RBS handing out bonuses

[CRA2Y]

[siiritup]

Government (me and you) give RBS 10 Billion,

RBS then rightly give this 10 Billion to their staff as bonuses because they deserve, dispite obviously doing a lousy job.

What's the problem? Not something unexpected or unsurprising - it's what everyone voted for!

[/stiritup]

[Oakey]

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

I love how they trot out that line, yet completely ignore how we got into this st to begin with.

[Dupont666]

Oakey said:

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

I love how they trot out that line, yet completely ignore how we got into this st to begin with.

I dont see the issue here.... RBS will not be doing bonuses next year unless its the guaranteed ones or they have agreed to do it in the contract to get some high flyer.

If it was one of you guys bonuses and the government stopped it even though you had bee guaranteed it, you would be going mental and getting the most expensive employment lawyer on for an easy win for breech of contract.

[Oakey]

Dupont666 said:

Oakey said:

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

I love how they trot out that line, yet completely ignore how we got into this st to begin with.

I dont see the issue here.... RBS will not be doing bonuses next year unless its the guaranteed ones or they have agreed to do it in the contract to get some high flyer.

If it was one of you guys bonuses and the government stopped it even though you had bee guaranteed it, you would be going mental and getting the most expensive employment lawyer on for an easy win for breech of contract.

I was referring to the mantra that if we don't pay them shed loads of money we'll only get crap workers who are st at the job.

[Dupont666]

Oakey said:

Dupont666 said:

Oakey said:

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

I love how they trot out that line, yet completely ignore how we got into this st to begin with.

I dont see the issue here.... RBS will not be doing bonuses next year unless its the guaranteed ones or they have agreed to do it in the contract to get some high flyer.

If it was one of you guys bonuses and the government stopped it even though you had bee guaranteed it, you would be going mental and getting the most expensive employment lawyer on for an easy win for breech of contract.

I was referring to the mantra that if we don't pay them shed loads of money we'll only get crap workers who are st at the job.

Its true... but not entirely....

you will not get the high flyers by not offering what the other banks can and will.... but you are not going to get the complete st too... you might only get someone who can make £800 million instead of £1 billion.... thats all.

The only issue that will now arise is that with RBS not being able to pay bonuses, people will demand high basic salary that RBS will have to pay to get some of the good people and there is no way round that.

[audidoody]

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...

Well they couldn't have employed people more useless than the ones who drove it into insolvency. It is unbelievable that this ruined organisation is now acting as if it had never put a foot wrong. It would be nice for RBS to repay the taxpayer before filling their own boots.

Edited by audidoody on Sunday 18th October 16:49

[audidoody]

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...

Well they couldn't have employed people more useless than the ones who drove it into insolvency. It is unbelievable that this ruined organisation is now acting as if it had never put a foot wrong. It would be nice for RBS to repay the taxpayer before filling their own boots.

Edited by audidoody on Sunday 18th October 17:08

[johnfm]

dxg said:

johnfm said:

Uhura_Fighter said:

Am I a major shareholder, have I voted on this? Don't we own the fking thing

What fking robbing tts fkers and s

You tell us. Are you a 'major shareholder'?

Surely you should know. I assume your level of shareholding will be on your share certificate, no?

I think the point he's making is that you're also a major shareholder in this company.

The point I am making is if he, or I, were a shareholder I would have some voting rights and a share certificate.

I think the fact is that UK Finance or similar are shareholders of some shares - the category of which I do not profess to know.

Either way, the mere fact that I pay tax doesn't, unfortunately, reall ymean I am a shareholder in any of the banks in which the government have poured treasury funds ON BEHALF OF the taxpayers.

[Road Pest]

Well the FSA review is out next week, which should be interesting. Thread here if anyone has any views on that.

http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0...

[Dupont666]

audidoody 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...

Well they couldn't have employed people more useless than the ones who drove it into insolvency. It is unbelievable that this ruined organisation is now acting as if it had never put a foot wrong. It would be nice for RBS to repay the taxpayer before filling their own boots.

