£20 Billion to promote lending whilst the Bonuses go on:

[Du1point8]

Randy Winkman said:

Soovy said:

roachcoach said:

Du1point8 said:

To use a bank as the sacrificial lamb and then blame them in the same breath... Then blame all bankers when the only banks that had severe issues being the ones that had the greatest mortgage exposure to the public... nice way to divert most of the blame.

Of course it is, the other biggest blind spot here is the greedy public - had they not borrowed like lunatics, we'd have been fine too. Takes two to cause a default situation. Clearly, the bankers wielding shotguns forcing us to take unaffordable loans bypassed my house. Or I was out at the time.

But don't you see, they made us borrow, they forced us to take out those big mortgages at 110% so that I could become a property millionaire like Sarah Beeney

The public are responsible for their own lives - bankers are responsible for banks. If Tescos goes bust, it's Tescos bosses fault, not the customers'. Why is it different for banks?

Which Tescos do you shop at that means if I buy something and then realise I don't want it, it goes out of date, I didn't pay the loan on the food I bought from them, I can dump it at the font door and tell them its their problem and they can deal with the cost?

After all I never really wanted to buy it as Im not responsible enough to be let out and feed/shop for myself.

[Soovy]

P-Jay said:

The day after, all my colleagues and I were herded into a crowed room to listen to an short speech via a speaker phone, where our new Chief Exec (second day in the job if I recall) gobbed off in management speak for about 90 seconds and then said, if you job title is X, Y, Z you no longer have a job - Classy. It was about 60% of the people in the room, he then gobbed off for another 45 mins telling us all how things would be so much better now these pointless roles had been removed - really enjoyed that as you can imagine.

My role and the role of everyone else who got their marching orders that day? Arranging loans and finance for Small to Medium sized business for RBS and its subsidiaries.

And, Steffan, this is the reality. There is ZERO job security in the City.

As I said, you know nothing.

[princeperch]

maybe Steffan went out for that beer after all

[Steffan]

Sonic said:

Steffan said:

Very revealing Soovy.

Can you just explain to me why the banks went bust if everything is so well regulated and secure?

Please.

Because the regs were flawed.

"Blame the game not the player."

I do not disagree with you. My question therefore is this:

If the Regulation, or lack of them, were responsible for the collapse of the Banks why are we paying bonuses to the Bankers?

And

Should the Regulators not be the primary concern if they are responsible for the market conditions?

[Steffan]

Soovy said:

P-Jay said:

The day after, all my colleagues and I were herded into a crowed room to listen to an short speech via a speaker phone, where our new Chief Exec (second day in the job if I recall) gobbed off in management speak for about 90 seconds and then said, if you job title is X, Y, Z you no longer have a job - Classy. It was about 60% of the people in the room, he then gobbed off for another 45 mins telling us all how things would be so much better now these pointless roles had been removed - really enjoyed that as you can imagine.

My role and the role of everyone else who got their marching orders that day? Arranging loans and finance for Small to Medium sized business for RBS and its subsidiaries.

And, Steffan, this is the reality. There is ZERO job security in the City.

As I said, you know nothing.

Not out for a beer.

Walking on the beach with a three year old and a five year old. Bliss in the sunshine back home now.

Soovy, I think you have the same problem as religious believers.

You believe that only believers can understand your principles which may well be true.

But not much of an economic argument.

There is a fundamental problem with almost zero lending to small businesses in the UK. What is your answer to that?

Ignore it? Blame the government. Pretend it will go away?

Mine is to find a way of facilitating the Banks to lend. The governments is to throw £20 Billion at it. Naturally of Taxpayers Money. Not their own.

What is yours?

[Du1point8]

Steffan said:

Sonic said:

Steffan said:

Very revealing Soovy.

Can you just explain to me why the banks went bust if everything is so well regulated and secure?

Please.

Because the regs were flawed.

"Blame the game not the player."

I do not disagree with you. My question therefore is this:

If the Regulation, or lack of them, were responsible for the collapse of the Banks why are we paying bonuses to the Bankers?

And

Should the Regulators not be the primary concern if they are responsible for the market conditions?

bonuses and regulation are not linked. Regulation is more linked to the government.

