Here we go again- RBS bonus in the news
Discussion
Saw this on BBC News this morning, and is it right that without the bad debts of the previous regime, RBS would have posted a nice juicy profit? Something like £6bn or so?
If that is the case, once they have worked the way through the bad debts, will the tax payer see any benefit from the profits at all seeing as it's our money that was used to keep the bank alive?
However, the headline on the graphic still read "RBS loses £3bn and pays £1bn in bonuses."
If that is the case, once they have worked the way through the bad debts, will the tax payer see any benefit from the profits at all seeing as it's our money that was used to keep the bank alive?
However, the headline on the graphic still read "RBS loses £3bn and pays £1bn in bonuses."
theboyfold said:
Saw this on BBC News this morning, and is it right that without the bad debts of the previous regime, RBS would have posted a nice juicy profit? Something like £6bn or so?
If that is the case, once they have worked the way through the bad debts, will the tax payer see any benefit from the profits at all seeing as it's our money that was used to keep the bank alive?
The point is if you are overdrawn at your bank and you pay money in do they let you keep that money? No, they knock that off against what is owed and you get what is left because they get first hit on your money.If that is the case, once they have worked the way through the bad debts, will the tax payer see any benefit from the profits at all seeing as it's our money that was used to keep the bank alive?
Why would bonuses take priority over returning money to whoever kept the business from hitting the rocks? When that is cleared then by all means pay what was agreed to whoever. If RBS had closed down they would have got nothing, no bonuses, no jobs, nothing.
johnfm said:
Radio 5 phone in soon to start on RBS bonuses starts at 9.
I expect today will be another day of indignant mouthbreathers comparing evil bankers to sweet, altruistic nurses.
Groundhog day.
I presume it will be the usual Victoria Derbyshire one sided affair? Y'know, let one side always get their point across and viciously interrupt/fade down anyone with the opposing point of view?I expect today will be another day of indignant mouthbreathers comparing evil bankers to sweet, altruistic nurses.
Groundhog day.
Who've they got controlling the fader? Gordon Brown?
Ribol said:
theboyfold said:
Saw this on BBC News this morning, and is it right that without the bad debts of the previous regime, RBS would have posted a nice juicy profit? Something like £6bn or so?
If that is the case, once they have worked the way through the bad debts, will the tax payer see any benefit from the profits at all seeing as it's our money that was used to keep the bank alive?
The point is if you are overdrawn at your bank and you pay money in do they let you keep that money? No, they knock that off against what is owed and you get what is left because they get first hit on your money.If that is the case, once they have worked the way through the bad debts, will the tax payer see any benefit from the profits at all seeing as it's our money that was used to keep the bank alive?
Why would bonuses take priority over returning money to whoever kept the business from hitting the rocks? When that is cleared then by all means pay what was agreed to whoever. If RBS had closed down they would have got nothing, no bonuses, no jobs, nothing.
So if I were to have 2 accounts with the bank, one over drawn and one in credit would I be expect to have interest paid on the account in credit? Yes I would.
Don't get me wrong, I don't honestly care either way what they get, whatever happens I have to wake up and pay my taxes and get on with it. What I don't think is fair is the way the media reports it at times.
Oh, and BTW, I'm not a banker and my wife works in the health services so I should be the one who is moaning!!
Ribol said:
theboyfold said:
Saw this on BBC News this morning, and is it right that without the bad debts of the previous regime, RBS would have posted a nice juicy profit? Something like £6bn or so?
If that is the case, once they have worked the way through the bad debts, will the tax payer see any benefit from the profits at all seeing as it's our money that was used to keep the bank alive?
The point is if you are overdrawn at your bank and you pay money in do they let you keep that money? No, they knock that off against what is owed and you get what is left because they get first hit on your money.If that is the case, once they have worked the way through the bad debts, will the tax payer see any benefit from the profits at all seeing as it's our money that was used to keep the bank alive?
Why would bonuses take priority over returning money to whoever kept the business from hitting the rocks? When that is cleared then by all means pay what was agreed to whoever. If RBS had closed down they would have got nothing, no bonuses, no jobs, nothing.
Ribol said:
Why would bonuses take priority over returning money to whoever kept the business from hitting the rocks? When that is cleared then by all means pay what was agreed to whoever. If RBS had closed down they would have got nothing, no bonuses, no jobs, nothing.
The theory is that you either:a) Don't pay bonuses, and end up an extra 10million down, because the profit-makers leave, or
b) Pay bonuses and bank a net profit from that specific department, although overall, the bank still records a loss.
BOR said:
Ribol said:
Why would bonuses take priority over returning money to whoever kept the business from hitting the rocks? When that is cleared then by all means pay what was agreed to whoever. If RBS had closed down they would have got nothing, no bonuses, no jobs, nothing.
The theory is that you either:a) Don't pay bonuses, and end up an extra 10million down, because the profit-makers leave, or
b) Pay bonuses and bank a net profit from that specific department, although overall, the bank still records a loss.
People step up and progress, eg. the world was due to end for Manchester United when Beckham left, enter Ronaldo, the world was due to end for Manchester United when Ronaldo left, enter Rooney ....................... life goes in in all walks of life, banking included.
