Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
26 February 2009
19:3016274The plot thickens.
It seems that Government Minister, Lord Myners, knew all abour Goodwins £650,000 or so a year pension (capital value £16million) back in October.
Other members of the Government claimed they did not know anything and, whats more, Goodwin claims that Myners approved the pension and has refused the 'request' made today to voluntarily not take it.
There are hints that there will be more damaging revelations about the Government as well....
This is one report from a well connected journalist
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/james_kirkup/blog/2009/02/26/sir_fred_goodwin_takes_aim_at_lord_myners
No relation, I trust John!
Sid Pollitt
26 February 2009
19:5516276I did start reading this thinking What's John done?
Guest 650- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 542
26 February 2009
19:5816278Report on the BBC:
"Mr Darling says that the government had thought the deal was legally binding when it was agreed in October, but now realised they could have blocked it."
Oh well, these little oversights happen ....
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
26 February 2009
20:1616280i saw the headline this morning "goodwins massive pension deal", i immediately thought he is always pleading poverty to me.
then i saw that it was another less famous goodwin.
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
26 February 2009
21:4616285Can I just say,nothing to do with me,although I do have an Uncle Fred,but he lives in Spain,and my Wifes family are Scottish,and I do use Natwest,oh no he could be a relation
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
26 February 2009
21:4816286My Pension Deal is in the railway,no back handers or bonus's for me,as I was told at Christmas your bonus is you are still working aren't you.
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
26 February 2009
22:4216291'Little oversight' £16m is a pretty big oversight and just smacks of incompetence.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
26 February 2009
23:0216296john will not complain though, 16 mill is more than 5 years wages for him.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
27 February 2009
09:0216314Thats our John cleared then.
On the bigger subject baz, theres so much sleaze and monies being paid to bosses that even make big losses and all in all it turns people off politics
Guest 650- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 542
27 February 2009
09:4516316Ah, I'd suggest that a thing that would also turn people off politics - and politicians too - is the nastiness that occurs between parties and between individuals in attempts to undermine and destroy opposition and opponents.
Hardly edifying.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
27 February 2009
09:4816317defies logic as well.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Lets be clear Goodwin does not deserve to get any reward for the appalling way he ran RBS and the pension issue should have been better handled back in October.
But I am very disturbed by the implications of what Harriet Harman said over the weekend.
She said that the Government would legislate to strip Goodwin of his pension.
To use legislation against an individual like that for a specific case sets a worrying precedence... If they get away with this then none of us will be safe from an authoratitive Government.
Chances are the Government would not get away with it anyway as it would breach its own human rights legislation. It would also be costly to do and would result in a lot of legal complications.
Harman is likely just saying this to appeal to the most crude and basic populism. I would hope people would see this for what it is.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
I think she shocked officialdom by her statements on TV yesterday. Sure it is populism because everyone would like to see this guy have his pension cut to the quick...who ever heard of such a thing..a massive pension from the age of 50. If the guy lives til 95 he will have cost RBS(and the government) millioms and millions. Lets be emotive here for a moment...Dover could have a new hospital ten times over with that kind of money.
Harriet may have been jockeying for the leadership position according to some of the commentators. Somehow I dont think she will ever make it, but she does have some engaging appeal.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
more tory gripe,gb dammed if he does dammed if he does.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
GB is damned anyway Brian. There was a time and way to deal with this matter but that has passed thanks to the sheer incompetence of the Government. The Government is in a mess of its own making in this as in so much more.
Yes PaulB - this may well be leadership jockeying and just think what that is telling us about the condition of the Labour Party and the Government.
As a Tory I wish her luck. If they elect her leader then it will be a replay of Labour under the unelectable Michael Foot.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
you certanly put your foot in your barry but never mind keep taking the tory pills and you will soon be better.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
On Harriet Harman she may well be up for leaderrship challenge but GB aint going no where, Harriet was saying what everyone wants to hear(like DC Does) but it doesnt do much.
And as Barryw says if it dont stack up in thre courts where H Harman saifd it would end up we could waste thousands more chasing summat we have no chance ogf getting.
None of it can be justified that kind of pension at 50 all parties have said so
its how you now deal with it.
If someone gave you 600,000 would you give it back?
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
keith
I'd like to think that if I had been in charge of a business that had lost billions of pounds of other peoples money then I would not the neck nerve or cheek to have accepted such and obscene amount as a pension or pay off. I would not have taken it and therefore would not have it to hand back.
Does he have to wait til he is 60/65 yrs before drawing his pension, like most of us, or is it payable immediately?
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Marek he most certainly does NOT have to wait...his pension kicks in straight away and he is only 50. Its going to be one hell of a drain on our resources and the banks, what's left of them.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
PaulB - his 'pension' is now something of a mystery to me.
It was revealed today that this £16m built up since he assumed his position at RBS in 1998. To have built such a sum in a conventional pension, final salary or money purchase, over the 10 years or so that he has, particularly given prevailing investment conditions, he would have had to breach the funding rules for approved pension schemes. I suspect that would not have happened as the scheme would have been governed by trustees and there would be penalties if rules were breached.
To give you an example, the maximum accural rate for a final salary pension (pre April 2006) was 1/30th. In other words the maximum pension would be reached in 20 years with a 'cap' applying to its size. On that basis his pension should be around 1/20th of what it is now, at the most.
The funding rules did change in 2006 and are more generous in some ways but not in respect of the maximum total sum, there is now a 'Lifetime Allowance' of £1,650,000. That means his pension is 10 times the maximum we are now allowed to accrue without a penal tax rate applying.
The likely answer is that this pension has been accrued via a unapproved scheme called a FURB. He would have paid tax on the contributions, rather than benefit from tax relief as per an approved pension.
I suspect that he had a bit of each with the much smaller part being the approved tax relievable scheme.
I also suspect, given all this, that the money has built up in an investment and he is being paid via a drawdown from the invested pension. This means that there will not be future pension liabilities for RBS or the taxpayer, at least from the main unapproved (FURB) part of the pension. I think it unlikely that the FURB would be a defined benefit pension, I have only heard of money purchase FURBS (FURBS are rare beasts anyway)
It is possible that the smaller unapproved scheme will have a future liability for the company or taxpayers, but not if it is what we call money purchase, if that we have no liabilities at all.
Incidentally if the fact that he has a pension 10 times what we are now allowed to have does not annoy you enough, legislation will stop any of us retiring (with a pension) before age 55 from next year. So he got away with it that way too.