Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Shareholder to RBS bosses: 'You're paid as superhumans, but you're clearly not'

View Video
Download Video

Video

Reaction from shareholders after the RBS AGM meeting in Edinburgh.

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 24 April 2008
A YEAR ago, it was so very different. Sir Fred Goodwin was gearing up for a fight and in bullish mode.
When the chief executive of Royal Bank of Scotland faced shareholders at the 2007 annual general meeting, he had just revealed his plan to go after ABN Amro and was, to many, the golden boy who promised to fill their pockets with silver.

He was happy to talk about his plans to take RBS on to the world stage, as a banking force to be reckoned with.

But yesterday, at this year's AGM, he and his board had another battle on their hands – regaining the confidence of those same investors, who are now reeling from his announcement of the biggest rights issue in Europe. And at the Edinburgh International Conference Centre, where the board, chaired by Sir Tom McKillop, held court, it approached a war.

An audience brimming with indignation that belied their advancing years accused directors of "unbelievably bad management".

Shareholder John Steen was more abrupt when he told the meeting he would like the board to reconsider its entire remuneration policy, saying they were paid salaries "above anything the rest of us can only dream of".

He went on: "You guys are paid as though you were superhuman, and it's very clear that you're not."

Twelve months after his confident performance, Sir Fred was more reluctant to take centre stage and it was halfway through the meeting before he spoke to the crowd.

Sir Fred – Scotland's most high-profile businessman, who has the ear of the Prime Minister – was called to account by investors and ordered to explain why, only two months after insisting everything was rosy, he was asking them for £12 billion.

Sir Tom, who had been in the chair for more than an hour, attempted to take the question, but the interrogator was insistent. Sir Fred, who pocketed a £2.9 million bonus as part of his £4.2 million pay package last year, rose from his seat at the front of two rows on stage.

He did not shirk the question, claiming to be "very happy to have the opportunity" to reiterate what Sir Tom had been telling the 400-strong crowd.

"(In February] I said we don't have any plans for a rights issue," he said. "We were proceeding at that time that the plan we were operating would see us through. Events in March were really quite unprecedented."

Almost monotonous, in contrast to the sincere, articulate rhetoric of the chairman, Fred the Shred, as he is known in City circles, told how the deepening credit crunch and deteriorating world markets had forced the hand of the bank, which has its global headquarters in Edinburgh.

"The outlook in the rest of the world was deteriorating," he said. "It was a difficult decision to us, a painful decision to detach ourselves from a strategy which had worked for the bank for some time. It's a painful decision …but I passionately believe it is the right decision."

And then he sat down. Those two minutes were his only overt contribution to the AGM, which came 24 hours after the announcement of the rights issue, plans to sell off some concerns, and write-downs of £5.9 billion.

The shareholders, mostly retired men, had begun to filter into the conference centre hours ahead of the meeting. Their RBS shares are more than somewhere to keep their cash. They are a way to pin their tartan colours to their chests, a badge of pride in their country.

Many paused to talk to the media assembled in the rain beneath the blue flags emblazoned with the RBS logo that hung from the exhibition centre.

One, who asked not to be named, said he believed Sir Fred and Sir Tom had "a lot to answer for". The retired Glasgow lawyer, who has held shares for ten years, said: "It's all a bit of an about-turn, from saying in February the last thing they would do is have a rights issue, to now having a huge one."

Fred Lawson, 66, a retired investment manager from Musselburgh, East Lothian, whose family have had shares in RBS for more than half a century, was distinctly less circumspect. He branded the management of the bank "an absolute disgrace".

He said: "I put my own money in and I wish I hadn't."

By the time the shareholders settled into the hall, their faces were expectant and accusing.

Sir Tom stood up after a promotional film attempted to convince the room that all was right in the world of RBS.

To one shareholder, John Horowicz, who branded the situation "a mess", he said: "I can assure you all of the board takes its responsibilities very seriously."

He added that the board came before the AGM with "considerable humility".

He said: "We do feel we are asking a lot of shareholders – these are very large numbers. But we believe it's absolutely in the right interest of shareholders that we take these actions."

