³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Given he is under no obligation to offer any reduction, the govt just just take this offer and move on. Legal action will cost more than they will recover.

Bet the Government do accept the deal and wave it as a "victory" in getting Fred to cut £4mill out of his pot.
They can then try to sweep it away and hope that everyone forgets it was their incompetence that allowed for Fred to walk away with the deal in the first place.

What about taking action against him for acting negligently while a director of a company - when's that going to happen?

This is the daftest story of the financial crisis and exposes the maliciousness and duplicity of our over-mighty state.

Pensions are not, and never have been, performance-linked. If they are to be performance-linked, then the employee (whether the janitor or the CEO of the firm) must be informed and agree to this when they sign their contract. Retirement planning and life decisions are hard enough without the threat of future retrospective action moving the goalposts.

Godowin is a colossal failure and has paid for it with the loss of value of all his RBS stock (tens of millions of pounds worth), his career, and his reputation.

But to retrospectively strip him of the pension (or in this case, threaten to bankrupt him through legal fees unless he voluntarily relinquishes)agreed by all parties, not under duress? The whole case stinks of scapegoating by an over-mighty state, tearing up the law of contract when it suits them. It's a grim state of affairs and our politicians and civil servants should be ashamed of their behaviour.

I am for legal action 1) let him sweat a bit and 2) not doing so sets a poor precedent.

Oh come on Murdoch1000! We will all be happy for Goodwin to have his pension should he repay the debt he's actually incurred! Not to mention the trouble he's caused. Let him have his full pension and your's too in that case! (Or has he already got it?)

It is a little late now. He should have acted decisively, wisely and with honour a few month ago. I cannot think of anyone who will regard him as an asset to be associated with, for a very long time, perhaps for his lifetime.

Fred Goodwin's pension should be pegged to the level of UK national debt and GDP. For now he should receive the same amount of pension as if RBS had not been bailed out. He should receive his full pension of £600K+ if and when UK is debt-free. He should also return the lump sum he withdrew.

I feel sorry for him and his family. He had the opportunity to turn a disaster into a personal triumph by putting honour before money. Unlike many, even without any pension, he and his family will never live in poverty or need of comfort. Now, they will live in exile, forever.

So RBS, ie the taxpayer, saves £200k per annum and Goonwin is partially rehabilitated.

Was there not talk of newbie Simon Hester being underpaid so if he gets the saving all we have is legalised money laundering.

Nothing less than charges of criminal negligence should be the case for Fred.

Its not the state that is suffering it is the people.

Robert

One thing that puzzles me is how these people are allowed to accumulate such large pension pots which are denied to the rest of the population. With the pension A Day legislation introduced in April 2006 pots are capped at £1.5 million (with some modest indexing). Any surpluses over an above this are punitively taxed. How do these people manage to avoid this?

He's under no legal obligation to offer the Government didly squat. They messed up big time and tried even to consider post facto laws to correct their errors. They should thank Sir Fred, accept his offer and move along.

Murdoch1000 - But my understanding of the situation is that he got this large pension as a result of his "severence package". Had he been "sacked" rather than be invited to leave he would not have been entitled to this pension - or at least to the value that it represents.

He has been rewarded for failure. End of story.

With Darling's new 50% tax band (and 1.5% NIC), the government would have already taken over half of the £200,000 that he has offered to cut from his pension. A pyrrhic victory at best. I bet the government spent more than the net benefit to the taxpayer on Slaughter & May's legal fees.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Don't see why he should get a penny and same goes for any other banking executive. They've almost brought the world economy to it's knees but seem to be immune to any accountability! How come the tax payer has picked up the tab ?? I say nationalise all the banks and break them up into highly regulated credit unions where people get paid a far wage for real work!

# 4. Murdoch1000

Loss of properly earned pension rights seems wrong to me, too. But it is currently the norm - especially for those with fewest bargaining chips to throw back such as janitors and, even more so (judging from Google hits), policemen:
"But earlier this month, the department retroactively changed the termination to a sacking, costing him a significant portion of his pension benefits,"


And here:
Sgt Andrew Hunter and Det Con Steve Beech were "required to resign" ...
Both officers ... stand to lose their pension rights


What is more murky is when those pensions rights are not so obviously "earned", because they are based on about a decade of what is clearly (at least retrospectively) over-inflated pay and bonuses.

