RBS remuneration on the rocks
It's not just Sir Fred Goodwin whose pension pot is hugely controversial.
His successor at the Royal Bank of Scotland, appointed with the support of the majority shareholder, Her Majesty's Government, is also under fire for a £5m shareholding.
Next week, the government gets to flex its considerable muscle on pay and pensions.
While its (supposedly) arm's-length shareholding agency, UK Financial Investments, is not saying how it will vote at the Royal Bank's annual general meeting in Edinburgh, a statement does hint at a 'no' vote on the remuneration committee report.
That would at least register a protest at the Goodwin pension.
The problem it faces in taking that nuclear option on pay is that it could impact on more than 170,000 RBS staff.
"UKFI has made abundantly clear its profound opposition to the decision of the former board to enhance Sir Fred Goodwin's pension and has agreed with RBS that every legal avenue for redress must be explored," said a UKFI spokeswoman this morning.
"The vote on remuneration runs much wider across a bank with 170,000 employees and UKFI will make its voting decision in due course".
It could be politically difficult for UKFI to vote in favour of the Royal Bank's remuneration committee report, particularly as independent advisers to other shareholders are recommending a 'no' vote.
Of the two most influential analysts advising institutional investors, the Association of British Insurers has put an alert warning on the remuneration committee report (it doesn't recommend votes to those it advises), while the Pensions Investment Research Consultants (PIRC) is recommending its clients to vote against.
It is unlikely this could stop Sir Fred's pension deal, but it would force a re-think of the package agreed with Stephen Hester, the new chief executive.
His pay packet was agreed under the government's shareholding watch.
To compensate Mr Hester for shares he held in the company he previously led, British Land, he was handed nearly £5m worth of RBS shares.
He doesn't even have to achieve any performance targets to have access to that investment.
PIRC has "serious concerns" about the nature of this non-incentivised deal, saying there should instead be "challenging and transparent performance conditions".
It is also unhappy about the shareholding incentive awaiting new RBS chairman Sir Philip Hampton, that could bring him twice his annual salary, meaning £1.5m.
That is deemed to tie his incentives too closely to those of senior management.
For Sir Philip's predecessor, Sir Tom McKillop, more bad news looms.
The Treasury select committee is, this afternoon, to decide on whether it wants to summon him again to explain the deal he did with Sir Fred Goodwin on enhancing the former chief executive's pension package at the same time the company was heading for collapse.
And he is also under pressure at BP where, as a non-executive director of the energy giant, he is on both the remuneration committee and even the ethics committee.
Incredibly, he's standing for re-election at the AGM next month.
According to the BP board's recommendation: "Sir Tom brings capabilities and expertise within the areas of international business".
He certainly brings experience, though not necessarily the kind you would want.
Comment number 1.
At 24th Mar 2009, nine2ninetysix wrote:I have every sympathy for the average bank worker, little or none for the present executive and as for those who were ousted, well hanging`s too good for them as we say here in Scotland.
Bank staff used to be well remunerated, subsidised loans and mortgages, better holidays and working hours than most and a respectable job. But then they used to be proper career bankers who new a bad risk when they saw one and gave good advice without one eye one their targets and bonuses.
All this has been dumbed down. No real bankers exist, just salesmen in sharp suits, and sharper wallpaper if reports are true.
The new executive seem little different, snouts and troughs spring to mind.
As for Gordon Pell saying 260 jobs will be lost when no decision has been made then what hope is there for the future?
I hope the remuneration committee report is thrown out and seriously redrafted before approval.
As Obama said it`s time for change, in this case right here, right now.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 24th Mar 2009, mike boothroyd wrote:Douglas,
Congratulations on a cracking article.
I always enjoy my brief excursions to blogs north of the border but this is an absolute peach.
No sign of any gloves, just telling it as it is.
"not necessarily the kind you would want" makes me wish I was a BP shareholder at the meeting.
More of the same please.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 24th Mar 2009, Wee-Scamp wrote:Not surprised McKillop is a BP non-exec... He and John Brown would have got on well. They're two of a kind....
Hester...... just another Goodwin.. Time they appointed someone who actually isn't a banker.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 24th Mar 2009, newsjock wrote:Some of these top managers must be schizophrenic.
They seem to be riding on umpteen gravy-trains simultaneously !
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 24th Mar 2009, mike boothroyd wrote:#4 newsjock
They all exchange season tickets with each other.
"I've got four non-executive directorships for you if you can find me a FTSe 100 remuneration committee seat."
"Swop you a vice-chairmanship for two non-executive posts."