Retired couple Robert and Jean Cumming, of Murrayfield, Edinburgh, both worked at RBS and have had shares in the company for decades. Mr Cumming said: "It's sentimental, combined with the fact they have always been good dividend earners.

"I'm very disappointed we're at the stage in which they are having to go to the shareholders for additional shares."

But he said he thought Sir Fred came across as "quite able" and added: "I disagree with him leaving. I think it's up to him and his colleagues to get everything in the proper order. That's a big, big task and ought to be carried out by people in charge just now, because they have the ability."

Dr Cecil Stout, 88, from Ravelston, Edinburgh, said he had "no regrets" in investing in RBS. "I have no doubt about the bank's future," he said. "It will go from strength to strength. It may take two or three years, but there's no doubt about it."

But he added: "I think it's unfortunate that the bank got themselves into this position."

Alex McFeat, a retired pharmacist from Colinton, Edinburgh, said: "It makes me very cross. I'm going to vote against Tom McKillop. I'm not happy at all. I shall vote for Fred Goodwin, but only in the short term. I have always thought of him as a show-off."

In the end, most of the small shareholders – unlike, according to some reports, their corporate peers – stopped short of calling for the resignations of Sir Tom and Sir Fred.

What new offer means and how it works

A RIGHTS issue allows a company to ask shareholders to provide extra capital. It involves the company giving existing shareholders the right to buy newly issued shares.

The cost is fixed below the market price and the amount shareholders can buy is determined by their existing holding.

There is no obligation to buy and a shareholder can buy some, none or all of the rights on offer to them. The rights can be sold on to other buyers, giving each right a value.

The Royal Bank of Scotland rights issue will see 11 new shares released for every 18 existing ones, at 200p each.

RBS shares closed at the start of the week at 372.5p. Last night that was down to 345p.

If an investor does nothing, then the company will take all the lapsed rights and sell them. The money raised is then returned to the shareholders who let their rights lapse. However, if the price falls, then the investor will lose out.

Shareholders could also sell a proportion of their rights to generate cash to take advantage of the offer. In a process known as "swallowing your tail", they can then use the income to buy into the share offer.

At yesterday's AGM, Brian Peart, a private shareholder, voiced concerns that the plans would drive down the value of existing shareholdings. He suggested a figure of 340p a share would be more appropriate and said shareholders would "dilute" their holdings if they chose not to take up the new offer.

He said: "Why not a rights issue of £3.40? It's a figure I think should be about right."

Sir Tom McKillop, the bank's chairman, reassured Mr Peart that shareholders would have the opportunity to sell their rights if they chose not to take up the offer.

However, Mr Peart, who is also chair of the UK Shareholders Association in the North-east, countered: "If they sell their rights, they're obviously going to dilute their holding – which people might have had for years and years and years with the Royal Bank of Scotland."

Durrell Manison, a retired shareholder from Swansea, added: "What we've learnt in the last few months is bankers don't have crystal balls and can't foretell the future."

He and many other small shareholders at the meeting said they were likely to support the rights issue. "Do I like having to put my hand in my pocket for yet more money? Not particularly, but that doesn't mean that I won't do it," Mr Manison said.

RBS insisted that the biggest-ever rights issue and planned disposals would help to rebuild its capital reserves.




The full article contains 1549 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Senga Jean,

24/04/2008 00:09:59
The shares are already at a "bargain" price. Worth buying to get the "rights". (I'll declare an interest; I have some of my pension funds in the bank and in a few years we will look back in wonder at the panic and at how a dear Scottish bank let its careful standards slip temporarily)
2

Tris,

Dundee 24/04/2008 00:15:39

I wonder what the bonuses will be next year!
3

Angus Ogg,

24/04/2008 00:17:57
There is something of an almost old fashioned charm about the quality of eccentrics that an AGM produces. They also have a habit, probably born of actually owning part of the company, to come up with concise wisdom...

"You're paid as superhumans, but you're clearly not"

The key question from this is what humanity Fred the Shred will show his staff over the coming months ?