What about Sir Fred's knighthood, for...er...'Services to Banking'???

Get him done for corporate manslaughter, he killed the uk economy.

Surely they can get him under the terrorism acts? He's done more damage than Hitler did in 6 years of bombing!!!

Oh that's right, those laws were introduced in order to fight the war against YOU and ME!

#16 True, what does his knighthood recognise now? Can anyone provide us with enough of his good deeds to justify his knighthood?

Why oh why do people always blame the Government for this? RBS Board approved his resignation and hence his ludicrous pension. Not the govcernment. Admittedly the government should have acted quicker in responding and requesting he waive a fair chunk of it but ultimately the RBS board looked after their own.

He should have been sacked. Instead he was given a free pass to live in early retirement with a salary the majority of us can't conceive of. As has been pointed out that is at the cost of his honour (if he had any) and being a target for national vitriol until the next scandalous director who gets rewarded hadsomely for destroying the livelihoods of ordinary folk is named, shamed and spread all over the mornings red-tops. Personally, faced with a meagre £2.7M lump sum and reduced £350K p.a. pension, I think I could put up with being a figure of national disgust for a while. It would be hard, but just about do-able ;-)

I am for stopping every penny that this so called banker gets, but more than this surely his title and others like him who wrong this country should loose there knighthood.
He has done nothing for the UK but rip us all off.

This is probably a good sign. With the financial system stablising and Andy Hornby back in a job Fred may be thinking that improving his image by this gesture may open the possibility of suitable employment.
Clearly getting back to "business as usual" for the city is clearly seen as not being too far away.
Which is good. isn`t it ?

This whole episode just does to highlight the ridiculous excesses by which those at the top in 'big business' reward themselves for what is essentially short-term performance improvements and then fail to pay the price when the real cost of their efforts are realised.

It's like BA Boss Willie Walsh 'leading by example' and offering to go a month without his £61,000 per month salary and asking all others to do the same. I'm sure if I was earning that much I would be happy to do the same especially considering all the other bonuses I'm sure he already will have and no doubt is going to receive for sorting things out.

Unfortunately the grass root share holders have so little power to make a difference against the big institutional investors that are represented by equally fat cats that the circle will continue until the government imposes legal restrictions on such things.

All I want to hear about Goodwin is when he is going to appear in the box at No. 1 Court at the Old Bailey for robbing the taxpayer of their hard-earned.

A rowing job on the Barbary galleys is too good for him.

Whether we feel that Fred Goodwin deserves the full pension or not, he has a legal contract and is entitled to that agreement.

What is obvious in this case, is that the decision-makers at the time, were either negligent, stupid or dishonest when they put together his severance agreement.

Therefore, if anybody should be persued through court in respect of this sorry episode, it should be Lord Myners and/or his department/colleagues.

As ever, we are relying on under-qualified people, either by experience or qualification, making decisions about issues of which they are ignorant.

The failure here was on the part of:-
- the (then) RBSG Board (who were probably in awe of Sir Fred & were thinking "there but for the grace of God go I" and "I might be in the same boat soon") & - Lord Myners (who should have got more involved and as an ex NatWest Bank Board member would be familiar with the alternatives available to the Bank)
in agreeing the terms of Sir Fred's departure with him.

My guess is that they hoped they could get him out of the door quickly & quietly by agreeing these terms. Unfortunately for them all, the terms became public knowledge.

With hindsight, I bet they wish they had had just fired him.

Robert

Interesting letter arrived at the office for me today from Bank of Scotland (Ireland). The letter announces a new Treasury Deposits department in Northern Ireland "with the aim of providing a new, higly competitive deposit service for all business sectors across the province".

Nothing wrong with that. And then:

"Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary Lloyds Banking Group plc, the largest retail bank in the UK. LBG plc currently has a strong AA credit rating and is one of only a small number of banks to hold this level of financial strength in the local market and benefits from a majority shareholding of 43% by the UK government"

My worry with this sales pitch is that Bank of Scotland (Ireland) are using the fact that it was bailed out by the taxpayer as a sales pitch. Should this be allowed? I wonder what banks who haven't needed a bail out would think about this. Surely this has the potential to distort the market?

