Tonight:
2°c
Government under pressure over Sir Fred Goodwin's pension
27 Feb 2009
- Taxpayers set to take on 95 per cent of toxic bank
- Paul Waugh blog: Turner blames bank crisis on Brown's 'light touch'
- RBS turnaround ‘may take five years’ after £24bn loss
- Blunt approach of a banking risktaker
- Beyond the red ink may lie a new dawn
- Poll: Should Sir Fred Goodwin lose his knighthood?
- Shredded reputation of 'King of Scotland'
- Refunds for charges may run into billions
Pressure is mounting on the Government to take action over the controversial £693,000-a-year pension of ousted Royal Bank of Scotland boss Sir Fred Goodwin, after he rejected ministers' pleas to give up some of his retirement pay voluntarily.
Treasury minister Lord Myners last night wrote to Sir Fred, urging him to think again about his "unfortunate and unacceptable" decision and denying the banker's claim that he had effectively sanctioned the package.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown yesterday indicated that the Government was ready to take legal action to ensure there was no "reward for failure" in banks like RBS, which filed UK record losses of £24 billion, largely due to the disastrous strategy of corporate acquisitions pursued by its former chief executive.
With a second multi-billion pound bail-out potentially bringing the taxpayer's stake in RBS up to 95%, there was growing anger at Westminster over the generosity of the early retirement package offered to Sir Fred when he was forced out in the autumn.
Shadow chancellor George Osborne denounced the package as "obscene (and) unacceptable" and pointed the finger of blame at ministers.
"Either they did know and failed to act, or didn't know and failed to ask the right questions," he told MPs.
And Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable described Sir Fred's pension package as "a massive public spending increase, public wages, for which there is no justification whatever".
Questions were last night being asked over when ministers knew about the generous package.
Chancellor Alistair Darling told MPs that, while the Government was aware of the size of the payout last year, it had initially understood that this was a legally unavoidable contractual obligation.
It was only around a week ago that ministers learnt that the board of RBS had used their discretion effectively to double the size of Sir Fred's pension pot from £8 million to £16 million, he said.
In a letter to Lord Myners, Sir Fred insisted that changes to his pension - which he is already enjoying at the age of 50 thanks to the terms of his early retirement deal - were "not warranted".
Sir Fred said that he had given up his right to a year's salary in lieu of notice, as well as share-related benefits, when he agreed to leave RBS as the Government stepped in to rescue the beleaguered bank.
He told Lord Myners: "I am told that the topic of my pension was specifically raised with you by both the chairman of the group remuneration committee, and the group chairman, and you indicated that you were aware of my entitlement, and that no further 'gestures' would be required.
"Like you, I believed that these gestures were appropriate in the circumstances, and sufficient, and, revisiting the position today, I believe that they remain so."
He added: "To voluntarily accept a reduction in a pension entitlement which has been built up over many years and in other employments in addition to RBS is not warranted."
But Lord Myners responded within hours that his refusal to volunteer a reduction in his pension was "unfortunate and unacceptable".
"Such an act would be an appropriate recognition of the failings of RBS under your tenure and the subsequent support the Government has provided," he said.
"I do not agree with your rationale for declining my request that you voluntarily reduce your pension. And indeed I hope that, on reflection, you will now share my clear view that the losses reported today by the bank which you ran until October cannot justify such a huge award."
Lord Myners insisted that he was not aware until last week that there was any discretionary element in Sir Fred's pension award.
And he said that the fact that he had welcomed Sir Fred's decision to give up his notice pay and shares "did not amount to approval of your pension arrangements".
UK Financial Investments - the body which manages taxpayers' shareholdings in the part-nationalised banks - has been asked by the Treasury to look into the possibility of clawing back some of the pension deal.
The Treasury said last night that UKFI has agreed with RBS that the bank will review all aspects of Sir Fred's tenure in office with a view to testing to the full any potential for legal redress, including the scope for recouping pension provision.
MP Michael Fallon, a Tory member of the Treasury Select Committee, said Lord Myners now had questions to answer about the pension given to Sir Fred.
Ministers had failed to look into Sir Fred's pension arrangements properly when they got rid of him from RBS last October, he said.
"That's basic due diligence which they failed to do and I think Lord Myners is the one that's now got questions to answer," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"It was the Government buying this bank on our behalf," he said.
"It was the Government making this investment on behalf of the taxpayer.
"It's the Government that has virtually made this gift to Sir Fred Goodwin and is now in the pathetic position of asking him to give some of it back, which legally it looks like he's on very strong grounds in refusing to do."
Mr Osborne told GMTV that the Government's anger at the former bank chief's pension was "synthetic" because they knew about the package.
He said: "The problem for the Government, and for Lord Myners who's a Government minister, is that they knew all along about this pension so all this synthetic anger now is just long after the horse has bolted."
The shadow chancellor added: "It seems to me they're on the hook either way. They knew and they didn't stop it and that's what Fred Goodwin's saying."
He said the pension payout was "very symbolic" of what had gone wrong in the City.
Mr Osborne went on: "Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling are supposed to be looking after taxpayers' money, they're supposed to be looking after the interests of the British people and they were asleep on the job."
Sir Fred's deal will raise questions as to whether similar payouts will be made at Lloyds HBOS, which also received a multi-billion pound bailout from the Government.
Mr Osborne said: "It's true [Goodwin] is far from alone and indeed it's interesting to know whether there are going to be mega pensions at Lloyds HBOS which is the next bank that is going to need Government help, taxpayer help, and if we're going to see a repeat of this, even if the sums are slightly smaller, I think the taxpayer is going to be even more outraged."
He has little hope that the Government will succeed in legal action to reclaim money from the former RBS chief.
"I wonder how effective this is going to be. They gave this man this pension, it seems like the Government knew at the time so I don't think the Government's got much of a leg to stand on in the courts if they're going to take legal action.
"Let's hope they succeed, but it's doubtful."
Reader views (87)
I wonder if Brown will use the anti-terrorist legislation as he did against Iceland.
Now, I today we hear that Darling approved this pension several months ago because he didn't think to ask about the legality.
For crying out loud, these people have become a laughing stock. When will these people find their consciences and call a general election.
- Sally70, Bedford, 26/02/2009 18:49
Report abuse
This is certainly an unbelievable situation,you couldn't make it up.In the event that it can be proved that Sir Fred acted imprudently,& without due caution,surely he at least should be stripped of his knighthood.My understanding of the appointment is a reward for loyalty & a benefit to society.I am sure that these qualities are now questionable.
- Ronald Whitten, Chesterfield England, 26/02/2009 18:40
Report abuse
The easy option would be for Brown to impose a 99% windfall tax on bonuses and pensions over a certain amount for bailed out financial entities
- Ces, Israel, 26/02/2009 18:40
Report abuse
It seems that the Government wanted Fred sacked in a hurry before sinking bailout cash into the bank so a quick deal was done and Lord Myners was told about the £16m pension pot but maintains that he was told wrongly that the bank was 'obliged' to pay it to Goodwin.
If the Government had not been so keen on getting rid of Fred for PR reasons it would have been able to control the terms of his departure for itself. It did not and, as ever, the person responsible for his own embarrassment is always the one who makes the biggest noise.
Typical Brown - it does not matter how much it costs or how inefficient a way of doing things he has chosen, as long as it furthers the government's chief aim of making him look good.
- Michael, london, 26/02/2009 18:31
Report abuse
Brown says he will not reward failure. Well Brown still has a job so somebody is being rewarded for failure!
- Veronica Winslow, London, 26/02/2009 18:25
Report abuse
He retired ten years early so his pension should be cut. When the size of the pension fund was first assessed was it not based on false performance anyway ? The guy should have 90% of it removed. Was he not earning enough before under false pretences ?
He is now more unpopular than Brown and Darling.
- Michael Waugh, South Kensington, 26/02/2009 18:09
Report abuse
Gordon
Fred ONLY got a bank in trouble! You have got a COUNTRY in trouble! So what are you going to do????
ps
Fall on your sword
- Bill Williams, Bagnoles France, 26/02/2009 18:07
Report abuse
The government is giving us the usual flannel about this as if they'll sort it out for us but unless he decides not to take his full pension, there is nothing they can do about it.
Because let's face it, if they change the law to be able to get his pension off him, what chance do the rest of us have of having our pension pots protected from a government or company raiding them whenever they're short of cash?
They should just admit they didn't notice the small print when he was being paid off (honestly Darling and Brown, attention to detail not your strong point is it?)
- Karen, Barnet, 26/02/2009 17:58
Report abuse
Gordon, you will not be able to sue for return of the pension. It would have been part of his contract of employment and would have very clearly set out what contributions would be made by RBS. It would not have been conditional on performance.
I would tread carefully if I were you. If pensions are going to be dependent on performance, the Cabinet should start honing their skills to get jobs that will last them until they are 80.
- Patricia, LONDON, 26/02/2009 17:27
Report abuse
I hope brown with his threat to sue, uses his own money to pay the leagal bills.
- Terry, london, 26/02/2009 17:10
Report abuse
Who voted for Labour time and time again who will vote for them this time. Does anyone out there know what they are doing? I am not guilty of this act and so I say
you have caused your own misery and mine! Get out Brown and the lot of you money grabing Bankers who have destroyed our beloved United Kingdom.
- Martha, london, 26/02/2009 16:59
Report abuse
The Government should refuse to pay this man, and pass a law to this effect. God knows they've passed enough already so one more won't hurt. If RBS had gone bust what would he have got. Diddly squat. If he's feeling the pinch (doubtful) sign on and downsize - thousands of us plebians are having to do so.
He should be put in jail like Nick Leeson was when he brought Barings to its knees. Oh, I forgot Leeson did not have a title.
- Sonia Mcdonnell, St Albans, Herts, 26/02/2009 16:51
Report abuse
I don't for one minute trust this Government. As for Alistair Darling saying 'he understood' well he should have checked! Surely there are enough people sitting around working for the Government - that one of them could have checked the agreement! It does seem as if the Government is trying to distract the general public's attention. Isn't that what they've done in the past.
- Jk, Kent, 26/02/2009 16:43
Report abuse
So Gordon Brown's going to sue him is he?
I won't hold my breath.
- Ann Louisa, Southampton, 26/02/2009 16:41
Report abuse
Stuart, This pension was funded by RBS, although part of a compensation package, he surely does not deserve to be paid for it now.
- Mike, London, 26/02/2009 16:33
Report abuse
We've got to realize that if he doesnt get a pension like this in this country, he'd go abroad, and then we'd lose him to a competitor country
- James, london, 26/02/2009 16:26
Report abuse
Is Sir Fred Goodwin possibly one of the most hated men in Britain? Will he soon become plain old Fred Goodwin again? I hope so.
- Sharon, London, 26/02/2009 16:19
Report abuse
Well to really punish him the Government should purchase a season ticket and make it compulsory for him to attend all Newcastle football club matches. Then they should purchase them for all Cabinet ministers too !!
Vava Voom - bust or boom !
- Jonathan, Totteridge. England, 26/02/2009 16:12
Report abuse
Goodwin should be stripped of his pension and his knighthood - the latter given for services to banking. Let's send the three Scots who ruined the British economy: Goodwin, Brown and Darling back where they came from penniless as we now are.
- Richard Kennard, Welling, Kent, 26/02/2009 16:09
Report abuse
Mr. Bean Brown might be a megalomaniac but he cannot sue a private individual receiving a private arrangement.
- Peteo, London, NW1, 26/02/2009 16:09
Report abuse
Was Crash Gordon not the guy who made Fred Goodwin "Sir"?! And he made him "Financial sector specialist" on the FSA regulatory agency... What an idiot Crash Gordon is now to be so admitting his usual mistakes. Crash has no clue...