No greater love has a man for his company than he lay down the working life of another for it.
4

,

24/04/2008 00:33:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

Fifi la Bonbon,

24/04/2008 00:35:25
You've got to have a bit of bubbly at the shareholders'.
6

,

24/04/2008 00:38:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

,

24/04/2008 00:49:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

,

24/04/2008 01:13:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

Julian.,

edinburgh 24/04/2008 06:30:38
#9 I think her issue may be a lack of access to the normal outlets for these discussions.

Subway, Lothian Road, Saturday night for example.
10

Julian.,

edinburgh 24/04/2008 06:41:31
Anyway, back to the discussion.

From what I can tell, the whole mess has mainly been created by RBS and others lending money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back and who were buying properties at inflated prices. One of their main jobs is to lend money to people who can afford to pay it back on properties which they have not paid an inflated price for.

They have quite obviously failed in this task. It's a bit like a plumber who doesn't tighten a pipe properly and causes a flood. The board not only deserve no bonus but should probably have their salaries cut as well for this gross incompetence.
11

Phil C,

24/04/2008 07:23:52
Julian, you're way off the mark. To put it simply, the mess was created by greedy American lenders dealing in the bad credit risk areas of the States. RBS has never done that. BUT they have lent and taken money from the international money markets to maintain liquidity in the past. This source of funding has iced over for now because of the US situation of borrowers not repaying. This is a global situation and RBS are simply trying to build their own reserves with this shares issue. Good on them.

The anti-capitalist, anti-profit and anti 'Fat Cat' sentiments etc, often displayed on these boards is another matter. RBS remains a jewell in Scotland's corporate crown and deserves more support from the people. We'll need companies like this after independence.
12

jtdx,

24/04/2008 07:30:31
Sub-prime crisis is caused by stupidity. Imagine if we were talking vegetables instead of home loans.

Greengrocer: would you like to buy this rotten tomato at full price?

Banker: no way that is a really bad deal

Greengrocer: in that case, how about buying a full case of rotten tomatoes at full price?

Banker: sure thing! thats a great deal!
13

Dr Mike,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 07:39:29
Was this an AGM for an international bank, or an organ grinder and monkey convention?

Sir tom and Sir fred are less knights of the realm as a bad comedy duo appearing at the fringe (of credibility).
14

Phil C,

24/04/2008 07:47:08
#16 Rules, you are one of the biggest culprits at trying to turn thinks into an anti-English argument. In general Scots like the English. Please get that into your dense skull.
15

hibbyspurs,

24/04/2008 08:01:14
I've never understood how some of these guys remain in jobs without that question even being aired.

If I lost my employer vast sums of money, caused its share proce to half in a year then I have no doubt I'd be shown the door post haste with no "tasty payoff" either.

Yes I accept that these people are in very high pressure jobs and the company they run will rise or fall on their decisions. I also accept that the "credit crunch" isnt necessarily their fault either, however the share price has indeed halfed and they are now begging te shareholders to help raise enough money to ensure the companies stability.

Therefore they have quite simply failed in their duties as employees of this companies and should be disciplined accordingly, "gross negligence" I believe was used.... How then are they still in a job?

I mean I'm not surprised they are, after all just look at the former chief exec of Northern Rock... He eventually resigned his position but not until he got £750,000 to do do........

Banks are a joke..... Fail miserably but still get rewarded... seeing as how we've fleeced billions of the mug punters in the street anyway... "more champers old chap? Caviar niblet perhaps?"
16

Scotish Exile,

24/04/2008 08:10:57
Isn't it funny how this all came to the surface AFTER the greedy bankers awarded themselves huge bonuses for apparently doing well.....no doubt everything in the garden will be rosy when bonus time comes round again, the whole thing stinks, but the bankers keep their obscene bonuses and huge inflated salaries.
17

Tamus,

High Street 24/04/2008 08:14:16
So a few shareholders get hit with bank charges...Diddums. Now you know how the rest of us feel
18

Trade-wind,

USA 24/04/2008 08:15:50
# 13 are you dating someone from the board of RBS.
They were as greedy as any lot in the states.
Thats how they got into the wee mess they are in.
Don't blame their lame handling of RBS on the US.
They didn't have to buy those packaged morgages,
they did it, because they thought their was a fast buck to be made off stupid people who borrowed money from
bankers who should have refused them loans and didn't.
You are to willing to throw the blame somewhere that won't dispoil your image of a Bank that was at one time
great, but that time has past due to greed and stupidity. Stop paying them salaries until they fix what they broke and quit blaming others.
19