Could the Government not have let RBS go bust, then buy up the assets in a company where they held 70% of? Then there wouldn't be an RBS to pay Sir Fred's pension and there would be a government controlled company in charge of the bank - where we are now basically but without the pension payment.

Sir Fred only gets his pension because the government kept RBS afloat.

So MR P?


When will these GUYs be prosecuted for trading WHILST INSOLVENT??

THE PENSION ISSUE IS JUST A DECOY. . .

I simply cannot understand why there had to be a compromise agreement and he has a pension at all. The man took this bank to the brink of bankruptcy he just should have been sacked!

What possible grounds can there be for legal action?

"My client, the government, thinks that the previous directors of RBS were stark staring bonkers to AGREE to give the money to Mr Goodwin, and believes it is entitled to overturn the decision retrospectively, m'lud."?

If there's a case for legal action, surely it's against the directors who acted so rashly?

Who cares about a couple of million, its irrelevant ,the big discussion should be on the ever increasing government budget borrowing BLACK HOLE. Never mind the treasuries figure of £175 billion,on our current trend we are easily going to be £250 billion for this year . A review of our expenditure is urgently required,or it will be forced upon by our creditors,at a pace that will genuinely shock the general public.Brown's assurance that Labour will not be cutting services in the future is complete nonsense .Our present course is simply unsustainable.

7. At 11:47am on 18 Jun 2009, puzzling wrote:
It is a little late now. He should have acted decisively, wisely and with honour a few month ago.

i'm no goodwin fan but apparently he did make an offer a few months ago. You know that initial £4m lump sum less £1.3m in tax he took?

Apaprently he offered to pay it back as long as HMRC/ the goverment also paid back the tax that was deducted. Apparently they refused and said he would still be billed the £1.3m tax even if he paid back the money!

So given that he was returning the money but would still be billed tax can you guess what Fred said? of course he said no!

Our government could have got something there and then.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

What I could do with a salary of £350K, never mind a pension. I wonder if you can suggest where Sir Fred might invest his lump sum and pension that would offer a half decent return? I am assuming that he wouldn't advise RBS as a first option!

It's not enough Sir Fred, be ashamed, be very ashamed. I appreciate that pensions are not performance related but even the original pension package was an immoral amount of money for one individual to receive, however good they were. In this case the individual was not good, in fact he was spectacularly bad. The taxpayers, through their elected representatives, absolutely should take legal action to reduce the pension to the original, agreed amount.

Well at last Fred the Shred has done the correct thing. Personally however both my wife and I having been loyal employees have lost our life savings, which were invested in RBS shares, worth c£80k at the time of the rights issues. We had to use all our liquid assets to fund the rights issue and additionally needed to borrow to be able to do so. We also invested our son's inheritance from his great grandmother into RBS. All for what? Answer for that money to be wasted.

I no longer work for RBS but my wife does and in light of the current climate her job is officially "at risk". We potentially will not be in a financial position to pay our mortgage and may lose our home because of the meglamanic actions persued by Fred. Don't ask me to feel sorry for him or his fellow directors. Call me old fashioned but I and my family could live very well on £350K+ a year.

He should also hand back his Knighthood, which was awarded for services to banking!!!!!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

25. At 1:07pm on 18 Jun 2009, tonycatt wrote:

"Whether we feel that Fred Goodwin deserves the full pension or not, he has a legal contract and is entitled to that agreement."

Having stated the point about a 'legal' contract, would you perhaps agree that he also had an implied 'moral' contract to not bankrupt the bank he was CEO of and to not almost bring down the entire UK banking system? Things which, if he had exercised a bit more prudence, he could have avoided doing.

The only inference I can draw is that, when sorting out their packages, the cheeses at RBS took a look around at each other, recognised that they were utterly cr@p and got together to carve out a little number that ensured anyone who ended up taking a fall would be looked after.

29, Now I see............


