RBS handing out bonuses

[crofty1984]

esselte said:

jimothy said:

glazbagun said:

Times said:

The average employee in its high-risk investment banking arm is likely to take home £240,000

That's the average!? How do I get me into high-risk investment? Buy GT-R's?

Actually it'll be a few very large ones, and thats it. Most of these bonuses will have been guaranteed in their contracts, so they can't be stopped.
But hey, if you want RBS to only employ useless people so the government doesn't get a good return on its investment then lets pay peanuts...

Oh yes that old chestnut,everyone knows that the more you pay for something the better it is..

Edited by esselte on Sunday 18th October 12:02

More the old chestnut of: Someone is very good at their job and can pick and choose where to go. One bank offers a salary of x, one offers a salary of y. All things being equal, where do you think he will take his skills and knowledge?

[esselte]

Marf said:

ineedagallardo said:

Marf said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

I suspect that in the fullness of time the taxpayer will turn a significant profit on the deal.

ditto, but until that happens it will be de riguer to bash the bankers.

rocksteadyeddie said:

We, the taxpayers, continue to own that stake (c.70%) and are therefore entitled to 70% of the profits from 2009

No, we wouldnt be, just like no other shareholder in a public company is directly entitled to a share of the net profits of a company in any other form than dividends.

Edited by Marf on Monday 19th October 16:54

So im correct in thinking that the way this bailout happened was in the form of the goverment purchasing shares?

If so how much did we pay per share?

Thats right, RBS issued shares to the government which now total c.70% of their total share capital. The gov't paid 65.5p per share, so until they hit that level, they will not have broken even on the investment.

Oh we're alright then 'cos Gordon won't tell everyone he's about to sell them all at once will he..

[johnfm]

rocksteadyeddie said:

Marf said:

No, we wouldnt be, just like no other shareholder in a public company is directly entitled to a share of the net profits of a company in any other form than dividends.

The key word is directly but we may be splitting hairs here.

Whether those profits are redistributed to shareholders (through a dividend) or retained / reinvested in the business (which would presumably be reflected in the share price) that value is still attributable to us as shareholders. Of course as majority shareholders we can theoretically tell management what to do.

I'm boring myself now so I assume everyone else is half asleep!

Do you really believe you are a shareholder because Gordon printed some paper money to prop up RBS' balance sheet?

[johnfm]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Eyup Tonker - long time no read...

have a good break?

[rocksteadyeddie]

johnfm said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

Marf said:

No, we wouldnt be, just like no other shareholder in a public company is directly entitled to a share of the net profits of a company in any other form than dividends.

The key word is directly but we may be splitting hairs here.

Whether those profits are redistributed to shareholders (through a dividend) or retained / reinvested in the business (which would presumably be reflected in the share price) that value is still attributable to us as shareholders. Of course as majority shareholders we can theoretically tell management what to do.

I'm boring myself now so I assume everyone else is half asleep!

Do you really believe you are a shareholder because Gordon printed some paper money to prop up RBS' balance sheet?

If, collectively, we don't own 70% - who does? On the basis that the assets of the state belong to the citizens of that state I fail to see how I can not be a shareholder (in common with every other citizen). Perhaps you could enlighten me as you appear to believe otherwise?

[rocksteadyeddie]

So who does own the 70% of RBS then if it's not the citizens of this country through UKFI?

FWIW I am a shareholder too.

Edited by rocksteadyeddie on Tuesday 20th October 09:01

[Dupont666]

I bet £5 that Winky has put himself down as beneficary (by mistake of course).

[Marf]

rocksteadyeddie said:

johnfm said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

Marf said:

No, we wouldnt be, just like no other shareholder in a public company is directly entitled to a share of the net profits of a company in any other form than dividends.

The key word is directly but we may be splitting hairs here.

Whether those profits are redistributed to shareholders (through a dividend) or retained / reinvested in the business (which would presumably be reflected in the share price) that value is still attributable to us as shareholders. Of course as majority shareholders we can theoretically tell management what to do.

I'm boring myself now so I assume everyone else is half asleep!

Do you really believe you are a shareholder because Gordon printed some paper money to prop up RBS' balance sheet?

If, collectively, we don't own 70% - who does? On the basis that the assets of the state belong to the citizens of that state I fail to see how I can not be a shareholder (in common with every other citizen). Perhaps you could enlighten me as you appear to believe otherwise?

Sell "your" shares then. Oh, wait, you can't.

[rocksteadyeddie]

Ownership in common does not convey the right to act individually - only in common with all others - so I can't sell the shares in common with all other citizens. Therefore as an inividual I can do nothing with my ownership, in much the same way as non-married couples will often own a property in common. One can do nothing without the consent of the other.

I am also getting out of my depth on legal distinctions so I may stop now before someone clever comes along

[fido]

rocksteadyeddie said:

If, collectively, we don't own 70% - who does? On the basis that the assets of the state belong to the citizens of that state I fail to see how I can not be a shareholder (in common with every other citizen). Perhaps you could enlighten me as you appear to believe otherwise?

In that case, you also collectively own 2 trillion or so of public liabilities ... think i'll stay out of this 'ownership' business.

Edited by fido on Tuesday 20th October 10:14

[rocksteadyeddie]

fido said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

If, collectively, we don't own 70% - who does? On the basis that the assets of the state belong to the citizens of that state I fail to see how I can not be a shareholder (in common with every other citizen). Perhaps you could enlighten me as you appear to believe otherwise?

In that case, you also collectively own 2 trillion or so of public liabilities ... think i'll stay out of this 'ownership' business.

Edited by fido on Tuesday 20th October 10:14

Sadly I, and we do. Thanks to this government...

Opting out is, also sadly, not an option.