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 24/04/2008 08:48:56
It has been pointed out that these people, with all their supposed degrees in economics and massive experience in banking - could not run a corner shop. Sheer greed and detachment from the real world is at the root of this disaster. Scenario:

"Hey Scottie - how about buying this new financial instrument - we call it 'the black hole' - its inside this box, which we can't let youi see inside - but we GUARANTEE you'll make 10% gross profit"

"Thanks Yank, I'll take 500,000 of your black boxes at £1000 each - I can sell them on to my mates for £1200 each"

Nobody looked inside the box. It was a dogs breakfast of unsecured debt - worthless.

HOW COULD AN 'EXPERT' BANKER EVER DO THAT????

Complete and utter incompetents. The entire lot should be sacked. There is NO GUARANTEE that if shareholders cough up £12 billion - under duress - (since the threat is that the bank goes belly up if they don't cough up) - this lot may still cause the bank to crash.

20

paulr,

edinburgh 24/04/2008 08:56:53
"Their RBS shares are more than somewhere to keep their cash. They are a way to pin their tartan colours to their chests, a badge of pride in their country."

What UTTER RUBBISH, RBS shares like any shres are a gamble to make profits nothing more, share prices drop for many reasons including incompetence and arrogance so stop bleating, they took a gamble and on this occasion lost out.
21

Venachar,

24/04/2008 09:03:29
The boards integrity is on the line. To go from all is not too bad a couple of months ago, to raising Britains biggest ever rights issue now say's one of two things. 1. the board has lied over the past few months or 2. They do not know what they are doing.
To raise RBS to its current position in banking it is obvious that 2 would not be correct.
Most people would be shareholders through their pension funds, unit trusts or investment trusts. If you do not like what RBS have done then complain to your fund manager, give them some grief.
I am a shareholder and will take up my rights issue but this is Sir Fred's last chance at least till next years AGM.
22

Phil C,

24/04/2008 09:07:59
#21 Break-wind,USA

I've nothing to do with RBS. I agree that the salaries and bonuses paid to top executives are obscene. I agree that directors should be held to account when things go wrong through their doings. If they're crap, sack'em. I argue that the RBS (and most other banks and lenders) were duped by the US and global banking system. I don't know enough to say if they were negligent in not spotting the flaws. No doubt the many banking experts who pop up on these boards will be able to tell us.

I still maintain that RBS remains a jewell in Scotland's corporate crown and deserves more support from the people. We'll need companies like this after independence.

23

Bewildered,

Glasgow 24/04/2008 09:17:24
Borrowing short term and lending long term is a recipe for disaster and "wise" bankers would know better unless they were driven by greed (theirs and the shareholders)
24

The Strategist,

24/04/2008 09:21:51
#13 Phil C

I'm sorry but you are completely wrong. RBS was as involved in bad loans as anyone else. They are in no sense innocent bystanders here.

I was also highly amused by your comment that RBS deserves more support from the people of Scotland. I hope the lobotomy scar heals up soon.

We'll need banks after independence but I don't know about you but I'd prefer a bank that's on our side and interested in working with us to develop our economy.
25

Phil C,

24/04/2008 09:36:29
#29 The Strategist

Fair do's. But any loan that isn't repaid is a bad one and RBS were no worse than anyone else, and better than many. RBS are more vulnerable because they had more money and were more aggressive than many of their competitors. Of course I want a bank that's on our side, but I don't see why RBS gets run down every day on these boards. They are one of the most successful banks in the UK and Scotland will need the tax and the trade generated by them.

Oh, and the scar's healing nicely, thanks!
26

Publius,

London 24/04/2008 09:52:57
Phil C and others

One or two bits and pieces to this saga that are not aired as well as others.