The last government deregulated the market a hell of a lot and partially couldn't keep their fingers out of dabbling/messing about with things the don't understand... but did they care, nope not with all the cash coming in.

Bankers get paid bonuses for a few reasons:

1) wanting to keep existing staff and not wanting to lose them.
2) Sometimes contractual.
3) If they make a profit then why not?

[Jackleman]

I get fed up with all this banker bashing, I heard the other day that for every £Million a bankers gets as a bonus the state receives £650K of it!! That seems like a like they are generating more than their fair share of revenue for this country compared to the many feckless layabout we have.

So, what we need to do is actually encourage more bonuses to help reduce the deficit.

[Du1point8]

Steffan said:

Soovy said:

P-Jay said:

The day after, all my colleagues and I were herded into a crowed room to listen to an short speech via a speaker phone, where our new Chief Exec (second day in the job if I recall) gobbed off in management speak for about 90 seconds and then said, if you job title is X, Y, Z you no longer have a job - Classy. It was about 60% of the people in the room, he then gobbed off for another 45 mins telling us all how things would be so much better now these pointless roles had been removed - really enjoyed that as you can imagine.

My role and the role of everyone else who got their marching orders that day? Arranging loans and finance for Small to Medium sized business for RBS and its subsidiaries.

And, Steffan, this is the reality. There is ZERO job security in the City.

As I said, you know nothing.

Not out for a beer.

Walking on the beach with a three year old and a five year old. Bliss in the sunshine back home now.

Soovy, I think you have the same problem as religious believers.

You believe that only believers can understand your principles which may well be true.

But not much of an economic argument.

There is a fundamental problem with almost zero lending to small businesses in the UK. What is your answer to that?

Ignore it? Blame the government. Pretend it will go away?

Mine is to find a way of facilitating the Banks to lend. The governments is to throw £20 Billion at it. Naturally of Taxpayers Money. Not their own.

What is yours?

Now you are going full circle and starting the whole lifecycle again...

Get the government to facilitate the banks to lend to people, only this instead of mortgages, its small businesses... Banks have already been blamed for the public for borrowing when they shouldn't as no one can take responsibility for their own choices or finance, what happens when it happens again with business?

Tell the banks yet again to be more careful and not to be so god damn reckless? Done it once and now you know why they have reduced lending so much.

However the best idea you can come up with is to tell them to do it? How about getting the government to underwrite the risk of the lending instead, so that the taxpayers pay if businesses default, then see how popular it is.

[munky]

Randy Winkman said:

Soovy said:

roachcoach said:

Du1point8 said:

To use a bank as the sacrificial lamb and then blame them in the same breath... Then blame all bankers when the only banks that had severe issues being the ones that had the greatest mortgage exposure to the public... nice way to divert most of the blame.

Of course it is, the other biggest blind spot here is the greedy public - had they not borrowed like lunatics, we'd have been fine too. Takes two to cause a default situation. Clearly, the bankers wielding shotguns forcing us to take unaffordable loans bypassed my house. Or I was out at the time.

But don't you see, they made us borrow, they forced us to take out those big mortgages at 110% so that I could become a property millionaire like Sarah Beeney

The public are responsible for their own lives - bankers are responsible for banks. If Tescos goes bust, it's Tescos bosses fault, not the customers'. Why is it different for banks?

As an example, banks can go "bust" purely because customers panic, through no obvious fault of the bosses. I've never heard of a run on a supermarket, where all the customers panic and return their shopping en masse for a refund. (I know, this wasn't the case with RBS or HBOS)

[Steffan]

Du1point8 said:

Steffan said:

Sonic said:

Steffan said:

Very revealing Soovy.

Can you just explain to me why the banks went bust if everything is so well regulated and secure?

Please.

Because the regs were flawed.

"Blame the game not the player."

I do not disagree with you. My question therefore is this:

If the Regulation, or lack of them, were responsible for the collapse of the Banks why are we paying bonuses to the Bankers?

And

Should the Regulators not be the primary concern if they are responsible for the market conditions?

bonuses and regulation are not linked. Regulation is more linked to the government.

