Fred Goodwin...sir

[Mick Mac]

Does he really deserve to lose his knighthood - to be treated like the traitor Anthony Blunt.

I think its wrong. And a dangerous precedent. There was no intent to do.wrong.

[reggie]

On a daily basis he took delight in humiliating whoever he considered a lesser human being.

His former workmates partied for 3 days when he left to join RBS.

He treated his colleagues like c*nts and for that alone he deserves to lose his knighthood...oh yes.

[Damian H]

If being a c**t and treating other people like s**t is grounds for losing an honour then there should be queues of people lining up to be stripped of their honours. I think you need a bit more han "He wasn't a very nice person to work for."

[Chippy Minton]

How about overseeing an organisation that required the government to pump in ?20bn to not only save his business, but also prevent the collapse in confidence in the entire banking system?

How about because he oversaw a company played a key role in the financial crisis of and helped trigger the worst recession in the UK since the second world war which imposed huge direct costs on British taxpayers and businesses?

How about because he brought the honours system into disrepute?

[Mick Mac]

reggie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> On a daily basis he took delight in humiliating

> whoever he considered a lesser human being.

> His former workmates .partied for 3 days when he

> left to join RBS.

> He treated his colleagues like c*nts and for that

> alone he deserves to lose his knighthood...oh yes.

That's the boss for you.

[indiepanda]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Does he really deserve to lose his knighthood - to

> be treated like the traitor Anthony Blunt.

>

> I think its wrong. And a dangerous precedent.

> There was no intent to do.wrong.

He was knighted for services to banking... and his "expertise" led to billions of ?s of taxpayers money being spent on bailing out the bank he built. I can't believe it's taken them this long to strip him of his knighthood.

[arthurthecat]

..... Hopefully now we should see a less smug look on his annoying face.

Anyway he fundamentally screwed up on the take over of ABN - significantly poor due diligence - he wasn't interested in doing the right thing for his shareholders or staff - it was all greed / ego related.

[MrBen]

If it were me I'd be relocating to sheep farm in New Zealand, growing a beard and changing my name to "Derek Smith". I would take up yoga and after downsizing would spend the rest of my net worth on charitable causes (anonymously).

[KidKruger]

Wow that's a bold pledge !

Easy to pledge things that are not yours and never will be, 'as if' they were yours.

Everyone suddenly seems to know how wrong (ex-)Sir-Fred was in running the bank, a lot of experts, who weren't posting a jot about him during his successful and golden period as he grew and merged banks, but, having read the papers suddenly have a heap of after-the-fact moral guidance to spew, very evangelic, like.

The guy took risks and he got knighted for his success and the good it did the country and banking industry. There's no man here who can honestly say he would have run the RBSG group any differently or 'better' than Fred Goodwin.

I'm sure theres plenty EDF posters working in banking or related positions who have seen the strategies adopted by banks (domestic and international) chasing ever decreasing margins in an increasingly difficult, complex and hostile sector, ungoverned by financial and Governmental authorities.

Who was Prime Minister at the time that regulations were failed to be derived and applied ?

Well sack him too eh ? And if it's been a problem of flawed governance let's strip the previous 30-40 years' ex-Prime-Ministers of their Lord/Ladyships too ?!

Knee-jerk pointless gesture in stripping Fred. Solves nowt, worse, allows other seniors who contributed (across the industry and Government) to step back and look on with disdain as if it was all done by one man.

Seems a really pathetic gesture, one that's all too easy to jump on and shout "yeah, right that'll teach him".

Farm ? New Zealand ?!! Huh ?

[Parkdrive]

The guy took risks and he got knighted for his success and the good it did the country and banking industry. There's no man here who can honestly say he would have run the RBSG group any differently or 'better' than Fred Goodwin

So risk takers should be rewarded for their contribution to the economy. Step forward Paddy Power, Betfred, Ladrokes, I dub thee collectively knights of the realm. But don't bank on it.

[Jah Lush]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The guy took risks and he got knighted for his

> success and the good it did the country and

> banking industry. There's no man here who can

> honestly say he would have run the RBSG group any

> differently or 'better' than Fred Goodwin.

It's easy to take risks with other peoples money.

[StraferJack]

"There's no man here who can honestly say he would have run the RBSG group any differently or 'better' than Fred Goodwin "

maybe not but we CAN point at other bankers and CEOs who ran their banks rather better than Fred did

It?s true there is a bit of an Owellian 2 minute hate thing going on at the moment, and it?s all a bit facile and simplistic to lay it at the door of one man.

But there were warnings about him before it all kicked off ? the FSA included

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/politics/rbs_fsa_report_bank_was_warned_about_fred_goodwin_8_years_ago_1_2005302

so to pretend he is no different and doesn?t deserve any criticism, at a time when (insert your own strawman argument here, the point being Fred will be OK but many less well off people are being vilified) I?m sure he will manage juuuust fine, so let?s not shed too many tears either

[Parkdrive]

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> KidKruger Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > The guy took risks and he got knighted for his

> > success and the good it did the country and

> > banking industry. There's no man here who can

> > honestly say he would have run the RBSG group

> any

> > differently or 'better' than Fred Goodwin.