(1) US sub-prime mortgages. RBS did not have to buy into these and although as a global player in the banking world it might have been awkward to opt out. BUT it was still bank's choice. US federal law does require US mortgage lenders to offer some mortgages to poor - high risk - people - and so they would want to spread their risk around.
(2) Interestingly, UK government puts a lot of pressure on banks and building societies to get involved in 'social' housing and 'joint' ownership schemes. We may yet see sub-prime crises of our own.
(3) RBS paid too much for ABN Amro. And Dutch employment law will prevent Fred the Shred from shedding ABN Amro jobs like he did with NatWest.
(4) If, like me, you have some insurance policies with Churchill, watch the renewal premiums when they come up. Churhcill tried to put my home insurance up by two hundred last year. I got a much lower quote from another company, phoned Churchill to cancel the policy and they promptly matched the other quote! This year RBS will be looking to Churchill and Direct Line to refill their coffers.


The top brass at RBS should go!

27

Country Life,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 09:59:06

When RBS and others bought packaged sub prime mortgages they were not buying a pig in a poke. They knew perfectly well what they were buying, they thought they knew the risks associated with it and they paid a price appropriate to those risks. Debt rating agencies used the historical rate of default on sub prime mortgages to assess the risk, just as with most other things using the past to predict the future. Where it all went wrong is that there were unprecedented rates of default, so the packaged debt was worth much less than anticipated.

Easy to be wise after the event, but this was not a horde of greedy bankers rushing in blindly and getting their fingers burnt. It is a case of bankers trusting those whose job it is to rate debt, who used standard risk assessment techniques to do so, and who got it spectacularly wrong. There are huge questions to be asked of the debt rating organisations, and you'd have to say the banks should probably have been sceptical of what they were being told, but to say this has all come about due to greedy bankers is wrong; it was a systemic failure partly caused by the system not recognising that the paradigm had changed and reacting to it in time.
28

Phil1,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 10:10:27
I agree with Publus from London - RBS and our Fred will have to get rid of jobs to reduce costs and anyone who buys Churchill and Direct Line will have to shed even more jobs to service the loan theyll need to buy the companies.

However, the Board keep last year's bonuses and salaries and if RBS shares don't come back quickly enough they'll just create more and cheaper share options.

If the staff will suffer with fewer jobs, the shareholders will suffer with loss in values of shares and customers will suffer through higher prices for insurance and higher bank charges just why is it that RBS Board is the only group that doesn't have to pay for mistakes it is resonsible for?
29

Morbo,

24/04/2008 11:32:06
If you have a loan or a mortgage with RBS and you went to them and said look, I can't pay this, it's the global credit crunch, you're going to have to give me twice as much money ... what would be their response?
30

VinoTinto,

24/04/2008 11:36:42
OK. So I have 990 shares with RBS at say £3.42 worth £3385. For every 18 shares I get offered 11 at £2.00 costing £1210. To purchase these I sell 354 shares raising the £1210. From my original 990 I now have 636 but I've bought my rights issue - 605 new shares. My total shareholding is now 1241 - I sell at £3.42 making £4244 - a cool profit of £859 and it hasn't cost a new penny. Is it that simple?
31

Venachar,

24/04/2008 11:42:26
Vino Tinto

Hope you don't work for the bank! Your sums are out - current share price is £3.30 and expect to go to about £3.05 not quite what you are working on.

Don't worry it's still a reasonable deal stay with it - if you can.
32

Luke Skywalker,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 11:50:17
37 Yes
33

VinoTinto,

24/04/2008 12:08:14
...so, if Sir Fred the Dread took up his 'rights issue' he'd be laughing all the way to HIS bank!
34

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 12:10:58
As a matter of interest, can we still complain if some people in Engaland are reluctant to accept RBS notes? How would we react if a Geordie came here and tried to pay with notes issued by the Northern Rock Bank? What is the precise legal situation over the RBS notes? Are there assets to cover the promise on them - are they backed by a central bank? Does anyone know?
35

Venachar,

24/04/2008 12:44:08
Vino

I'm sure Sir Fred has the cash from his bonus from last years salary+bonus. If he does not know what is going on then we really are in the deep doo doo.

As they used to say on the TV - Don't Panic Mr Mainwaring.