A very cosy closed shop involving, probably, no more that 2000 individuals, of whom as many as a dozen may be female.
By the by, they are not "top" managers. Mearly managers who, by virtue of being part of the magic circle, find themselves at the top.
McPillock is just playing the game by the rules we allow them to apply to themselves.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 24th Mar 2009, mike boothroyd wrote:The lack of debate on such a great blog amazes me.
Perhaps all the good folk in Scotland are being bypast by the rest of the world's economic turmoil.
If so, good luck to them all.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 25th Mar 2009, mekquarrie wrote:#6 Agreed. A Sterling blog (every pun intended).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 25th Mar 2009, mekquarrie wrote:Once again wider remuneration is bundled together with individual obscenities. Can't say that I ever buy this excuse. This kind of shifty scripting is surely carefully crafted to hold the little-guys to ransom.
Would it be too difficult to put down two motions?
Motion 1: Massive reward for bad management -> result: no.
Motion 2: Modest reward for resilience of minnows -> result: yes.
Genius..!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 25th Mar 2009, 1dunstew wrote:How many jobs does Sir Tom Mckillop have, I am sure he is on the board of Royal Dutch Shell also. I asked RDS if they still had confidence in him after the RBS debacle and got no response. This chap seems to be within the group of the "2000" Club mentioned in the previous comment. This will sound stupid but if surely the government is now in control of the financial system should it not have a couple of "normal" people on the remuneration committees to refer gross abuses of the system back to govt before they are approved by zombies like Lord Myners.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 25th Mar 2009, puzzling wrote:"The problem it faces in taking that nuclear option on pay is that it could impact on more than 170,000 RBS staff."
Why ?
If this scare mongering from within or are 170,000 stafff used as human shields?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 25th Mar 2009, Rampanddump wrote:Surely we should be interested in the recovery of the billions of taxpayers money - the civil servants / politicians have, so far, shown themselves to be inept at best.
Unfortunately the only people who will deliver our money back are the bankers - paying them richly to deliver this has to be the best option for the UK as a whole, and the longer we faff around before accepting this the greater the cost will be to all of us.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 25th Mar 2009, redrobb wrote:Whit! Sumewan's gonnae register a NAW vote on the Remuneration / Pension question.....call me ye old'e cynic but the ony fing that makes sense to me wuz whit happened to Fred The Shreds Windaes..last nicht
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 25th Mar 2009, nine2ninetysix wrote:# 9 I don`t know how many jobs company directors have or need but I do know I needed three to survive when I was made redundant after nearly thirty years with the same company.
Now like Goonwin, I too have a pension of £703,000.
Not per annum but in total.
All I have to do is live until I am 176, no problem there then.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 25th Mar 2009, mike boothroyd wrote:#13
I wonder how the double act of Goonwin and McPillock would go down at the old Glasgow Empire?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 26th Mar 2009, nine2ninetysix wrote:#14
Still in short trousers when Empire closed, so I never got to go.
Goonwin and McPillock might be jokers but not comedians, but then again we did save the worst for English acts, ask Mike and Bernie Winters, so maybe they would have got off lightly, at least by Empire standards.
After a week at the "Graveyard" the Commons Select Committee would have been a dawdle.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 26th Mar 2009, mike boothroyd wrote:Mike and Bernie Winters were so bad they even got the bird at the Isllington Empire.
"Sznorbitch" was the real talent in that act.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 26th Mar 2009, yoramnor wrote:Surely we should be asking the question....... Stephen Hester, Group Chief Executive of RBS wrote his letter in the local Scottish newspapers on 21st March saying RBS is committed to making available £1.7 billion worth of mortgage lending in 2009............. where is this money right now?
Did RBS get this from Government? When did they get it? What has been done with it pending dispersing to mortgage applicants
( who are being asked to produce at least 20% down payments) and is it the case that RBS are actually making a real profit on this amount by putting it out on overnight call?
£1.7 billion.... where is it right now?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 29th Mar 2009, gone_phishing wrote:I wonder when Golum is planning to privatise the newly created company United Kingdom Financial Investments (Ltd). You never Can tell perhaps soon all the people in Scotland will find that thier bank and credit cards bare the logo of say Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank.
Well I suppose changing the Scottish pound for Dhirrams may be better than Euros.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 29th Mar 2009, yourfriendforlife wrote:A magic circle indeed, attended to by headhunters who make a living by placing the same individuals in multiple directorships.
How about an expose of this cosy little club.
You could start with McKillop, Stevenson and Faulds.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)