- Georgie, Islington, London, 26/02/2009 16:06
Report abuse
A true gentleman would give this pension up. What an extraordinary situation when one bankrupts a company and then accepts this amount of money. Another Scot, say no more....
- Maggi Weller, London, UK, 26/02/2009 16:03
Report abuse
Surely the responsibility for this lies with the geniuses at the Treasury who should have included in the bail out terms a surrender of all 'super-pension' rights. Presumably they weree under pressure from their political masters to agree a bail out deal at any price rather than be seen as a 'do nothing' government. Often it is better to take no action until events take their course but politicians do not seem able to understand this.
Looking at the larger picture, it would have been better to allow at least one British bank go down, as the Americans did with Lehman's, 'pour encourager les autres'. Depositors should have been bailed out but not the bank, and the bank given only a loan guarantee scheme and not cash injections.
- Warren Hertzberg, London, 26/02/2009 15:57
Report abuse
Presumably his pension is split between - structured invested vehicles, collateralised debt obligations, securitised mortgages (US sub-prime),credit default swaps with the balance held in RBS shares. That should sort out his early retirement nicely .
- Pablo, Tonbridge, 26/02/2009 15:50
Report abuse
Brown: I'll sue Sir Fred Goodwin over £650,000 pension
And we, Mr Brown will sue you for being the most incompetent PM ever. Mr Bean or Frank Spencer or a dead cat would have done a better job
- Adam, Harrow, UK, 26/02/2009 15:49
Report abuse
This is a national scandal. The guys pension doubled between 07-09. He should have been sacked for what he did, never mind pensioned off. It was an act of gross misconduct and should have been treated as one.
Another boob by this hapless labour government.
- Rick, Manchester, 26/02/2009 15:49
Report abuse
Devils advocate again, RBS isn't the only bank to fail, so was it unavoidable regardless of what Sir Fred did?
- Stuart, UK, 26/02/2009 15:31
Report abuse
So allowing the person who headed up Her Majestys Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to walk away with a few million quid after losing discs containing the personal details of 25 million UK citizens, was not a reward for failure??
Is Brown going to sue this individual?
- Bingham Macnamara, lymington, hampshire, 26/02/2009 15:28
Report abuse
Bruce
Don't be dim: his employer RBS won't hold his pension; trustees will, same as you and me. Trustees will need extraordinarily good reasons (like: order of the court) to refuse to pay out. As one would hope.
- Robert, London, 26/02/2009 15:26
Report abuse
During his recent appearance before the Treasury Select Committee, Sir Fred offered "profound and unqualified apologies for all the distress that has been caused".
The exposure of his pension arrangements provides Sir Fred with the perfect opportunity to match his fine words with actions that might persuade those who have been distressed as to the sincerity of his words.
- John, Leatherhead, UK, 26/02/2009 15:18
Report abuse
It's just ridiculous to see Fred as such a scapegoat without at the same time asking what the heavens were the Government doing during the time of "BOOM" which allowed excesses without sufficient regulation to take place. I believe that every single person who has made a profit on their property is complicit in this sorry collapse. I thought that Labour were meant to be a socialist styled party, but throughout their term it appears that they were THE MOST IRRESPONSIBLE BUNCH OF FRUADSTERS EVER..
- Michael, Switzerland, 26/02/2009 15:13
Report abuse
Shred must have upset someone. He used to be the darling of the City; now he's persona non grata. Maybe he turned down the 33rd degree of Freemasonry?
- Neil M., london uk,, 26/02/2009 15:08
Report abuse
No doubt Mr Goodwin is making a good win !
- Patrick Gerassi, VIGO - SPAIN, 26/02/2009 15:05
Report abuse
It’s not a reward it's a pension. Just because it's a large amount doesn't change what it is. "no fair" I hear you shout – “whatever!”
- A, London, 26/02/2009 15:03
Report abuse
Can we sue Brown for screwing up the UK economy?
- Mike Isaacs, london, 26/02/2009 14:58
Report abuse
And just how does Gordon Brown propose to do this? By changing yet another law? If it is in the contract, it is in the contract. Does the Prime Minister propose breaking laws to make them match his popularity profile? We should not question the legality (or morality) of Sir Fred's pension but ask ourselves why we are employing a Prime Minister whose government failed to read the small print on their own contract for RBS. Oh, but then they also profess amazement at the arrival of a downturn forewarned in the financial press for the past three years....
- Michelle@Shed22.Org.Uk, London, 26/02/2009 14:49
Report abuse
Will Brown also be giving up his pension for his rank mismanagement of the economy for the past decade?
- Bruce, London, 26/02/2009 14:45
Report abuse
Reduce his pension by 90%, to be paid partly in cash and partly in RBS shares. If he doesn't like it, let him sue, if he thinks he has a right to it.
- Bloke, London, 26/02/2009 14:40
Report abuse
However obscene the amount, why should Fred the Shred give up a negotiated settlement?
Will the MPs give up their right to claim similarly obscene amounts on second homes? Will they pay capital gains tax when they sell their second homes or when the time comes to sell will they have reverted to being their main residence and so escape tax?
The government is being hypocritical and they are now only making a fuss because their incompetence has been exposed.
- Inoff The Red, London UK, 26/02/2009 14:38
Report abuse
Sir Fred Goodwin's knighthood should be withdrawn.
- Argi Barghi, Eastbourne England, 26/02/2009 14:38
Report abuse
Stuart, UK
Stuart, point taken about the pension fund. However, he paid into his fund presumably from his salary (at RBS); he has now destroyed the bank that paid him an obscene salary and ruined the lives of many others (through reduncancies etc).
So, no, I do not think he has any right to his pension. The most honourable thing to do would be to give it back to the bank he destroyed or perhaps to some of the less fortunate people who are losing their jobs due to his own greed and negligence.
- Margy, London, 26/02/2009 14:30
Report abuse
What exactly did he get his knighthood for? How can an honourable man possibly accept this obscene amount of money for a pension? It reminds one of the Dalai Lama's comment about unlimited greed.
- Martin Clotworthy, Bath England, 26/02/2009 14:19
Report abuse
Whilst I share everyone's disgust at this utter nonsense, I do have to ask this . . . Where were the government's REGULATORS when all this was going on?
Clearly, it did NOT just happen overnight! So when exactly will the individual regulator's responsible for overseeing RBS's actions and activities also be held to account, in addition to being named and shamed?
In conclusion, I hardly think that Sir "BetFred" Goodwin was the only culprit in this travesty! After all, aren't the whole Board of Directors at RBS also contributory negligent and/or vicariously liable?
- Fraser, Telford Park, 26/02/2009 14:14
Report abuse
Dear Mr Duncan/Sir Fred Goodwin
Having read some of the news articles pouring in today regarding the losses you have made as company I wanted to say that you and all at RBS (and indeed the whole banking system) must be ashamed of the way you have systematically abused the system, through a lack of good judgement, reckless disregard for your position and of course last but by no means least sheer greed.
I was small business owner 4 months ago, trading successfully with an innovative product and due to the market conditions and the subsequently manufactured lack of confidence my business is no more. I lay the blame for this squarely at people like Sir Fred Goodwin, people like you and banking institutions like RBS. Your greed and recklessness are costing the livelihoods of many UK households, destroying businesses like mine and put the whole economy at risk through your actions. I cannot believe nor understand why there isn’t far more public outcry at the way the banking system has been run over the last decade, you should count yourselves extremely fortunate that we are not living in the 1970’s otherwise there would be a lynch mob forming as I type.
I am disgusted and appalled that I read on to find that Sir Fred Goodwin will walk away from RBS at the tender age of 50 with a massive pension scheme for life, when all around people are going through hell to make ends meet and to hold onto their hard earned assets. The world has indeed gone mad!
Jamie
- Jamie, Leicestershire, 26/02/2009 14:12
Report abuse
It is really very simple: the UK Government has absolute power to tax individuals and companies. It can bring in retrospectuve and forward taxes. In the Goodwin case it can tax all bonuses above £5,000 (the maximum bonus now being offered to RBS general staff for the last year) at 90%. So even if bonuses have to be paid because of legal obligations, they can be clawed back by the government. Action, Darling, not words!