The last government deregulated the market a hell of a lot and partially couldn't keep their fingers out of dabbling/messing about with things the don't understand... but did they care, nope not with all the cash coming in.

Bankers get paid bonuses for a few reasons:

1) wanting to keep existing staff and not wanting to lose them.
2) Sometimes contractual.
3) If they make a profit then why not?

I understand the reason you give.

However where in your calculation, do the individuals who received bonuses in lending in a way that ultimately led to the destruction of the Bank and complete insolvency, saved only by the unwilling, unasked Taxpayer bailing out the banks, contribute to the bail out of the business they ruined.

In the UK system there is no method for such redress.

The RBS Directors and senior staff could and should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Not a single one has been pursued.

Reckless trading over several years reduced an institution to complete penury. This was undoubtedly actionable. Too many snouts in the same trough IMO.

What price bonuses, remuneration packages, and gilt edge pensions then?

I find it fascinating that the Bankers blame the Regulators and the Regulators blame the Bankers.

Jobs for all the boys, I am sorry to say.

[Newc]

Steffan said:

Sonic said:

Steffan said:

Very revealing Soovy.

Can you just explain to me why the banks went bust if everything is so well regulated and secure?

Please.

Because the regs were flawed.

"Blame the game not the player."

I do not disagree with you. My question therefore is this:

If the Regulation, or lack of them, were responsible for the collapse of the Banks why are we paying bonuses to the Bankers?

You do understand, don't you (rhetorical question, as you clearly don't), that the organisations paying %age-P+L based bonuses are in general not the organisations under political pressure to increase industrial lending ?

[Du1point8]

your mistaking a lot of retail and investment in your statements...

The banks almost going under are mainly retail/corporate, not massively investment...

Those that caused this don't work in the city and can't really get a job in finance anymore, quite a few misellers of mortgages were brought to justice.

FSA blames the banks? You might want to read round the subject more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2073715/...

Labour basically removed all regulation, its not to say that the bankers did not take advantage when trading, but they are not due the majority of the blame by a long way.

As pointed out a few times... Many of the banks that are giving bonuses are not those that are under government control and are in profit... so why not? Private sector company can do as they like with rewarding staff.

Edited by Du1point8 on Tuesday 20th March 18:30

[Steffan]

Newc said:

Steffan said:

Sonic said:

Steffan said:

Very revealing Soovy.

Can you just explain to me why the banks went bust if everything is so well regulated and secure?

Please.

Because the regs were flawed.

"Blame the game not the player."

I do not disagree with you. My question therefore is this:

If the Regulation, or lack of them, were responsible for the collapse of the Banks why are we paying bonuses to the Bankers?

You do understand, don't you (rhetorical question, as you clearly don't), that the organisations paying %age-P+L based bonuses are in general not the organisations under political pressure to increase industrial lending ?

In two words? So what?

My concern is, that it cannot be right that the only way the government can achieve lending within the UK to small businesses is to do it itself, or even worse to take all the risk and let the Banks skim off the top.

It is the results that worry me. The government cannot persuade that banks to commit this lending despite months of trying.

We are a small island and there needs to be unity of purpose at political and Banking level in policy agreement nationally. Clearly there is not and the result is a mess. The relative merits of the different levels of banking are unimportant.

The absolute lack of output in lending terms is the key.

How do you suggest we address it?

[roachcoach]

Has anyone actually checked there's a market for good lending?

Lots of folks are debt averse at the moment, if there's no market for *responsible* lending, do we still blame banks?

[Du1point8]

And what did most of us in finance say anything up to 2 years ago.

Don't wish for which you don't want... Joe public and government absolutely bked the banks for doing what was asked of them.

So what a surprise it is, were now if you can't tick all the boxes on their loan forms that they don't give you anything, especially after the 4 years of bad publicity that the papers, joe public, etc have been doing.

You asked for it and you got it... a lot tighter constraints on all lending so that the bust days can't put the banks in jeopardy again, now you complain about not getting a loan now.

Really... You were warned about this, but you wouldn't listen, so now live with it!!

[Newc]

Steffan said:

Newc said:

Steffan said:

Sonic said:

Steffan said:

Very revealing Soovy.

Can you just explain to me why the banks went bust if everything is so well regulated and secure?

Please.

Because the regs were flawed.

"Blame the game not the player."

I do not disagree with you. My question therefore is this:

If the Regulation, or lack of them, were responsible for the collapse of the Banks why are we paying bonuses to the Bankers?

You do understand, don't you (rhetorical question, as you clearly don't), that the organisations paying %age-P+L based bonuses are in general not the organisations under political pressure to increase industrial lending ?

In two words? So what?

Well, you started it.

Steffan said:

My concern is, that it cannot be right that the only way the government can achieve lending within the UK to small businesses is to do it itself, or even worse to take all the risk and let the Banks skim off the top.

It is the results that worry me. The government cannot persuade that banks to commit this lending despite months of trying.

We are a small island and there needs to be unity of purpose at political and Banking level in policy agreement nationally. Clearly there is not and the result is a mess. The relative merits of the different levels of banking are unimportant.

The absolute lack of output in lending terms is the key.

How do you suggest we address it?

Right, not necessarily a bad question, but what does it have to do with bonuses ?

Do you think that the continual media and political focus on the contractual arrangements of organisations that have nothing to do with SME lending is a useful expenditure of time and effort ?

Do you think that it is perhaps a convenient political distraction from the dishonesty of the political requirement simultaneously to increase lending and to increase balance sheet reserves and not to raise the direct fees of banking services ?

Would you and the Guardian perhaps be better off addressing the question of how to reduce the costs of doing business for those SMEs which might reduce their need for borrowing in the first place ?

[R11ysf]

Soovy said:

And, Steffan, this is the reality. There is ZERO job security in the City.

As I said, you know nothing.

Soovy, ignoring all the other bks he's been talking the compensation for the lack of job security in the city is more than enough. At a base level you can get 60k + small bonus for doing work less complicated than I was doing as a 17 year old student. If you manage to stick around 8-10 years then, presuming you aren't a total muppet, then you are in a position that other people will work 25+ years for.

So although most of what he's written is uninformed bks, let's not pretend to be hard done by!!

[Du1point8]

R11ysf said:

Soovy said:

And, Steffan, this is the reality. There is ZERO job security in the City.

As I said, you know nothing.

Soovy, ignoring all the other bks he's been talking the compensation for the lack of job security in the city is more than enough. At a base level you can get 60k + small bonus for doing work less complicated than I was doing as a 17 year old student. If you manage to stick around 8-10 years then, presuming you aren't a total muppet, then you are in a position that other people will work 25+ years for.

So although most of what he's written is uninformed bks, let's not pretend to be hard done by!!

Base level is not 60k, quite a few people I know are on less than 40k whilst working for the banks. Yes you can get a base of 6 figures if you work hard, take risks in your career by moving round the banks, but of the teams I have worked in maybe 25% get 60k and above.

In addition those jobs are a little more technical than what a student can do.

[crankedup]

When these threads come along I like to watch Charles Fergusons 'Storyville - Inside Job' for a healthy dollop of reality regarding the banking crisis and just how it led to an American and European financial meltdown. A hugely complex interwoven web succinctly cut through to expose the truth, a must see for any one who has yet to view. I would imagine that all those that participate in here have seen this documentary several times over.

Edited by crankedup on Tuesday 20th March 19:44

[R11ysf]

Sorry mate, really depends on what they are doing and at what bank but I know guys who have gone temping in middle office roles getting £90-£100k. Changes jobs every 12-18 months but that's that. He could get a full time role at £60k and whether you want to believe it or not middle office rec is no more difficult that the accounts rec I was doing for Deloitte and Touche at 17. Piss easy work, very well rewarded.

As for a 6 figure base you don't need to take risks and move banks. All the guys I know trading are all on 6 figure as a base and none of them have moved. Also the upside is many many multiples of that. Compare that to a normal person.

As I said, most people know sod all about the city and spout st all the time but let's not pretend we are hard done by, we trade off job security for an upside that is unimaginable elsewhere (short of starting your own company)