Edited by audidoody on Sunday 18th October 17:08

They are contractually obliged to pay them before hand so give them a chance.

And if you are going to play it that way.... then why does the taxpayers fill out the massive public sector pension scandal every year to the tune of tens of billions of pounds that make the small amount that has been paid to keep the banks out of problems look like chicken feed....

At least the banks can and will pay it back at some stage, the public sector is just going to demand more and more.

[jimothy]

Dupont666 said:

audidoody 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...

Well they couldn't have employed people more useless than the ones who drove it into insolvency. It is unbelievable that this ruined organisation is now acting as if it had never put a foot wrong. It would be nice for RBS to repay the taxpayer before filling their own boots.

Edited by audidoody on Sunday 18th October 17:08

They are contractually obliged to pay them before hand so give them a chance.

And if you are going to play it that way.... then why does the taxpayers fill out the massive public sector pension scandal every year to the tune of tens of billions of pounds that make the small amount that has been paid to keep the banks out of problems look like chicken feed....

At least the banks can and will pay it back at some stage, the public sector is just going to demand more and more.

THe biggest mistake they made was buying ABN - the boards fault, not traders. The star traders will get the big bonuses because they bring in the money - if they didn't deliver or didn't have a history of delivering then they wouldn't get the contractual bonuses. All because the bank overall lost money does not mean some desks didn't make a fortune and should be rewarded to stop them leaving to go to another bank, leaving the bank with underperforming desks resulting in less money coming in and a loss in value of the taxpayers shares.

[Dupont666]

jimothy said:

Dupont666 said:

audidoody 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...

Well they couldn't have employed people more useless than the ones who drove it into insolvency. It is unbelievable that this ruined organisation is now acting as if it had never put a foot wrong. It would be nice for RBS to repay the taxpayer before filling their own boots.

Edited by audidoody on Sunday 18th October 17:08

They are contractually obliged to pay them before hand so give them a chance.

And if you are going to play it that way.... then why does the taxpayers fill out the massive public sector pension scandal every year to the tune of tens of billions of pounds that make the small amount that has been paid to keep the banks out of problems look like chicken feed....

At least the banks can and will pay it back at some stage, the public sector is just going to demand more and more.

THe biggest mistake they made was buying ABN - the boards fault, not traders. The star traders will get the big bonuses because they bring in the money - if they didn't deliver or didn't have a history of delivering then they wouldn't get the contractual bonuses. All because the bank overall lost money does not mean some desks didn't make a fortune and should be rewarded to stop them leaving to go to another bank, leaving the bank with underperforming desks resulting in less money coming in and a loss in value of the taxpayers shares.

Howdy doodee... Still enjoying the life in HSBC and Omega/Phoenix?

Im now in the dirty building opposite redesigning something called PFS with a new TRS system.

[Fittster]

jimothy said:

The star traders will get the big bonuses because they bring in the money - if they didn't deliver or didn't have a history of delivering then they wouldn't get the contractual bonuses.

If there is one lesson to be learnt from the last 12 months surely it's that you must pay for top talent. This talent simply takes bigger risks for bigger returns which normally works but when they cock-up (which they will from time to time) things tend to take a rather nasty turn.

In my opinion focusing on bonuses is read herring, the government should be looking at the structure of the banks and the regulation of the banking industry.

[loltolhurst]

legally could the gov have insisted all current contracts be changed when they bought the shares in the bank? i find the "oh its in their contract" a bit weak when most other companies have had to cut wages etc.

[turbobloke]

loltolhurst said:

legally could the gov have insisted all current contracts be changed when they bought the shares in the bank? i find the "oh its in their contract" a bit weak when most other companies have had to cut wages etc.

It would be useful to know how many of those cuts were truly unilateral and how many were agreements to save jobs in the longer term, and whether revised agreements no matter how unwilling or unwelcome were in the majority.