- Francis Salvesen, London UK, 26/02/2009 14:06
Report abuse
Don't hold your hopes too high. This incompetent useless idiot will get away scot free and Gormless Gordon and Muppet Darling will do absolutely nothing
- Trevn, Abu Dhabi, 26/02/2009 14:04
Report abuse
Why on earth this people will be rewarded? For what? We (the taxpayer) are now the owner of the RSB. Gordon Brown should not ask the banks to lend money again, he should TELL them. As the major stake holder he should be entitled to do that. Especially if you would do a referendom on that subject!
- Kai, London, 26/02/2009 13:59
Report abuse
We should have followed the Glasgow Herald's lead and asked all senior office bearers in rescued banks to stand down and reapply for their jobs under new contracts. This is an undeserved pension and should be stopped by whatever means necessry.
- Paul Scott, Edinburgh, 26/02/2009 13:59
Report abuse
If he was an honourable man he would give up this money that he clearly doesn't deserve because of his extremely poor leadership of his bank.
- Mike Melbourne, Bedford England, 26/02/2009 13:57
Report abuse
Margy, presuming the fund is help by RBS
- Stuart, UK, 26/02/2009 13:52
Report abuse
am I missing the point or am I pointing out that this is just about the amount of money?
He has every right to draw from a pension he has paid into.
So in theory, could well be wrong here as the type of pension isn't specified, he is only taking money he has invested and that the fund has grown, so it isnt any different to any other persons pension in the UK.
- Stuart, UK, 26/02/2009 13:38
Report abuse
He had to work extremely hard to destroy that bank. Let us not begrudge him his entitlement.
- Ram2009, Reading, UK, 26/02/2009 13:28
Report abuse
Stuart, UK
Because without govt. help this bank would have collapsed and there would have been nil in the pension pot for anyone. Besides, no one is worth £500,000 a year any more than anyone else.....this is just another scam that the bankers started in the 1980s (another sick idea from the USA). It's only in the last 20 years that CEOs have been paid absolutely ridiculous amounts and it is obscene.
This man wasn't worth his high salary anyway as he has totally trashed the bank through mismanagement and lack of foresight and understanding. He deserves absolutely nothing!!
- Margy, London, 26/02/2009 13:23
Report abuse
Good point, Anna in London. I'm sure Mr Brown and chums wouldn't want to give up thier pensions to the british public.
- Triffidqueen, Desk in London, 26/02/2009 13:19
Report abuse
Where was his pension money invested?? not in any financial products run by RBS presumably.
- Ag, London, 26/02/2009 13:15
Report abuse
I thought that early retirement meant a smaller pension not an enhanced one. I must look at this.
- Peter Haldane, London, 26/02/2009 13:02
Report abuse
Since the credit crunch hit my very modest pension pot has taken a huge hit. I doubt if I will be able to retire at 65 let alone 50. What must his have been before all this bad news. The mind boggles!
- Andy, Crowborough England, 26/02/2009 12:47
Report abuse
Given the misery that this individuals mistakes have brought upon so many, this pension can only be described as obscene.
The fact that McBroon and Co. are floudering around trying to think of some newsworthy counter to this revelation shows just how inept and powerless they are to look after the interests of the British people.
- Keith Lonsdale, Doncaster, 26/02/2009 12:43
Report abuse
Stuart, your taking the Devils advocate to the extreme... I think your missing the point...
- Mike, London, 26/02/2009 12:38
Report abuse
He collects nearly 3/4mil a year for life and my 2 kids get saddled with repaying in tax the debt he created!
- J.Martins, london, 26/02/2009 12:36
Report abuse
no wonder he was sorry - at that price I don't know anyone who would not be sorry - yet again this shows the level of utter incompetence that this government achieve
- Edriordan, wisbech, 26/02/2009 12:26
Report abuse
Lucky him ... my pension has lost 85% of it's value
- Ben Farrell, London, 26/02/2009 12:22
Report abuse
Yes, one doesn't want to see government do this sort of thing, but if the Banks continue to take the mick out of the public then it's necessary for legislation to be passed.