At least we have a distinct Chairmen and CEO unlike Marks & Spencer. Who will oversee Mr Rose!!!!
36

Angus Ogg,

24/04/2008 12:47:22
#4 R Slicker,

LoL.

We're twins !

You will recognise me if you come up to the Highlands. If you see me with a sheep, I am the one that isn't furry.

Also I don't have one of those Highland Nighty things everyone keeps going on about. Just ordinary PJ's.
37

Busymale,

24/04/2008 13:07:27
One big ego trip for the big ego.
38

John south of Soutra,

24/04/2008 13:17:27
#41 - stop spouting nonsense, every note issued by the scottish clearing banks is guaranteed by the bank of england
39

VinoTinto,

24/04/2008 13:18:58
...from the banks of the loch in Trossachs your overview is interesting. At least Mr Rose didn't take a £1.2 BILLION dividend and place it in Monaco to avoid paying tax and still get knighted for his contribution to retailing aka Philip "bilious' Green!!
40

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 13:42:04
45
Thank you for the information.
If you look at my posting you will see that all of it all consisted of questions. It therefore defies logic to describe me as "spouting nonsense".
Just another example of the ritual abuse on these postings - one cannot even ask for information without being insulted - how edifying
41

Russian Hill,

San Francisco 24/04/2008 13:57:12
#37, #38 and #39

Unfortunately, your understanding isn't right; after a rights issue, the price per share will be lower than the current price, which is the dilution effect mentioned above.

There is no such thing as a free lunch; the market value of your shareholding won't go up by any more than the additional equity which you contribute.

You can see this makes sense overall; the market capitalisation will increase by the amount of capital contributed, but this will be divided amongst a greater number of shares.

The funniest part of the article is when Brian Peart suggests a rights issue at close to the current price: which would make it very risky to take up the rights issue as you could well be buying in at greater than the current market price!
42

,

24/04/2008 13:57:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
43

VinoTinto,

24/04/2008 14:07:52
#48.
re 37...I knew it couldn't be that simple - I'm not a banker and that's spelt with a B!

44

georgia,

somewhere outside chicago 24/04/2008 14:54:52
For the last several months, we in this televiewing area have been treated to ads regarding the Royal Bank of Scotland as some kind of investment mecca, encouraging Americans to take advantage of a strong bank....

Now these ads remind me a lot of the few ads the Saudi Arabians put out just after 9/11 saying, in effect, "Saudi Arabia is a good country, we love the USA, and we remain a good friend to the USA." Since most of the 9/11 guys were Saudis, it was propaganda, pure and simple, and I am getting the same message from RBS. The press here don't seem to be carrying the same kind of hard-luck stories about RBS as are featured in the Scottish press....hm...wonder why.....
45

zigzag,

24/04/2008 15:08:25
Hucksters....american style
46

Venachar,

24/04/2008 15:32:28
Russian Hill
Yeh but if you do not take up your rights issue kindly look at who is underwriting it all and is prepared to stick their neck out. I'm not goint to call it gambling but our American cousins are willing to put their money where there mouth is.

Okay Sir Fred G has been caught out over the last 12 months by paying too much for ABN and sub prime.
People said he paid too much for Nat west. RBS's exposure to sub primes is about quarter that of Citibank and less than the majority of the other main banks.

The so called experts do not like clever people. Many of the comments being hurled at Sir Fred are similar to those levelled against Sir Richard Branson. At least he was able to delist is Company and take it back private so that he could run it without interference.

Sir Fred and the board have 1 year to demonstrate that they are competent persons, and this better be the end of the exposure to sub primes.
47

John Blackley,

Florida 24/04/2008 15:36:11
Well, I'm glad the RBS' current difficulties give the usual "it's all the fault of Westminster" crowd an opportunity to vary their theme with "it's all the fault of the yanks". That must be nice for them

All the blather and frothing of a stagger or OAP's at the AGM doesn't mean a thing - apart from some easy picking for lazy journalists. The fate of RBS and of its senior management will be determined by the bank's institutional investors and, right now, they're not in sympathetic mood.

