Monday 2 March 2009

Greed is Goodwin: shred his knighthood, not just his pension


I doubt there is anybody in this country at the moment who does not find the greed of Sir Fred 'The Shred' Goodwin, the man who presided over RBS banking losses of £24 billion, a matter for disgust.

This is a man who, despite notorious failures as a responsible banker, wants to cling on to his £16 million pension pot and the £650,000 it would yield every year.

My view is that not only should Goodwin be made to give up his his current pension 'entitlements' but he should also be stripped of his knighthood. He deserves the benefit of neither.

Since the knighthood was awarded for services to banking, and the only service to banking he has ultimately performed is to throw it into chaos, Goodwin should do the decent thing and hand back the cash and the gong.

1 comment:

Alina Palimaru said...

Mark,

Can you create hyperlinks in your text, so that we can easily access background information about the people/issues you are discussing? In this case, linking to a profile of Mr. Goodwin and perhaps to some news stories about what he has done
should be useful. What do you think?

I share your disgust with corporate greed. I also concur that to see such generous rewards given to those who failed borders on the grotesque. I might add that even in instances where companies perform successfully in the stock exchange, these rewards may still not be justified. The reason is that market performance is a long-term process, and therefore a current CEO may benefit from decisions made by previous executives. Also, it depends on the way the companies are listed at the exchange. Sometimes, a failing company may be listed as part of a specific index (technology, internet etc) that is doing well generally, which will bring everyone up regardless of individual status.

I do wonder, though, about the legal implications of a decision to strip Mr. Goodwin of benefits previously agreed upon. Sure, it would be great to see legislation capping executive pay effective immediately. But applying it retroactively may set dangerous precedents across the board, not just for bankers. What are your thoughts on this?

Alina