In many legal systems, once a company becomes insolvent, the directors have to take particular care. Under UK law, trading while insolvent can trigger several provisions under the Insolvency Act 1986 which may have the effect of making directors of a company personally liable to contribute to the assets of a company.

ONE HECK OF PAY OUT AND PENSION FOR SOMEBODY FAILED IN HIS JOB AND DID NOT TAKE OTHERS ADVICE AT THE TIME AND WHO DESTROYED OTHER PEOPLES JOBS ,PENSION HOPES AND SAVINGS.IT SEEMS TO BE FAILURE THESE DAYS BRINGS MANY REWARDS.ALL YOU HOPEFULS JUMP ON BAND WAGGON OR GRAVEY TRAIN AND ENJOY THIS. BRING A NEW ERA {NOT THE:- AGE OF DISCOVERY OR RENAISSANCE} BUT FAILURE AND INCOMPETENTS.PERHAPS EDUCATION AND RESPONSIBILITY IS THE ANSWER

" 22. At 12:51pm on 18 Jun 2009, Anthony_analyst wrote:
Clearly getting back to "business as usual" for the city is clearly seen as not being too far away.
Which is good. isn`t it ?"

How can it be good if we simply return to the irresponsible, negligent and greed driven behaviour exhibited by the infamous City. It's about time the government and City realised that neither of them are indispensible in their present form. The majority of people in this country work hard for a modest wage or salary without all the fancy frills and enourmous salaries afforded by these priviledged few. This attitude of behaving as if they are all "worth-it" is sheer rubbish. Nobody is worth the tens of millions paid out to so many of these arrogant, self-centred individuals.

Let them be stripped of their knighthoods, tried for negligence on a collosal scale and sent to prision if found guilty of ruining the lives of hundreds, if not thousands of people. Only then, might we avoid a return to "business as usual" and send a clear signal to all future bank CEOs, etc. that society has had enough of these practices. This would also save all the wasted money on creating additional bureaucratic regulations, which the smartest will circumvent anyway.
Rather let future leaders appreciate that leadership if a privilege that carries real responsiblitiies on a much wider scale than simply the shareholders (although clearly this was not even in some of their minds).
People generally respond to external stimuli and motivations. The current set are generally geared towards self-seeking goals. If future CEOs realised that the punishment for failure, involving negigent or reckless behaviour involved the probability of becoming bankrupt and facing prison, I think it likely one would witness a remarkable improvement in the performance of such individuals.

Perhaps the Government will be so excited by this reduction that they will reduce errant MPs' pensions in a similar manner. Don't hold your breath though!

Accept - with BAD grace, I say.

Curzon - I believe a director can only be punished under the provisions for wrongful trading (eg trading whilst insolvent) if the position of the company is made worse by continuing to trade. In RBS's case this didn't happen (the collapse of the credit markets which ultimately led to the immediate concerns at RBS weren't a result of continuing to trade). Also, I believe, wrongful trading actions can only be made by the companies liquidators - again RBS wasn't liquidated (in the legal sense although a government bail out could be possibly argued to be one!), so no action can be taken.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Re Fred G- given that:


he has already taken out a tax-free lump sum of £2.7m in cash from his pension pot.

And

the government - owns 70% of RBS .

And (because of)

the threat of legal action from the new management of Royal Bank, he is now offering to give back roughly half of that increase

Cannot the threat of further legal action be made to ensure he gives it all back?

Fred Goodwin would not have to "live in exile forever" if he took 100,000 as pension and gave the rest back or to a charity for helping those affected by his and other bankers greed....he would be applauded. No one needs to feel sorry for him or his family who could convince him to do same.

What is everyones problem with Goodwin? There are thousands of people like him, no one keeps going on about them.

So he´s got a lot of money - but he was legally entitled to that money. If he was not so entitled then he must have committed a crime, in which case he should be investigated and prosecuted.

Absent prima facia evidence of a crime just leave the guy alone - he is simply a product of the system. If you don´t like it go after the system that allows this kind of thing to flourish.

This whole scene is not so far removed from peadeotricians being targeted by mobs who are unable to differentiate peadeotrician from peadeophile.

Mob justice makes me want to throw up.