[Dupont666]

Fittster said:

jimothy said:

The star traders will get the big bonuses because they bring in the money - if they didn't deliver or didn't have a history of delivering then they wouldn't get the contractual bonuses.

If there is one lesson to be learnt from the last 12 months surely it's that you must pay for top talent. This talent simply takes bigger risks for bigger returns which normally works but when they cock-up (which they will from time to time) things tend to take a rather nasty turn.

In my opinion focusing on bonuses is read herring, the government should be looking at the structure of the banks and the regulation of the banking industry.

Funny that you mention that... the government setup the FSA governing body to do just that and regulate the banking industry, in fact it was the government ran body (the FSA in case you missed it) that went and labelled all the toxic product as triple A rated products (meaning low risk)....

The banks then go and buy it and then get into this st and the government and the FSA blame the banks for taking the risks and deflect all st that hits the fan away from themselves...

So if you really want to sort something out look at the government ran FSA who regulates the banking industry.

Oh but you probably didnt know about them as the government has kept all of that very quiet.

[Dupont666]

loltolhurst said:

legally could the gov have insisted all current contracts be changed when they bought the shares in the bank? i find the "oh its in their contract" a bit weak when most other companies have had to cut wages etc.

Ok people are spouting this lot over and over again and yet nothing is really said about the MPs and council members robbing the taxpayers of millions all in the "its in their contract and allowed stance".... yet the people who make up a large part of the economy get it in the neck when it goes wrong....


Well you know what... if you didnt want it to effect the economy so much then why did the government fk up everything else so that finance is literally the only thing bringing money in.... in the days of the boom everyone was happy, but it couldnt last for ever and then the government fk it all up and then their spin doctors blame the finance sector and the the sheep (joe public) believe every single word.

Read some of the stuff that is printed or ask what the media is producing rather than see the GS is giving £600k bonus per employee headlines and jumping on the bang wagon... Please..

[esselte]

Dupont666 said:

loltolhurst said:

legally could the gov have insisted all current contracts be changed when they bought the shares in the bank? i find the "oh its in their contract" a bit weak when most other companies have had to cut wages etc.

Ok people are spouting this lot over and over again and yet nothing is really said about the MPs and council members robbing the taxpayers of millions all in the "its in their contract and allowed stance".... yet the people who make up a large part of the economy get it in the neck when it goes wrong....

Don't use the failings of one lot of people to justify not criticising another...

[Fittster]

Dupont666 said:

Fittster said:

jimothy said:

The star traders will get the big bonuses because they bring in the money - if they didn't deliver or didn't have a history of delivering then they wouldn't get the contractual bonuses.

If there is one lesson to be learnt from the last 12 months surely it's that you must pay for top talent. This talent simply takes bigger risks for bigger returns which normally works but when they cock-up (which they will from time to time) things tend to take a rather nasty turn.

In my opinion focusing on bonuses is read herring, the government should be looking at the structure of the banks and the regulation of the banking industry.

Funny that you mention that... the government setup the FSA governing body to do just that and regulate the banking industry, in fact it was the government ran body (the FSA in case you missed it) that went and labelled all the toxic product as triple A rated products (meaning low risk)....

The banks then go and buy it and then get into this st and the government and the FSA blame the banks for taking the risks and deflect all st that hits the fan away from themselves...

So if you really want to sort something out look at the government ran FSA who regulates the banking industry.

Oh but you probably didnt know about them as the government has kept all of that very quiet.

The government could create new laws for the FSA to regulate, for example investment and retail banking must be split up, if you're to big to fail you're to big in the first place.

Considering the risks to the taxpayer the government took when bailing out the system it would be seem sensible to hold a independent inquiry into the way the banks are regulated.

[Marf]

Dupont666 said:

(the FSA in case you missed it) that went and labelled all the toxic product as triple A rated products (meaning low risk)....

I might be wrong here, but as far as I am aware, the FSA is a regulatory body, not a ratings agency.