Barclays is being flogged off for the sake of its internal tax abusers - Roger Jenkins and Bob Diamond - but only just.
As The Guardian has noted:
The extent of investor fury at Barclays' £7bn fundraising was demonstrated today when almost a quarter of shareholders failed to support the controversial plan.
At an extraordinary meeting called to endorse the fundraising, shareholders accused Barclays of a "clear and egregious" breach of their rights and accused the bank of forcing them into a game of Russian roulette as they were left with little choice but to allow Middle Eastern investors to take a 31% stake in the bank.
Even so, almost 15% voted against the fundraising while nearly 10% abstained. The bank needed 75% of its shareholders to back the plan and, as abstentions are not counted, it was passed by 85% approval - considerably lower than the 99% who backed the Royal Bank of Scotland cash call last week.
Staggering. And a shame it went through.
But I hope the Board is slaughtered when it comes to re-election next year. These people are not suitable to run a bank. They have abused trust all round. And they make money by abusing tax systems.
Candidly: this is a company we could now do without, so anti-social is its conduct.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard,
TR-UKs definition of “anti-social” conduct is odd.
Would you prefer a private firm such as Barclay’s feed at the public trough of taxpayer monies? Taking from the poor and giving to the rich is the usual hard-left mantra when the “fat cats” are bailed out by government. Not a very socialistic position for the hard-left to be in when calling for the very same to now be enforced.
Let’s be clear, the true reason the hard-left wants as many firms as possible feeding from the public trough of taxpayer monies is to get the hooks in while getting is good. The hard-left wants to use private firms taking public money as a play-thing with which to experiment the various snake-oil “social” programmes which has made the public-sector (governmentalism) so grand.
Candidly, it is those private firms taking public monies which can be done without. These private firms have mismanaged their affairs, failed, and been shown to be incompetent. Wait a minute, perhaps that is why the hard-left wants more and more of these types of private firms to wallow up to the public trough, these firms remind the hard-left of their most cherished thing in life, an also mismanaged, failed, and incompetent institution, government.
As for the scant 15% of Barclay’s shareholders who “revolted”, they are in the fortunate position of choosing whether to remain shareholders, if they do not like it they can sell their shares. When it comes to that other mismanaged, failed, and incompetent institution (government) it is rather difficult for the “shareholders” to express choice by with-holding their funds (taxes).
Georges
You show how out of touch you are by referring to the Hard Left.
Who on earth do you think they are? 99% of RBS shareholders who voted for government funds?
Richard
Richard,
What alternative did RBS shareholders have? No white knights on their horizon.
Georges
Get real. RBS had a white knight – and one they welcomed with open arms
Barclays was shafted and its shareholders were abused in the process. Is that the form of capitalism you espouse?
Richard
Richard,
Of course, outside of the hard left, most individuals do not see taxpayer funded hand-outs as white knights.
Barclay’s went to individuals in the market to raise capital. That is how it should be done (with the attendant good and bad).
Governmental “assistance” wiped out the shareholders of AIG (to date the only ones shafted and abused in that particular situation). However, when one becomes a shareholder the shaft is always a possibility. You place your bet, you take your chances.
No tears shed for shareholders, that is part of the game. Taxpayers on the other hand….
But Georges, isn’t shareholder equity now dead?
Hasn’t the concept lost any meaning when it is clear risk is now borne by the State?
Richard