Fred shouldn't be let off the hook by "offering" anything. The deal he wangled out of RBS with the connivance of his fellow directors should be declared null and void...or not mince words, illegal and therefore not binding on the new shareholders. He should have been either sacked or made redundant and received the same terms of termination that ordinary RBS staff received when they lost their jobs.

1) let there be a leagl action and
2) the cost of legal expenses be recovered from from his pot,

I don't care if it was a "cost effective" decision, they should have spent 10 million making sure this idiot gets nothing. Disgraceful.

What responsibility do RBS board members, including non-exec directors carry for allowing Fred to run the bank into the ground? Should they not be charged with negligence and failure to carry out their duties?

It also seems ridiculous that, after his banking performance, Andy Hornby now has the top job at Boots. How come there was noone better than him available? Shareholders and employees in the group must be scared stiff!

"Pensions are not, and never have been, performance-linked. If they are to be performance-linked, then the employee (whether the janitor or the CEO of the firm) must be informed and agree to this when they sign their contract. Retirement planning and life decisions are hard enough without the threat of future retrospective action moving the goalposts.
Godowin is a colossal failure and has paid for it with the loss of value of all his RBS stock (tens of millions of pounds worth), his career, and his reputation.
But to retrospectively strip him of the pension (or in this case, threaten to bankrupt him through legal fees unless he voluntarily relinquishes)agreed by all parties, not under duress? The whole case stinks of scapegoating by an over-mighty state, tearing up the law of contract when it suits them. It's a grim state of affairs and our politicians and civil servants should be ashamed of their behaviour"

Total rubbish. This is an exceptional case, and the government is perfectly right to claim back, on behalf of the taxpayer, what it can from this incompetent idiot. I don't think Goodwin had paid nearly enough - I think prison is where he should be, not enjoying a relaxed lottery winner's lifestyle at the tender age of 50.

You say that the government have already accepted the proposals, which makes me furious. Why should he be allowed to retire at 50 with an annual pension that is more than my total pension fund when I have had to work to 65. Part of my fund was invested in the Royal Bank. I, who am blameless, get punished. He, who caused the disaster, is rewarded with sums that make the MPs expenses look like petty cash.

What really angers me is that the decision is being taken by an unelected minister sitting in the House of Lords who cannot be called to account. This decision should be taken by our elected representatives in the House of Commons. There should be a free vote, then the MPs can do what we elected them to do - express the views of the public.

Perhaps the Brinksmat asset enhancement operatives would also return 20%of their aquizitions in return for a Royal pardonaaaimoi,a lifetime pass to the bankers polo grounds and 2 laminated get out of jail free cards

How about Goodwyn give it all back and keep the get out of jail free card

When will the Govt decide to bar Fred from holding any other directorships?

afternoon MULLERITES

this is just another dodgy backroom deal between the various people who undeservedly run Britain

sure, sweep the problems under the carpet, hush it all up, contemptuously expet the 'ignorant' public to forget all about it soon enough

rehabilitate the disgraced bankers, politicians and regulators

talk up the alleged green shoots and 'recovery around the corner' in order to avoid regulation

secretly hope that the US and EU introduce sensible restrictions on banks and financial markets so that LONDON CAN BECOME AN EVEN BIGGER AND MORE RECKLESS BANKING CENTRE when recovery comes

GOOD FOR YOUR FRIENDS, GOOD FOR BRITAIN

because let's face it, if you're a politician or a banker then your friends ARE Britain; people who aren't your friends don't count

I'll put money on the government accepting the offer.

As usual they won't want to spend any money fighting the case and will want an end to the matter with what ever they can get out of it whilst going down the path of least resistance.

the money came from the retirement accounts of working people and now taxpayers. Seems the source of the money should be factored into the equation. If reports are true, and no one believes they are but we can pretend, the bank is broke and therefore can afford no pensions of this type. The outpouring of compassion for the rich seems somewhat greater than any previous compassion for the poor. We all accept that the poor create their own problems whereas the bankers...........

You heard in the mealy mouth words of the "chancellor" last night how "tough" the government wants to make things now for an industry that has wrecked this country. Yeah right !!!!!!!!!!!! Sooner you go the better, join Fred in exile in France, best place for you because revolution is on the way

Goodwin MUST NOT be allowed to get away with this. He should be entitled to no more or no less than anyone else who had made such a mess of their job. Anyone else would have been sacked for GROSS MISCONDUCT but because he is a member of this privileaged little club of boardroom execs he gets away with it! I and everyone I speak to are still seething. My business has suffered enormously for what this person and others like him have done. GREED must not triumph over fairness and justice. This is a real test for this Govt`s last few strands of credibility.

Personally I wish he had not offered this. There is absolutely no case for him to answer - he has given in to what is, in effect, govt blackmail.

He agreed a contractual deal at the time with the RBS board. He went voluntarily because RBS could not lawful sack him - he had not had his hand in the till, he had not committed acts of gross misconduct, all he had done was make decisions which at the time they were made seemed sensible (and of course his decisions depend on what information he was given at the time) but with the benefit of hindsight were spectacularly wrong - under UK law that is not a sackable offence.

We may not like the deal but the contract is valid.

"50. At 2:45pm on 18 Jun 2009, armagediontimes wrote:
What is everyones problem with Goodwin? There are thousands of people like him, no one keeps going on about them.

Mob justice makes me want to throw up."

I do think some people have gone too far on this subject. After all Fred doesn't even get the BIGGEST rbs pension. Another fellow there (i think he is american if i recall) gets £1,500,000 per annum!

Also greed isn't restricted to bankers and politicians. take a look at the Rolling Stones. they exploit a loophole that allows them to pay less than 1% in tax. They made £180m between them during the burn the bridges tour and paid peanuts in tax. at this late stage of their career they can afford to pay tax but they won't. which begs the questoin - how many of us in Goodwin's position would have handed the money back? It is easy to say that we all would but i think many wouldn't

This is far from a 'decent and acceptable' solution, but I have to agree with others on here, it's quite possibly the best we are going to get so we may just have to take it. (like it's down to you and me anyway!) What really makes me naffed off is the fact that the so called 'regulators' are still not going to be forced to actually do their job properly in the future, which is really taking the michael out of us all.

#59 Mr Pirate. Ahoy there. When are you setting sail for these shores again, we may need you to lead the revolution?

Steps need to be taken to control the cosy little club of people that award each other these undeserved sums of money.

Let's start by targeting those who gave Goodwin this cash in the first place. They will have known exactly what they were doing - looking after their own. Instant dismissal (no gardening leave, no pension, no pay off of any kind) might send the right message to all the other movers and shakers who think they can act as they please. The current problem being, of course, that they can act as they please.

I think the main point should be: Where is the law change ensuring that future companies that are bailed out by taxpayers are treated as bankrupt as far as bonuses are concerned (it would remove any legal right to the bonuses).
Any 'non-critical' company that is allowed to go bust in the standard way treats its employees so - in fact they often don't even get paid their last month's base salary because they are behind creditors in priority. All employees of bailed-out banks should be very happy that they are not in that nasty situation - and that most of them still have jobs.
I would love to see Fred with a standard 27k pension pot...

#46 HORNED DEVIL

Excellent response, I do not believe we in this country were working on a "Mark to Market" basis so until the RBS toxics were crystalised in a liquidation or by market term or forced sale; RBS were never technically, i.e Legally, insolvent.

Many companies, even those who have taken advantage of Low wage economies by moving British jobs to eastern Europe and the Far East, or have become specialists in "Off Balance sheet" PPP and PFI, or depend on Taxpayers money through the Housing Corporation to build such things as "Affordable" housing, may often have leverage of 2 or 3 times t/o but as long as profit covers interest then they are not insolvent, though of course it could appear that way. Going concern status is all that matters.
RBS would not have failed if the markets had not panicked and froze when the toxics became public.
It was a vicious circle, the toxics came into being, nobody knew, so life, went on, the toxics started failing and causing damage, few knew and life went on, the world got to know about the toxics whose value promptly fell to well below their "Real" value" ( See the recovery of various CDO's from 3 or 4 cents in the dollar to 33 and more.)
This knee jerk reaction made the toxics more toxic and exacerbated the effect aided and abetted by media hysteria.