Nobody is irreplaceable and at the risk of hurting some egos that includes bankers, even the ones that got us into this mess.
I don't disagree with you.
It seems to be a a somewhat complex situation. One theory occasionally touted, is that these payments aren't bonuses in the conventional sense, more that they are a form of "protection money" to ensure that the people with their finger on the buy/sell button, don't act malevolently against the bank - ie offer a million shares at below market price to a competitor.
It seems to be a a somewhat complex situation. One theory occasionally touted, is that these payments aren't bonuses in the conventional sense, more that they are a form of "protection money" to ensure that the people with their finger on the buy/sell button, don't act malevolently against the bank - ie offer a million shares at below market price to a competitor.
Ribol said:
Just one question, if RBS had been allowed to close down by the government, would the "investment" side that is doing well gone down with it?
As we all know and accept, if a business were to enter receivership / close down etc, the assets of the business would nominally be sold off to the highest bidder by the reciever / liquidator........... In the case of RBS I'd argue that all the profitable parts would be bought out by its competitors, whilst the loss making parts would be shut with losses mitigated using the proceeds of the asset sales.So no the profitable sides wouldn’t go down, they'd simply be absorbed into another business and all the none essential back room jobs that could go, would be lost.
BOR said:
I don't disagree with you.
It seems to be a a somewhat complex situation. One theory occasionally touted, is that these payments aren't bonuses in the conventional sense, more that they are a form of "protection money" to ensure that the people with their finger on the buy/sell button, don't act malevolently against the bank - ie offer a million shares at below market price to a competitor.
The tax payer is footing the bill for this, the government should make a statement explaining why all this should make sense.It seems to be a a somewhat complex situation. One theory occasionally touted, is that these payments aren't bonuses in the conventional sense, more that they are a form of "protection money" to ensure that the people with their finger on the buy/sell button, don't act malevolently against the bank - ie offer a million shares at below market price to a competitor.
If I were heading towards an election I would be making it very obvious to the public what is going on here. The fact they have made little effort to do so would suggest one of two things:
a) They fluked up the way they went about this - and deserve to be voted out.
b) They are too incompetant to see how this looks to the voting public - and deserve to be voted out.
Not all bad news then
Ribol said:
People step up and progress, eg. the world was due to end for Manchester United when Beckham left, enter Ronaldo, the world was due to end for Manchester United when Ronaldo left, enter Rooney .......................
And Ronaldo and Rooney are cheaper to employ than Beckham are they? No, they are being paid the market rate just like the RBS employees (who they want to keep) will be.chris_w said:
Ribol said:
People step up and progress, eg. the world was due to end for Manchester United when Beckham left, enter Ronaldo, the world was due to end for Manchester United when Ronaldo left, enter Rooney .......................
And Ronaldo and Rooney are cheaper to employ than Beckham are they? No, they are being paid the market rate just like the RBS employees (who they want to keep) will be.
k off??So boring and done to death and joe public dont get it so should just not tax their brains on it...
Its like me trying to explain blended distribution rates to the OH whilst drunk last night and reeling off the calculation and how to do it... she didnt even get it when I wrote it down... She had a hard time believing 3/8s was 37.5% when she said its as difficult as working out the % of fractions like 3/8s... She leaves finance and mathematics alone and doesnt pretend to understand them as she has no clue... Joe public should do the same...
If a department makes a loss they shouldnt get a bonus, one that does, should.... each department/desk is treated like a small company in its own right (think of it like that)... if its in the contract and thats how RBS employed them that way then tough they get paid... If you want to lose the people getting them out of debt and paying back the investment, then get rid of the bonus, they will only go somewhere that pays the bonus.
The old arguement that they caused the recession is not valid as the people that caused that have now left RBS and its a whole new crew.
See here for good old Fred:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/16/fre...
I suspect he will be blamed for making the scotish building cost 10 times the estimate now...
Have I covered everything?
Ribol said:
a) They fluked up the way they went about this - and deserve to be voted out.
b) They are too incompetant to see how this looks to the voting public - and deserve to be voted out.
I suspect ithas played out exactly as intended:b) They are too incompetant to see how this looks to the voting public - and deserve to be voted out.
Minister gets to publicly rant that RBS should not be paid bonuses, but in secret, contract was written to be vague enough to allow wriggle room for the bank to get away with payouts to retain staff.
We as voters are angry, but we don't really know where to direct that anger. The pin-striped banker is simply totemic of a system that somehow allows and promotes the extraction of such vast sums from society. The banker himself is almost powerless to influence whether bonuses are paid or not.
Ribol said:
People step up and progress, eg. the world was due to end for Manchester United when Beckham left, enter Ronaldo, the world was due to end for Manchester United when Ronaldo left, enter Rooney ....................... life goes in in all walks of life, banking included.
Yes, you are absolutely right. The loss of any given individual is not, in and of itself, a disaster. In not paying any bonuses what you are advocating is that anyone who can do leaves. To relate to your anology, you sell Robaldo, and Rooney, and Scholes, and Berbatov, and indeed all the first team, and half of the reserves. You can presumably see why that might be an issue. Manchester United would become a mid-table club, they would not be able to service the huge amount of debt on the blance sheet, and a steady spiral into administration would ensue. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff