A big thank you for your comments on my report last week about the juicy financial rewards enjoyed by many building society bosses: none more bountiful than those that have gone to Yorkshire chief executive Susan Allen.
As I revealed, Allen has found Yorkshire Building Society an enriching experience. Since joining in March 2023, the 58-year-old former Barclays executive has been awarded remuneration totalling £5,741,000 – a mix of pay, bonuses, benefits, and replacement awards for leaving the bank.
For sure, Ms Allen will have no problem surviving the recession coming our way courtesy of President Trump’s protectionism and Rachel Reeves’s crass handling of the economy (killing jobs through foisting larger National Insurance bills on employers, both large and small).
Few readers are impressed with building society largesse in the boardroom.
‘Greedy,’ says Alastair Williams, from Carmarthen.
‘Out of all proportion,’ adds 87-year-old Greta Ward, a regular contributor to my mailbox.
Have your say: All societies hold annual general meetings where customers can vote against (or approve) the directors’ remuneration
Admittedly, all societies hold annual general meetings (AGMs) where customers such as Greta and Alastair can vote against (or approve) the directors’ remuneration: by post or online, ahead of the meeting, or in person at the meeting itself.
Yet only a minority oppose it, with many members simply approving all the resolutions put forward by the board.
But Alastair believes societies should be doing more to make their AGMs more customer-centric. I agree with him.
He would like all of them (not just a handful) to broadcast their AGMs live online so that more customers can hear what the executives have to say for themselves on tricky issues, including bloated executive pay.
Members watching from home, Alastair says, should also be able to send online questions about any grumbles they may have so that they can be answered live.
They are good ideas which I think all building societies – large and small – could easily adopt. It wouldn’t cost the earth, and it would make the boards of these august organisations more accountable to their customers. After all, at the end of the day, it is the members (customers) who are the owners of the businesses that the boards oversee.
Certainly, a trawl through those 2024 society accounts published so far reveal issues that I believe deserve an airing at AGMs.
They shouldn’t be swept under the carpet.
To give but one example, if I was a member of Dorset-based Teachers I would want to challenge the board on the financial pickle that the society has now got itself into.
Its latest accounts indicate that a botched upgrade of its ‘current account management systems’ (now aborted) caused the society to rack up associated expenses of £2,619,000 in 2024 – £1,481,000 in the year before.
The impact on its bottom line has been significant. For 2024 it reported pre-tax losses of £1,872,000, compared to profits of £1,146,000 twelve months earlier.
Although Teachers is at pains to state it remains financially strong, the IT update has been nothing short of a corporate disaster.
Not surprisingly, chief executive Simon Beresford didn’t receive a bonus in 2024, resulting in his total financial package for the year falling from £277,000 to £252,000.
To have received one, I think, would have been an affront to the society’s 11,000 members. It also comes as no surprise that Mr Beresford is leaving after the society’s AGM on April 24 at the Allendale Centre in Wimborne, Dorset (9.30am start).
At the AGM, members should be told by the board how this IT upgrade went so horribly wrong, with costs suddenly spiralling out of control.
Also, a bit of mea culpa from the executives wouldn’t go amiss.
Members may also wish to quiz the boards of those societies (Leeds, Newcastle and Nottingham foremost among them) which have taken a financial hit from making good a chunk of the losses suffered by customers which they referred to a later-life planning company called Will Writing Company (WWC). It’s a complicated story, which I have written about at length in the past, but the demise of WWC (and then Philips Trust) has caused many society customers (a majority, elderly) great distress. For a minority, the pain continues.
It is a credit to societies caught up in this venomous spider’s web that they have stumped up money on a voluntary basis. But this generosity should not be used as an excuse to suppress questions about this episode at their AGMs. For the record, Leeds, Newcastle and Nottingham hold them on April 23, 24 and 28 respectively.
Farewell, Peter, the hero we all needed
Power couple: Peter and Jacquie Humphrey during their campaign to protect pension schemes from corporate failures
Over the years, I’ve had the privilege of meeting hundreds of wonderful readers.
Last weekend I met Sunderland supporter Gary Robinson at a football match who congratulated me on the help I had given him with his investments over the years. He also thanked me afterwards for the fact that my team – West Bromwich Albion – had gifted Sunderland three points.
Sadly, some readers I have known for years – and come to love – are no longer with us.
The latest to shuffle off this mortal coil is Peter Humphrey, from Hemel Hempstead, who had suffered a brain haemorrhage and died last Sunday.
Peter, aged 81, was a hero of mine. In the early 2000s he became involved in a super campaign to get justice for people, like him, who had lost a big chunk of company pension entitlement when their employer went bust.
At the time the law only protected company pensions in payment, not pensions yet to be drawn.
In Peter’s case, the Dexion defined benefit scheme that he belonged to had insufficient assets to meet all the pensions promised when it was wound up. It meant a savage cut in Peter’s future pension and that of his fellow workers.
Peter and his wife Jacquie, who were married for more than 60 years, didn’t sit on their hands and moan – that wasn’t their style. As part of Pensions Action Group (PAG) they sought justice for the thousands of people like Peter whose promised pension had been decimated by a combination of corporate failure and a poorly funded company scheme.
Members of PAG lobbied like fury, stripping off outside government buildings and party conference venues to convey how they had been stripped of their pensions. They also held all-night vigils outside No 10 Downing Street. Jacquie was invariably there to support Peter.
It worked because the Labour Government set up the Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) in 2005 to support workers like Peter who had lost a chunk of their future pension as a result of their scheme being wound up.
This was followed by the Pension Protection Fund for scheme wind-ups post 2005.
Although Peter and his PAG comrades always felt that the FAS short-changed them – and still argue about its short-comings today – I don’t believe it would have been set up without their passionate campaigning.
On Friday, Baroness Altmann, also instrumental in bringing about the FAS, said Peter and Jacquie fought on behalf of others (125,000 others!) ‘with grace, humour and kindness’.
Spot on. Rest in peace Peter. One mountain of an individual.