Reply to: Morgan Stanley raises bonus pot to £10bn... with just $4.7 bln profit!

[d000hg]

All shareholders idiot - director paying himself massive bonus instead of paying out via dividends that reach all shareholders (including director).

If you say so. I'm sure they don't care at all what their shares are worth.

[Jog On]

Two words: fiduciary duty

So has said director broken any laws or failed in said "fiduciary duty"?

What's the "black and white" in this case? - not just what you deem to be right/wrong

[AtW]

No. You said it's their duty to act in interest of shareholders.

All shareholders idiot - director paying himself massive bonus instead of paying out via dividends that reach all shareholders (including director).

Staff costs at banks are totally out of control - directors should be getting bonuses for NOT having them out of control, the fact that they pay out so much means directors have failed in their job.

[d000hg]

You think if director owns over 50% can just pay himself all money as bonus and ignore minority shareholders?

No. You said it's their duty to act in interest of shareholders. If they are large shareholders, they WANT the shares to do well. In fact a director SHOULD have a large value of shares so they are motivated to do well.

[AtW]

The director can to WTF he/she wants.

Two words: fiduciary duty

[Jog On]

You think if director owns over 50% can just pay himself all money as bonus and ignore minority shareholders?

The director can to WTF he/she wants. As can the shareholders. Is anyone forcing them to hold on to the shares?

You're harping on about this as if it were tax money..

[AtW]

You realise directors are often large shareholders, aren't they?

You think if director owns over 50% can just pay himself all money as bonus and ignore minority shareholders?

[Mich the Tester]

You realise directors are often large shareholders, aren't they?

Yes, it´s all those big lunches that do it.

[d000hg]

Company directors are OBLIGED to act in the interests of SHAREHOLDERS - by allowing staff to help themselves to money they effectively fail in their fiduciary duty.

You realise directors are often large shareholders, aren't they?

[Jog On]

Company directors are OBLIGED to act in the interests of SHAREHOLDERS - by allowing staff to help themselves to money they effectively fail in their fiduciary duty.

(superglue + twitter) is your friend

[AtW]

There's no need to issue a dividend at all, is there? A company can decide whether to do this, or let investors gain wealth through the share price rising instead?

Company directors are OBLIGED to act in the interests of SHAREHOLDERS - by allowing staff to help themselves to money they effectively fail in their fiduciary duty.

[Jog On]

Have you tried super glueing yourself to their office windows?

I'm sure you could find some students to go and join you - you can all chant "We want our money back!" at them as well.

Go on - get tweeting!

[Churchill]

There's no need to issue a dividend at all, is there? A company can decide whether to do this, or let investors gain wealth through the share price rising instead?

Asbo-lutely. It's just AtW demonstrating his lack of commerce. Mind you, he is a(n ex-)commie.

[d000hg]

If it wasn't for the people awarded the bonuses then the shareholders would get **** all.

It's quite feasible for staff to achieve their (agreed) bonus and the shareholders not receive a dividend.

AtW, grow up and stop whinging like a (jealous) tart.

There's no need to issue a dividend at all, is there? A company can decide whether to do this, or let investors gain wealth through the share price rising instead?

[DimPrawn]

They can pay what they want when they want to whoever they want.

Getting pretty tired of the Yosser Hughes & Dick Turpin love child types constantly bleating about banks wage structures.

Gisa job.