With the massive worldwide state infusions enough liquidity has been made available for trade to start again and the toxics will be traded out, even dog poo has some value to a subsistence farmer. Losses will be crystalised and "worked in" and eventually some level of "Fair Value" and equilibrium will prevail.

Amazon in the early 90's became one of the worlds top 10 companies by market value, while never having made a penny and turning over less than 5% of its Market worth, should have showed people how the mighty Big Swinging Dicks are happy to believe in fairy tales if it means more commission and inflated asset valuations.

We went from that Hyper fairy tale to a semi reality, then onto the "Credit will be cheap and plentiful Forever" Fairytale and are now heading back to semi-reality.

The worlds financial markets are always at best based 50% on fundamentals, but always, always 50% based of fads,fashions and headlines.

Semi-reality at best.

The Euro should be trading at 69p to the £ at present, but is stubbornly staying in the 80's, why?

Because the Germans have insisted on keeping the known and definite Uber-toxics of the Eurozone off the front pages, and the media are going along with it because Credit Crunch II would be So "Yesterday's News"

Base rates at under 1% for at least the next 18 months while they try and recap Austria, Spain, Germany and Ireland (which REALLY is insolvent).

Uk to make a staggered W recovery, bit of a nasty dip over the next 3 months, then a slow climb back. A.D's Forcasts that SOME on here were calling fairytales are looking right in the middle of the Algorithm's.

Until SpongebobCameron gets in and says " Let slip the Dogs of Unfettered Capitalism" which means the Financial industry gets to rocket off again and any worthile investment in this country gets instantly forgotten. The Banks are the Tories, the Tories are the Banks" end of.

Place Vendome.

With reference to a couple of the above comments, there would be no benefit from suing Goodwin for negligence - even where this is proved it would almost certainly be covered under a director's liability insurance policy which would probably have been taken out for him by RBS.

clap.......clap.......clap.......clap.......clap.......clap

My slow hand clap for Fred after he has shown that the right reward for failure is only £4.5m and not £8.2m - so now we all know the price of FAILURE.

The problem with calling for legal action is that if you allow action to be taken against Fred for incompetence then the public wil expect the same from the incompetents of the regulatory system, the BoE and of course the Government.

One good thing I hope that will come out of this episode is the myth that THE MORE YOU GET PAID - THE BETTER YOU ARE AT YOUR JOB.

Clearly if Fred is 242 times better than the average wage earner (and that's in retirement remember) then he was wasted in banking, he should have been working on the Fusion experiment or the Hadron Collider.

Now perhaps the rest of the world will wake up and realise these jobs are not given based on skill or talent, but merely on the basis of who you know.

Once you get your head around that you will realise why our glorious leader and his merry bunch of gas bags are so bad at running the country.
It also explains why no matter who you vote in - you still get a bunch of witless numpties who haven't got any common sense or initiative and don't bare any relation to the rest of the country (except the witless numpties out there who are fully represented)

After having recently seen the infamous and ridiculous 'citizenship test' required by all visa applicants (and trust me, 90% of the people in Britain would fail it - including myself) I am convinced that there needs to be a test, created by the public, for MP's to have to take in order to qualify for parliment. Once they pass that then I won't care how much they get paid, because I will know they will be representative and also have at least the mildest intelligence.

For Gods sake cant people just move on, the time for listening to bickering and incessant whinging from everyone has past. For the large majority (unless you held RBS shares), we are not greatly affected by what has happened - Fred Goodwin didnt cause the financial crisis and it is lunancy to suggest so. We should be grateful of the government backing of such a large institution, they do not play a role in running the bank just supporting it. It would be like doomsday if the banking sector had failed (as it invariably would had the government not stepped in.) RBS was just a cog in the large machine that under Freds leadership steered down a blind ally...Yes steering them down this way turned out to be the wrong decision and a very costly one but that is done now and dusted, It's actually slightly admirable that Fred has agreed to reduce his pension pot - He could have disappeared with it all and why would he particularly care. Time to move on with rebuilding the financial system, not still looking back at what could/should have happened but then again ignorant people cant help but harp back to the bad without a thought for any good that they could be doing!

