It's not much - for him, at least - but it's something. When you look at the more than $30 billion in taxpayer money required to rescue the banking house of cards Goodwin created, it's no wonder many are still upset with what the government probably thinks is a good deal. This is yet another example of why Obama's "say on pay" is a waste of time and energy. This RBS example has been one of the worst, most extreme cases of executive abuse in the UK. It's had the full focus of the government who has been desperate for a win and even after all of that attention on *one* case, this is all they can get.
If Obama or any other government wants to get serious about "say on pay" they should forget about non-binding votes. Give investors normal votes and start from there. That won't be perfect either but it's much significant than a non-binding vote. The Guardian:
Former Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin has bowed to public anger over the size of his pension by agreeing to give up more than £200,000 a year of the controversial reward.
Goodwin, who left the bank in October when RBS had to be bailed out with £20bn of taxpayers' money, was originally awarded £703,000 a year when the bank was rescued by the government last year.
Despite coming under strong pressure to give up some of his retirement benefits, Goodwin defied the outrage over what was seen as a reward for failure, insisting he was entitled to take early retirement under an agreement with the previous RBS board.
RBS said he would be paid £342,500 a year, down from the £555,000 set in February after he took out an estimated £2.7m tax-free lump sum.
Main & gay blog