The Lemon Fool

flyer61 wrote:My head hurts too!

This is the key to it all for me...

With revenues sliding amid ‘a gruelling environment for the fund management industry’, the chair warned that if LTL’s funds under management continued to fall it may be necessary to raise the firm’s long-standing salary and bonus cap, which limits pay to 26% of annual turnover.

He said this might be necessary to fund the new profit share scheme introduced earlier this year for the next generation of fund managers, such as James Bullock and Madeline Wright, who are positioned to succeed the founders when they retire.

The pay cap, along with an 80% dividend payout ratio, was designed to protect LTI shareholders since its launch in 2000. Raising it would require the support of 90% of LTL shareholders, which include chairman Train (below left), chief executive Lindsell (below right), the LTI trust and other directors and employees.


We are likely to get stiffed to ensure they keep their multi million pound packages....

Am I reading this right? The revenues are falling, so they are going to raise the pay cap? Shouldn't that be lower the pay cap because the company is not doing so well.?
OK I realise I might have totally understood the above state of affairs, but in what parallel universe does a company which has falling revenues increase its salaries or bonuses?

Arb.

You are Arb.

Though they may not raise their salaries they just won't go down as profits fall. It has the same effect though...less dividend for LTI.

Hope a few journalists are taking note.