Tories urge bank cash-bonus limit
Discussion
CMD party of small government:
"High Street banks should be banned from paying bonuses of more than £2,000 in cash, the Conservatives have said.
Shadow chancellor George Osborne argued that the banks should be allowed to give out large bonus payments only in the form of shares in the company.
The Tories claim this could free-up up to £20bn which could then be lent to businesses and consumers."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8325302.stm
I don't see how this will actually resolve moral hazard that we see in the banking sector currently, however it will generate some nice headlines and seems to be based on appealing to jealousy. For the record I'd support the reform put forward by Mervyn King.
"High Street banks should be banned from paying bonuses of more than £2,000 in cash, the Conservatives have said.
Shadow chancellor George Osborne argued that the banks should be allowed to give out large bonus payments only in the form of shares in the company.
The Tories claim this could free-up up to £20bn which could then be lent to businesses and consumers."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8325302.stm
I don't see how this will actually resolve moral hazard that we see in the banking sector currently, however it will generate some nice headlines and seems to be based on appealing to jealousy. For the record I'd support the reform put forward by Mervyn King.
Dunno, but when even George Soros is wading in to the debate, it makes you wonder: http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTR...
turbobloke said:
Looks far more like a populist move than one particularly redolent of big government.
By big government I was inferring about how a potential government is proposing to interfere with the running of private companies. There are probably better ways to regulate the operation of the industry without simply hitting renumberation policies.Fittster said:
turbobloke said:
Looks far more like a populist move than one particularly redolent of big government.
By big government I was inferring about how a potential government is proposing to interfere with the running of private companies. There are probably better ways to regulate the operation of the industry without simply hitting renumeration policies.Shay HTFC said:
Would you have complained if the Tories had gone all 'big government' and bailed out the banks? Probably not, so live with it.
If you look at the threads regarding the banking sector I was against bailing out the banks. If commercial enterprises make mistakes they can face the realities of capitalism.Edited by Shay HTFC on Monday 26th October 12:19
el stovey said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Isn't the point that it is indeed good for some industries but not for most banks, as has been shown over the last couple of years.Didn't bonus's encourage some bank(ers) to become involved in irresponsible lending and selling on of bad debt to other banks ?
el stovey said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Isn't the point that it is indeed good for some industries but not for most banks, as has been shown over the last couple of years.Didn't bonus's encourage some bank(ers) to become involved in irresponsible lending and selling on of bad debt to other banks ?
I'm personally not convinced that this top talent is as useful/important as it thinks it is. However it's for the banks and their shareholder to decide on how their staff should be rewarded.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Well there's your problem. You got paid your bonuses for doing really well at your job, except that you didn't, you did really s
t.Its like if your salesman was selling cars that looked all pretty on the outside, but underneath were f
ked up. Yes, he made the company profit, but he fked over everyone he sold a car to.Oh, thats not even the end of the story. His company went bust, nabbed a load of cash of the same customers he f
ked over, then paid themselves handsomely for the priviledge after they went on selling st cars again.Shay HTFC said:
Well there's your problem. You got paid your bonuses for doing really well at your job, except that you didn't, you did really st.
Its like if your salesman was selling cars that looked all pretty on the outside, but underneath were fked up. Yes, he made the company profit, but he fked over everyone he sold a car to.
Oh, thats not even the end of the story. His company went bust, nabbed a load of cash of the same customers he fked over, then paid themselves handsomely for the priviledge after they went on selling st cars again.
How did he?t.Its like if your salesman was selling cars that looked all pretty on the outside, but underneath were f
ked up. Yes, he made the company profit, but he fked over everyone he sold a car to.Oh, thats not even the end of the story. His company went bust, nabbed a load of cash of the same customers he f
ked over, then paid themselves handsomely for the priviledge after they went on selling st cars again.Your salesman didn't design or make the cars, his job was to sell them. If a car maker (or a bank) produces products that cause long-term hardships for their customers then is that the fault of the people who came up with the products, the salesman, the people who bought them knowing or at least suspecting that they were s
t/couldn't be afforded, or the regulators who sat back and watched?Maybe it was everyones fault?
Fittster said:
For the record I'd support the reform put forward by Mervyn King.
Why?http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/Allister-H...
yeah, sure, whatever.
The bottom line is that the taxpayer got done over and then had to pay off the people who did them over. And the people who act on behalf of these scam artists are getting awarded for it. You can polish that turd all day long, but it'll still be a steaming pile of st.
The bottom line is that the taxpayer got done over and then had to pay off the people who did them over. And the people who act on behalf of these scam artists are getting awarded for it. You can polish that turd all day long, but it'll still be a steaming pile of s
t.Fittster said:
el stovey said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Isn't the point that it is indeed good for some industries but not for most banks, as has been shown over the last couple of years.Didn't bonus's encourage some bank(ers) to become involved in irresponsible lending and selling on of bad debt to other banks ?
No. For a start, the 'city's finest' doesn't solely consist of forecasters. Forecasting is also not the sole purpose of Economics or economists by any means anyway. Many have continued to be profitable for their employers throughout all the mess, and (not least of all because of contractual obligations) deserve reward for it.
Fittster said:
I'm personally not convinced that this top talent is as useful/important as it thinks it is...
In your opinion? Is it important if it means taxpayers (as well as HMRC) are repaid swiftly?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff