Kent Reliance Building Society Executives' Remuneration

I have a mortgage with Kent Reliance Building Society. It's fine, meets my requirements and I'm very happy to have it. This makes me a member of the Society and entitles me to vote at their Annual General Meeting. But I just received voting papers and a summary of their 2007 Financial Performance. Whilst Income from Interest was £13.6m (up 12% from 2006) expenses were £8.3m, up 13% from 2006! Now, as a customer, I'm pleased that, as a mutual society, profit is not their first priority. But surely, efficient running should be a priority? That will help keep customers' costs to a minimum. (Incidentally, Assets Employed rose from £1.6B to £2.1B. Was this the metric which justifies a claim of improved year-on-year performance? If so, how does this benefit the Society's Members?)

Now, I'm not saying 'sack the management team' - within the context of the difficult financial markets, this may be a satisfactory performance. But I can't see any way in which it can be defined as impressive. Yet, if the Directors' Remuneration Report is approved by members, CEO Mike Lazenby will see his salary and fees increase by 32% from £266k to £350k and Deputy CEO Rob Procter and Financial Director Bob Scruton will see theirs rise by 33% from £166k to £220k. Regarding bonuses, Mr. Lazenby's will rise by a remarkable 131% from £16k to £37k whilst Messrs. Procter & Scruton will have to struggle through with a mere 110% increase from £10k to £22k. Finally, Messrs. Procter & Scruton's pension contributions will increase by 45% from £20k to £29k, Mr. Lazenby enjoying a more restrained 20% increase from £38k to £46k.

Now don't expect a diatribe from me on the subject of Directors' salaries being too high. No, I fully support anyone who delivers real value to shareholders or members receiving a salary that reflects the contribution they make to an organization, but I also believe that Boards Of Directors should reduce remuneration for unimpressive performance, and in situations where management significantly underperforms, dismiss for underperformance without compensation. After all, we're constantly being told that one reason why top executives receive high salaries is to compensate for the risk of dismissal. So why are the Kent Reliance Building Society's Board Of Directors proposing such significant increases in executive compensation packages?

If, next year, the KRBS can demonstrate a 32% increase in performance, I'll be the first to approve a 32% increase in Mr. Lazenby's salary, and I'll do it with a smile on my face. But, until that situation arises, I think the Directors need to come back to their Members with a more realistic remuneration proposal.

The Perfect Holiday Gift?

Spinal Tap Lives!

Spinal Tap lives and its name is Diamond Head. I just saw my loudest ever metal band - these guys Really went up to eleven! Their sound was tangible as well as audible! But I couldn't help laughing at them as they rolled out every rock cliche in the book. Just add an 18" model of Stonehenge and a dancing dwarf and the picture would be complete. And, as they asked, before performing the song of the same name, "Am I Evil?" I had to respond "Sure. Shrink-wrapped evil to go with that corporate cookie-cutter rebellion you're hawking!" I have to admit they were musically very good, but, as Huey Lewis said in 'Back To The Future', "too darn' loud". (Old fogey.)

But the band whom DH were supporting and whom I went to the Hammersmith Apollo (nee Odeon), that veritable temple of UK rock, to see were the exhumed remains of Thin Lizzy, namely John Sykes and Scott Gorham (who both played with Phil Lynott), Tommy Aldridge (who replaced original drummer Brian Downey in '97) and Francesco DiCosmo (who seems to have been a session player until recently) and I can certainly say they didn't disappoint. Much. Sykes gamely stepped up to the plate to give Lynott's vocals a run for their money in a set that contained the usual supects, including Jailbreak, Rosalie, Waiting For An Alibi and The Boys Are Back In Town, whilst the instrumentals were, to my relatively unfamiliar ear, as good as the originals (Aldridge taking us back to the heyday of heavy rock with a fine skilled, athletic drum solo, though one not quite in Carl Palmer's league!) But here I must mention my one disappointment - they didn't perform Whisky In The Jar. Why not? Was it in deference to the late Lynott? Surely not, as Sykes was willing to risk dancing on the grave of a rock legend by attempting the other classics. But, it would be churlish to focus too heavily on this omission. I would be happy to go to see them again (provided they guaranteed to serve a large shot of 'Whisky' on the night!) 7/10.