It could be framed quite intelligently - pensions of all retiring board members/directors to be related to decline in share value.
- Field, London UK, 26/02/2009 12:15
Report abuse
I am not mistaken, pensions are based on contribution from salary, right? So fro X number of years he has made contributions that have been invested and have left him with the ability to claim the stated £650,000?
So why should he give it up? Integrity? Karma? Because we don't have a salary as high as to allow us to have a pension that size?
Dont forget on the back of this and all the talk of no bonuses and lower salaries, if we do this we will get staff in banks that no one else wants. Yes the middle east and far east will poach any talent we have.
Then were will we be?
- Stuart, UK, 26/02/2009 11:56
Report abuse
In terms of quick responses, would the Government please let us taxpayers know soon in what substantive way are bank directors going to be made to pay for their negligence and not appear to benefit greatly from it.
Bankers' negligence will surely in a court of law be deemed criminal, not necessarily for intent, but given that the very destructive impact has been to bring the UK to its knees economically.
I fear the public reaction if bankers who have personally contributed to the collapse of banks go for much longer without legal proceedings being started against them very soon.
- Mike, london, 26/02/2009 11:45
Report abuse
Director remuneration is overseen by the non-execs and voted on by shareholders, so blame them. Also, the TSC and ultimately the government are supposed to supervise the banks. That makes Brown and Darling as culpable, so perhaps they might like to forego the nice pension pots that they have regularly voted to enhance over recent years. Sir Fred will tell them to poke it and there is nothing that can be done about it.
- Paul, London, 26/02/2009 11:24
Report abuse
I wonder which company will be employing Fred next - or will he 'sign on' for a few years?
- Sharon, London, 26/02/2009 11:23
Report abuse
One good reason not to give his pension up? Because this corrupt and spent government have asked him to. I would certainly keep it now if I were him.
- Richard, Cambridge, 26/02/2009 11:23
Report abuse
Does anyone live near Mr Goodwin? Could you deliver a dictionary, with just one word, INTEGRITY, highlighted?
- Marianne, SW France, 26/02/2009 11:22
Report abuse
Would his misadministration of RBS not amount to gross misconduct or at least negligence. Would his previous employers not be entitled to sue him?
With regards to his contract, generally, is anyone really worth this type of money. For this money you could employee several exceptional people. I think the problems is that those who employ and agree these deals are on the same gravy train.
- Harry, London, 26/02/2009 11:16
Report abuse
Why not introduce a little poetic justice into this whole mess, if the bankers decided that these "sub-prime" bonds were a good home for shareholder / depositers funds, lets have them share the pleasure and pay their bonuses, pension funds etc in the same bonds.
If its good enough for us, in their opinion, then it surely must be good enough for them!
- Mike M, Pilton, 26/02/2009 11:15
Report abuse
He may have contractual right to the pension, but surely the terms of the contract were so poorly drafted not to have imposed a severe penalty for inappropriate and poor judgements and decisions. These we were told were what these sorts of people had to be paid such large inducements to work for.
The non-execs and the remunaration committees have a lot to answer for too. Each were cosily scratching each others backs I fear!
- Barrie, essex UK, 26/02/2009 11:10
Report abuse
"Darling said the Government MAY take legal action to get some of the money back"
Don't you just get sick of the words "may", "might" and "could" when used by the government.
They really mean "WON'T"
- Steve Byrne, christchurch UK, 26/02/2009 11:02
Report abuse
It's hypocritical of the Tories to criticise Sir Fred. All he's done is put 'Big Bang' de-regulation philosophy into action which THEY introduced in 1986. Remember the zillion lectures we endured about 'getting government out of people's hair, 'cutting red tape' and 'giving back management the right to manage'? Well they did manage -- they managed their own bank accounts by stuffing them with OUR money. Besides, the City's still dominated by Cameron's Eton friends who use their bonuses to fund the Tory party. Labour's almost as bad, of course. They failed to reverse the 'de-regulation' nonsense, tax havens, golden parachutes and short-term speculation. But remember who started the rot: Thatcher.