>

> It's easy to take risks with other peoples money.

Its not often I agree with Jah, but he's on the money here. Pun intended

[Damian H]

Chippy Minton Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> How about overseeing an organisation that required

> the government to pump in ?20bn to not only save

> his business, but also prevent the collapse in

> confidence in the entire banking system?

>

> How about because he oversaw a company played a

> key role in the financial crisis of and helped

> trigger the worst recession in the UK since the

> second world war which imposed huge direct costs

> on British taxpayers and businesses?

>

> How about because he brought the honours system

> into disrepute?

Well, the last of your points is, I suggest, a subjective interpretation of the first two. Is there a criteria for bringing the honours system into disrepute? Let me look at the first two anyway.

The first two effectively redound to your opinion that he wasn't a very good business leader. Well, bear in mind that for many years Goodwin oversaw a remarkable growth and expansion of RBS and great shareholder returns. The collapse of RBS was brought about largely by some adventuring on their part but also macro-economic factrs that were a Perfect Storm created by others - some of whom I will name in this post. By virtue of the importance and influence of his position any mistakes that he did make were likely to have far-reaching implications - they weren't necessarily any worse than many other poor acquisitions or business mistakes - simply their scale was magnified by his position. So, do we strip honours from every business leader who has made mistakes?

Simply doing the tired old stone-throwing at bankers on the grounds that they are rich and get big bonuses and we are all jealous of that (and those who deny being jealous are the most jealous of all) is scapegoating at its worst. Sure, poor and reckless banking practices played a significant role in things - so did many other factors. If you want to put a few other folk in the dock how about the Labour government that built an economic house of cards that was guaranteed to collapse at the first breeze and the appalling denial, attempted reputational self-preservation and mismanagement that typified Gordon Brown's response to the economic crisis? I have friends in finance who had been saying for many years before the economic crisis that Gordon Brown's so-called 'Economic Miracle' was all smoke-and-mirrors and that as a result some type of catastrophe was inevitable at the first sign of adversity. I assume that you will be blocking any move to honour Brown or elevate him to the House of Lords? The cheeky b****rd was happy enough to have a crack at being head of the IMF!!! Shameless!!!

Let's add a few million more to the list of those indicted - many of the so-called 'victims. You may recall that much of the current global crisis (including the fortunes of ABM Amro)was triggered by the collapse of the 'sub-prime' market in the US. Who was responsible for that? Bankers designing absurdly complex products? Sure, to a degree. But what about the millions of 'Ordinary Joes' who lied through their teeth to get mortgages and cynically exploited a lax financial system to get hands on properties they knew they could not afford to pay for? What about them? I am sure each of them would say they are small fry - too insignificant to have had any impact. Yet they lied and falisifed declarations of income nonetheless, significantly contributing en masse to the collapse of the sub-prime market which was the catalyst for the global financial collapse. The only difference between them and Goodwin was the consequences of Goodwin's misjudgments were magnified by his position. And in Goodwin's case, by virtue of the nature of the organisation he ran, all his decisions and actions were out in the open and subject to public scrutiny and examination for years. Shareholders knew, politicians knew, regulators knew, the financial media and analysts knew, his fellow Board members knew, his professional peers knew...and they watched and said little and benefited when it was possible to benefit. WHen all goes to pot, of course, they are all indignant and outraged!

Stalin said something along the lines of "A man killed by a cart on a Moscow street is a tragedy, a milion dead in war is a statistic."

Let me rephrase that somewhat for our times - 'a million on low incomes who willfully lie to exploit the financial system are 'victims', a bank Chairman who commits no crimes but makes poor decisions is a villain and a pariah.'

Let's be clear about a few things. Yes - bankers behaved foolishly and irresponsibly in many cases. While all was going well the rank and-file who now turn on them were happy enough. Shareholders were happy to see their investments perform well (and before anyone says you aren't a shareholder so it doesn't apply to you - do you have a pension? If you do, there is a fair chance that some of your pension funds were invested in major financial institutions making you a de facto beneficiary of big banking practices) and many people who had no prospect of owning their own homes before were fiddling figures left, right and centre to fradulently get mortgages. The politicians were happily basking in the glow of their 'economic miracle' and creating unsustainable and fragile economic circumstances (the equivalent of building a glass tower in an earthquake zone) without asking too many questions and hoping they would be out of power and able to blame someone else once the ground shook.

