12 2 mins 13 yrs

IT’S a bad do all round. Goodwin somehow loses the Royal Bank of Scotland £24 billion and walks off with a pension pot of £16 million – or £650,000 a year.

McMugabe, fresh from the kicking Turner (FSA) and King (Bank of England) have given him, is desperate – always desperate – for good news. So the government demands Goodwin hands back his pension. Goodwin tells them to get stuffed.

And that, if we are governed by Law, should be that.

Goodwin’s pension is agreed, subject to contract and protected by contract law. Unfortunately you never know in New Labour‘s Britain; expect threats of government action by the morning, particularly since our calamitous ruling junta bet a few hundred billion of ours on RBS.

But as tough as it is to see Goodwin break the bank and scoop two lotteries, we are either a nation governed by Law or by Man, not both. If we are a nation of Laws, all anyone can do is hold his nose.

The only lawful way for Goodwin to be denied is if the remuneration committee acted negligently, and that’s a matter for shareholders, not mere government.

So, we’ll now see who comes out in favour of the Law and those others who call for the return of the Robber Barons.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

12 thoughts on “Goodwin’s Millions

  1. >>nd walks off with a pension pot of £16 million – or £650,000 a year.<<

    Incredible – over £ 50K a month pension for a 50-yr-old. Wonder will he still get it if he finds a new job.

    Just noticed that the day after RBS posted the largest annual loss in UK corporate history, its shares rocket by about 25%!

  2. I actually had shares in RBS. Luckily I jettisoned them a year ago when the market looked dodgy. Glad I did.

    WTF is Brown doing? Goodwin should be hauled before a court.

  3. Pete may well be right in terms of contract law guaranteeing this man his right to this pension , but how on earth was such a generous consequence free deal agreed in the first place.

  4. >>Pete may well be right in terms of contract law guaranteeing <<

    David would not doubt have titled his post "Goodwin’s Law".

  5. Colm –

    Well Goodwin asserts that ministers knew of his pension deal when the government came in last year (and demanded his head), but we’ll see.

    How he came to be offered the deal is something else and, in my view, is linked to the question of how banks came to act so recklessly in the first place.

    Bank shareholders are predominently institutional – the pension and mutual funds. Those who head up the funds don’t particularly care for the fine details as long as dividend income and capital growth is delivered.

    In this, it’s probably the case that any bank boss who advocated sound money policies and conservative practices would have been slung out over the last decade while the rivals racked up the profits. That the banks were heading for a fall is by the by.

    However some on the remuneration committee proposed and won this package for Goodwin – my money is on some of these people and Goodwin having previous relations. It would be fascinating to hear them justify this absurd deal, but it’s for shareholders to get it.

  6. >>However some on the remuneration committee proposed and won this package for Goodwin<<

    They were all probably just glad to see the back of him and prepared to pay for it. He would have cost them much more had he refuesd to go. He was on something like £ 5 million p.a. with bonuses and shares.

  7. Noel Cunningham –

    I heard this evening on BBC 5Live that Goodwin’s terms of employment included a year’s notice on termination of employment, i.e. give him a year’s salary and and tell him to clear his desk

  8. I wonder if Goodwin will be paying the normal tax on his pension of £650k. It wouldn’t be surprising if some (totally legal) "tax efficient" arrangements have been made to "shelter" at least some of it from the 40% ravages of the taxman. The fact that tax has not been mentioned so far is quite sinister.

  9. "that’s a matter for shareholders, and that’s a matter for shareholders, not mere government"

    The government is a shareholder.

  10. It seems that Brown and other Ministers just aren’t so good, or should that be as slippery as, Blair.

    Compared to him, these fools are mere beginners, and the beauty of it all is, they can’t see tha he shafted them as well. Such is the price of cronyism.

    I’ll wager that when it comes to ‘Carry the can’ time Blair’s name will not even be mentioned…

  11. That Brown is appealing to the mob, is nothing new, after all, isn’t that the socialist way?

    However, if Goodwin should have his pension raided for being both excessive and undeserved, shouldn’t the same apply to Brown and the rest of the Westminster gang?

    The similarity between the two cases, – i.e. Goodwin and Brown are just too obvious to miss.

    The other relevant point is that Brown did a similar thing to thousands of private pension schemes, held quite legitimately and funded with genuinely hard earned money, back around 1998.

    Many lost all of their pension fund when several pension companys went bust, as a result of Brown reneging on decades old agreements, and enacting retroactive changes to the rules.

    One might draw the conclusion that he really doesn’t have much time for pensioners after all…

Comments are closed.