- Walec, South London, 26/02/2009 10:58
Report abuse
"A furious Mr Darling admitted he had only just learned about the size of the pay-off" - that just about sums up the total incompetence of Gordon Brown & Alistair Darling. They SHOULD haved known about it before they pumped the inital funds into RBS. If they didn't know about it (and I find that very hard to believe) then they are directly responsible for this farce & should resign. Of course they won't.
- Malcolm, London, 26/02/2009 10:51
Report abuse
Assuming there are no legal ways of stopping payouts like these (and we don’t want to waste more money on legal fees to prove this, do we?) then there may be another option;-
Pass an emergency law that taxes specific windfalls and pensions over x amount at 99.999%.
This would claw the payouts back into the economy.
We could debate whether it was gross or even criminal negligence that led to these losses at the bank, but as said before, the "I thought I was doing the right thing at the time, but with hindsight....." defence is hard and expensive to disprove.
Our main focus should be on finding ways of ensuring (not insuring!)that we never make these mistakes again.
Of course, given human nature and the addiction of greed, this may not be realistic - after all, no-one was complaining about getting "richer", or when their shares were rising in value, were they?
- Darius Midwinter, London UK, 26/02/2009 10:50
Report abuse
I presume that if we are talking about reducing His
pension then Blair’s and Browns pensions will receive
similar?
As it was them that have lead us into a ‘Boom and Bust’
period.
By all means lets have an enquiry about it but lets not
have any veto’s by the government when it becomes
too tricky and they don’t wish the people to know the
full facts?
- P. C., rainham. essex., 26/02/2009 10:41
Report abuse
The Government can start by stripping this man of his knighthood.
- John Bloomfield, Twickenham, 26/02/2009 10:39
Report abuse
This is all political posturing. There is most likely nothing they can do. His pension is a factor of his own donations and salary over the years. The salary will be a result of his perceived effectiveness. Like most people there is not the option to retrospectively take the pension away whether we like it or not. I wonder how the MPs would react if their pensions were retrospectively culled when they do not perform!
- Anna, London, 26/02/2009 10:32
Report abuse
Two years ago Fred the Shred was being feted as the best thing since sliced white bread.
- Neil M., london uk,, 26/02/2009 10:29
Report abuse
how can the pension be revoked from a legal perspective...?
seems a pointless argument..
- Martin_Clerkenwell, london, 26/02/2009 10:28
Report abuse
It beggars belief. Seize his pension and strip him of his Knighthood. He does not deserve the money or the title. I am sure he can work until he is 65 as a cashier front of house in a bank given his experience but I would keep a close eye on him!
- Darren, London, 26/02/2009 10:24
Report abuse
Unbelieveable.
- Isabel, Woking, 26/02/2009 10:21
Report abuse
This man quite happily took a major UK bank and destroyed it. Nobody in their right mind would expect such a man to give up his pension; he's more likely to complain that it isn't enough.
- Casper Slides, France at the moment, 26/02/2009 10:15
Report abuse
And lets not forget the pension that Adam Applegarth (ex CEO of Northern rock) received, upto £300k a year according to some reports.
All in all an absolute disgrace.
- Pete, N1, 26/02/2009 10:10
Report abuse
The largest loss in corporate history and the chairman walks away with a pension pot of £16 million pounds giving a yearly pension of more than most people receive in a life times of work and I loose a bit more of my savings.
To quote Cold Comfort Farm, "THERES SOME THING NASTY IN THE WOOD SHED"
- Alan Green, Woodford Green, 26/02/2009 09:46
Report abuse
Can someone explain to me, where actually is this money? Who has done well out of this money?
If it was split between 60 million UK residents, we wouldn't have a problem would we?
- Martin H. Watson, Teddington, 26/02/2009 08:53
Report abuse
