-04-30 10:55:00 AM
You said it, they stink on ice.
 
2012-04-30 10:56:28 AM
ts4.mm.bing.net

You said it; they stink on ice.
 
2012-04-30 10:57:29 AM

Cybernetic: You said it, they stink on ice.


28 seconds

/tiny fist
 
2012-04-30 11:02:12 AM
news.bbcimg.co.uk

What British protesters may look like
 
2012-04-30 11:30:27 AM
Who cares?

A "shareholder rebellion" is pointless, because as far as I know, the corporation is not required to heed the votes of shareholders when it comes to renumeration - renumeration votes are nonbinding. The real point is to gather shareholder opinion on actions related to renumeration - it's a windsock, not a rudder.

And, that's exactly how it's being viewed in this case. What I just read was:

"Oh, dear - nearly a third of our shareholders are upset with proposed renumeration? Well, next time, we'll try to explain it differently, so that we can get back down to the usual ten percent of clueless riffraff. The other two-thirds voted for the proposed renumeration, so how bad could it be, really? Now, off with you, there's a good lad."
 
2012-04-30 12:42:46 PM

WordsnCollision: [www.startrek.com image 320x320]

LOL WUT


Pulling a screenshot from one of the few Voyager episodes he was on. A bold move.
 
2012-04-30 12:44:21 PM
t3.gstatic.com
 
2012-04-30 12:50:33 PM

FormlessOne: A "shareholder rebellion" is pointless, because as far as I know, the corporation is not required to heed the votes of shareholders when it comes to renumeration - renumeration votes are nonbinding. The real point is to gather shareholder opinion on actions related to renumeration - it's a windsock, not a rudder.

And, that's exactly how it's being viewed in this case. What I just read was:



Be that as it may shareholder votes are binding when it comes to electing directors. If a third of the shareholders are already in opposition it's cause for concern come the next meeting to elect directors to the Board. It's a sign that the Board is losing their grasp on the shareholders.

So what I took from their statement is they're going to take steps to try and win the shareholders back before they start trying to knock directors off the Board.
 
2012-04-30 12:52:00 PM

FormlessOne: Who cares?

A "shareholder rebellion" is pointless, because as far as I know, the corporation is not required to heed the votes of shareholders when it comes to renumeration - renumeration votes are nonbinding. The real point is to gather shareholder opinion on actions related to renumeration - it's a windsock, not a rudder.

And, that's exactly how it's being viewed in this case. What I just read was:

"Oh, dear - nearly a third of our shareholders are upset with proposed renumeration? Well, next time, we'll try to explain it differently, so that we can get back down to the usual ten percent of clueless riffraff. The other two-thirds voted for the proposed renumeration, so how bad could it be, really? Now, off with you, there's a good lad."


Just so you know, it's remuneration not renumeration. It was probably Automatic Spell Czech. That guy is always screwing up my stuff.
 
2012-04-30 12:56:19 PM

FormlessOne: Who cares?

A "shareholder rebellion" is pointless, because as far as I know, the corporation is not required to heed the votes of shareholders when it comes to renumeration - renumeration votes are nonbinding. The real point is to gather shareholder opinion on actions related to renumeration - it's a windsock, not a rudder.

And, that's exactly how it's being viewed in this case. What I just read was:

"Oh, dear - nearly a third of our shareholders are upset with proposed renumeration? Well, next time, we'll try to explain it differently, so that we can get back down to the usual ten percent of clueless riffraff. The other two-thirds voted for the proposed renumeration, so how bad could it be, really? Now, off with you, there's a good lad."


That may be true in the Land of the Free(tm) but in the Nanny State(tm) 50.01%+ of shareholders must vote in favour of the executive remuneration at the annual AGM for the people at the top to get paid.

So these suits only had a margin of 18%. Thats enough to make the guy trip over himself to apologise.
 
2012-04-30 01:15:39 PM
Considering that the people who created the compensation plan also hold 60% of the voting power for approving the package, I'm sure they don't give a rats ass what the rest of the hangers on think about it.
 
2012-04-30 03:39:04 PM

jjorsett: FormlessOne: Who cares?

A "shareholder rebellion" is pointless, because as far as I know, the corporation is not required to heed the votes of shareholders when it comes to renumeration - renumeration votes are nonbinding. The real point is to gather shareholder opinion on actions related to renumeration - it's a windsock, not a rudder.

And, that's exactly how it's being viewed in this case. What I just read was:

"Oh, dear - nearly a third of our shareholders are upset with proposed renumeration? Well, next time, we'll try to explain it differently, so that we can get back down to the usual ten percent of clueless riffraff. The other two-thirds voted for the proposed renumeration, so how bad could it be, really? Now, off with you, there's a good lad."

Just so you know, it's remuneration not renumeration. It was probably Automatic Spell Czech. That guy is always screwing up my stuff.


No, it was me, sadly - I was in a hurry, and so I can't pass off the blame.

Norfolking Chance: That may be true in the Land of the Free(tm) but in the Nanny State(tm) 50.01%+ of shareholders must vote in favour of the executive remuneration at the annual AGM for the people at the top to get paid.


Odd - I read that, in the UK, that the Barclays shareholder vote is, indeed, non-binding, but I may have misinterpreted it:

Originally UK company law set a default rule that the remuneration of directors was to be set, binding, by the company's general meeting, under Table A, article 54, attached to the Companies Act 1862.[4] Over time more and more companies gave the right to directors, which is the position found in the Model Articles for companies today, that remuneration of the directors shall be determined by the directors.

The United Kingdom was the forerunner in mandating that shareholders be allowed a non-binding, or advisory vote on pay. In the UK, section 439 of the Companies Act 2006 mandates a vote on director pay at the yearly accounts meeting. Directors are expected to have disclosed their remuneration package in a "Remuneration Report" (section 420). Failure to do this leads to fines.
 
2012-04-30 11:58:47 PM

Lost Thought 00: Considering that the people who created the compensation plan also hold 60% of the voting power for approving the package, I'm sure they don't give a rats ass what the rest of the hangers on think about it.


Yeah, pretty much.

This is the banking equivalent of a UN strongly worded letter.
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report