As for possible larger repercussions, I urge anyone who's interested to take a look at what happened at UBS' recent AGM - http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/23/news/companies/ubs_deflates.fortune/?postversion=2008042314
48

Doh,

24/04/2008 15:38:49
"" Durrell Manison, a retired shareholder from Swansea, added: "What we've learnt in the last few months is bankers don't have crystal balls and can't foretell the future." ""

If they dont have crystall balls they cant se e what is coming.

Quite simply RBS did not pay enough to attract world class biz talent that would have averted this disaster.

Pay peanuts and get chimps, pay millions and get the second rate, pay billions and now you might just get someone from the Apprentice ....
49

Prof,

24/04/2008 15:39:22
More like Fred the Shed
50

Really,

24/04/2008 16:40:32
#17 Phil,

"In general Scots like the English"

That's a good one.

And the sea is made of soup.
51

motherload,

mountains fresh air 24/04/2008 16:56:09
...movie rights to remake of 'Groundhogs Day'. Best scene...Scots take English for a ride teaching them to steer and 'don't drive angry!' all while full throttle over the precipice, slow motion, deep into the hollow pit from whence they came... or was it the English teaching the Scots... oh well, next day...ditto.
cheers
52

doublescotch,

U.S.A. 24/04/2008 19:59:09
The last time I was in New York City. RBS had ads all over the city. They even had ads on Television. Now I ask you .What was all that about? Could be to sucker in Americans. So please don't go blaming America for everything!
53

mcbogtrotter,

U.S.A 24/04/2008 21:07:59
#13 and all of the rest of you who think the USA is the worlds problem.
The world economy is the problem and the fact that the states are paying off half the world, and I for one wish that our government would not. And for your information the largest investers in the US are the UK. Investers from your side own more land buildings and busnesses in the US than any other country. And as to your fat cat comments that is the problem there are plenty of fat cats for whom no amount of money is enough thats why they have to play in somebodys elses sand box.
And to the housing issue there are plenty of problems in the UK Ive seen plenty of articles on Scotland and Ireland the same problem over there. Frankly I wish the US would pull out of your one world economy and concentrate on our own you people have no natural resources nothing, you could hardly feed yourselves thats why your corner of the world was trying to steal everything else India and what ever else you could try to grab well it did not work.
You might as well put your costumes for the tourist back in the closit I hope no one comes over to pay three times as much for a poor meal, so you can get knifed in the back by some drunk.
54

doublescotch,

U.S.A. 24/04/2008 21:22:35
#61 Please don't get so upset. If everyone blames America. They don't have to look at their own problems. By the way, the biggest landowners in America-IS GUESS WHO- Yes The Windsors. I guess they are hedging there bets incase of the revolution:)
55

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 24/04/2008 22:54:51
I don't see a quote from wee Aiky Salmond on this story - oh I forgot, this won't be a popular thing to be associated with!
56

A Voice From Scotland,

24/04/2008 23:36:01
Most big banks shares have tumbled, we were warned over a year ago, anyone who hung on to bank shares for the past year is just plain stupid.

I sold Barclays when it was 765p, they are now pulling back from 389p and are at 455.25p, so what is all the weeping and wailing for. Barclays will pull back long term as will RBS, but it will be long term.

RBS have been the victim of sneering and cringing from those who backed the Barclays bid for AMRO and were miffed when RBS brought it in. "Who do these Jocks think they are?" Fred Goodwin is playing a blinder, he is as usual ahead of the game, and other banks are just huffed because once again he has stolen a march on them. They are facing the same problems but have not had the bottle to do what RBS have done.

Anyone with a brain was into Gold and Rio Tinto, and other good mining shares.

Good on you Fred, keep sticking it to them.
57

Alex the wandering flanker,

Perth 24/04/2008 23:37:29
41

Scottish banks are allowed to issue notes against reserves held at the Bank of England.

RBS in hindsight paid an expensive price for ABN just as the house of sand started to crumble. Yes Fred & co got their timing wrong there but they were backed up to the hilt by the shareholders.

58

A Voice From Scotland,

24/04/2008 23:39:29
#61. Another saddo troll baying his way round the forums, at least it keeps the mad sad sods of the streets.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.