28. alpatters wrote:
"Could the Government not have let RBS go bust, then buy up the assets in a company where they held 70% of? Then there wouldn't be an RBS to pay Sir Fred's pension ..."

You hit the nail on the head. I remember reading that if RBS went bust Goodwin would only get £18k/year under a government scheme for bankrupt pensions. This would be a fitting sum considering that it was him who lead RBS to bankruptcy.

Those other who state he was "legally entitled to the money" do not seem to realise that without taxpayer intervention, there would be no money.

It is right to hate Goodwin because he is an individual that lead RBS to ruin and yet got such a huge pension. Other (common) people have lost their pensions when employer has gone bust, and they have got nothing in return. Furthmore, nothing was done for Equitable Life policy holders or Farepak savers. It just seems like this country is run by the bankers for the bankers!

When ordinary people are loosing out through no fault of their own, yet rich bankers are rewarded like this, then to say it stinks is an understatement!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

54. At 3:11pm on 18 Jun 2009, ascblog wrote:

It also seems ridiculous that, after his banking performance, Andy Hornby now has the top job at Boots. How come there was noone better than him available? Shareholders and employees in the group must be scared stiff!

-------------------------------------------------------


Hornby was a very good retail CEO. He was then brought on board by HBOS to increase their sales and market share.
This he did and the fact that he did it so well brought the bank to it's knees.

He's a salesman. That's what he does. He's not a banker and wasnt expected to be. He was expected to trasnform HBOS and gain them greater market share by introducing retail strategies.

To now go and blame him totally ignores the problem. The problem is with those that appointed hima nd the strategy they were trying to take. He simply fulfilled their strategy.

#9 Graham from London

My cursory understanding of the new pension rules that came in on April 1st 2006 are that you could register the size of your 'pot' at that time. If you had a final salary pension scheme as Fred Goodwin did there was a multiplier that enabled calculation of a presumed pot. You could also register a lump sum.

Anything above these amounts when the pension started to be paid would be taxed at 55%.

As it happens, because its a final salary scheme, Goodwin doesn't have a pot. There is a liability. The actual cost will depend on how long he lives.

Also it happens, I suspect the Inland Revenue will now only get the 50% tax on what he would have got from his pension prior to this debacle rather than the additional 55% on the extra that would have been paid without the reduction in this settlement. Overall, from an annual revenue perspective taxpayers are probably worse off.

This is a real blow for Sir Fred who will somehow have to manage on £30K/month plus the interest from his previous bonuses, plus the £2.7 million he received cashing in a portion of his pension in the first place. He's really be shown where to get off. Good job he was crap or he would've cost us.

Q:What've you got to say Fred?
A:Oink....

I thought he had done the right thing - looks like he has just given some money back.

In regards to Sir Fred Goodwin's excessive pension granted by the board by asking for his resignation instead of sacking him for failing in his job should they not be sacked for failing to safeguard their customers and shareholders ?

Fred should give large amounts to Relate and The Samaritans since they are bearing the brunt of saving people from the despair created by his decisions. Take some responsibility Fred!

and further to my post of #77

Fred Goodwin has reduced his pension 'entitlement'to be paid by RBS by 4,500,000 over say 40 years ( death at age 90 )AND

Reduced tax payable to the Inland Revenue by 4,400,000 at current day prices over the same period. This excludes the potential for some VAT on purchases and estate duty.

So, to me, it seems that the winner is RBS, its successors and assigns.

It is a good step forward that some money has been surrendered, I consider that a minor victory.In any other walk of life please can someone explain where someone has failed so spectacularly they have been rewarded so well. This is wrong - this cannot be said to be setting an example. What has happened to people in high places accepting the point they are looked up to as role models. Seems to be yet another complete failure. Are our new role models big brother contestants Premiership footballers disgraced Roman Catholic priests or Martin Bell perhaps? The americans have an expression "go figure" can someone explain how please

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

while it's something that he has made adjustments to his pension - there is still Major abuse at RBS - they laid off workers in the USA while the senior execs were given a luxury floor in their new building and 1 exec kept a full time driver(drives a company benz) & security detail - and the exec he drives around is inc harge of a division Citizens that is NOT making money for the company. Its a culture of excess that he created.