When the brown stuff hit the proverbial fan, however, all these co-conspirators rushed for cover, claimed they were 'victims' or else falsely bristled with affected 'righteous indignation' and covered their own asses by sidling up alongside public opinion and casting themselves as the righteous avengers of the masses and noble conduits of public disgust. The likes of Goodwin, whose home and property, to say nothing of his reputation and character, have been attacked, is set up as an Aunt Sally to deflect attention from and salve the guilty consciences of those who have also created the catastrophe.

Make Goodwin accountable for what he is accountable for, certainly, but to scapegoat him as has been done is reprehensible in my opinion. This removal of his his knighthood is just another act of vindictiveness as a mass cognitive dissonance resolving act to try and divert scrutiny from the systemic failure and culpability in what has happened. To be honest, if I was Goodwin, I wouldn't want a knighthood from a society that is so fickle and dishonest to hand them out and then claw them back in such a capricious manner. I would love to see him go to another country, somewhere with a higher standard of living, take all his money, assets and knowledge and stick a finger up to the UK.

[El Pibe]

In fairness Lloyds came under a lot of criticism from the industry, financial media and politicans for running a fairly low risk model and not taking advantage of the boom times.

Their reward was to be pushed into bailing out a bunch of high risk banks, suffer from the toxic debt and witness their share price plummet.

My mate's mum, lifelong lloyds employee has more or less watched her retirement savings be wiped out as a result.

That said, everyone at the time said the ABN purchase was insane and his lack of due diligence beggared belief. It had become an ego match between him and John Varley, one I can't help feeling was a trap that Varley led him into to take him down a peg or two.

Agree with SJ that this two minute hate thing is a bit pathetic and that this was an act of shameless populism. The man's already a pariah and his reputation in tatters, this will make little difference.

[Huguenot]

Am I alone in thinking this all sounds deperately improbable?

A hate figure from yesteryear is hauled out of retirement in order to be stripped of a knighthood for doing what everybody else did?

I don't reckon so.

There's something else going on here. Criminal charges pending? Threatening to tak another high profile job? An oustanding grudge that took a while to mature for doing something he was told not to do?

[Jeremy]

I think the point KK is making is that he was knighted for his success, which (potentially) came about from taking risks... and now he's been stripped because it ultimately didn't work out. It's easy to say in hindsight that he screwed up, where were all these experts in 2004 when he was originally honoured?

[Chippy Minton]

Huguenot - you really need to get over yourself. These were all reasons given by the Honours Forfeiture Committee for the decision and this page gives some reasons where someone maybe be judged to have brought the system into disrepute http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/UKgovernment/Honoursawardsandmedals/TheUKhonourssystem/DG_181375

[El Pibe]

I was trying to make two points.

One that at least some people thought high risk strategy was unwise (Lloyds) but agreeing that they were pilloried for the decision, probbly by those jumping on the 'what were they thinking' bandwagon who doubtless lauded Fred's achievements at the time.

Hypocrites in 100% perfect hindsight shock basically.

[El Pibe]

Mind you I worked at ABN for many years and could have saved him the bother of bringing RBS to his knees if he'd just asked me.

It never made any money, had woeful internal structures and communications, astronomical operational costs and risk management that bordered on the fraudulent.

[Huguenot]

"Huguenot - you really need to get over yourself."

What? Why the personal attack Chippy? You wouldn't like it if I did it to you, and I'd probably do it better.

I think it's hopelessly naive to claim that this decision isn't heavily politicised.

Besides which, you're a man who has built his career on the assumption that anyone in power is out to swindle and decieve us, that the government cannot be trusted and that they're all snouts in the trough.

Now suddenly you've had a private epiphany and with a beatific smile you pronounce that everyone's telling the truth on this one? You expect anyone to believe that? Silly billy.

[BrandNewGuy]

Huguenot, I'm not sure there's any more to be read into this happening at this time than that the government is hoping the double whammy of Hester refusing his bonus and Fred being publicly horsewhipped will give enough fresh meat to the ravneous public so that they don't clamour for real change - and it will draw Labour's sting on the issue. Cynically, I fear the government's right...

[El Pibe]

Wot BrandNewGuy said

[Huguenot]

Sure, but why haul Goodwin out to face the lynch mob?

Why not strip Sir David Prosser, boss at Legal and General when they were found guilty of misselling mortgages and fined millions? That's verging on a criminal offence...

Why not Sir Callum McCarthy, who regined supreme at the FSA whilst malpractice was rife across the entire industry prior to the crash - the man who could have stopped Goodwin but didn't and instead endorsed him?

[El Pibe]

Because the lynch mob haven't read about them in the Sun, not do they have catchy nick names (although prosser is quite funny thinking about it).

Generally when producing scapegoats its standard practice to use as few as possible and avoid the ones that may be useful to you in future.

A scapegoat is always (necessarily) going to feel thrown to the wolves whilst muttering to themselves that they were only doing what everyone wanted them to (quite justifiably in Goodwin's case), it's in the nature of scapegoating.

*edited for paratheses, caps, the usual*