RBS handing out bonuses

[g4ry13]

Don't forget, if RBS went under those guys who are "contractually obligated" to their fat bonuses would be out of a job. There was huge cuts in the city and a lot of those guys would be out the door signing on and looking elsehwere. Only the very best would be taken on by other banks whilst the majority (which are pretty average or worse) would be unemployed. So screw that "they're contractually obligated to their bonus" argument. They're all a bunch of monkeys anyway.

[fido]

esselte said:

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...

I don't think he is, but stating that in the public sector when you screw up badly you don't lose the benefits you're entitled to, so why should it be different in the private sector?

[Dupont666]

g4ry13 said:

Don't forget, if RBS went under those guys who are "contractually obligated" to their fat bonuses would be out of a job. There was huge cuts in the city and a lot of those guys would be out the door signing on and looking elsehwere. Only the very best would be taken on by other banks whilst the majority (which are pretty average or worse) would be unemployed. So screw that "they're contractually obligated to their bonus" argument. They're all a bunch of monkeys anyway.

They are all a bunch on intelligent monkeys who sorted their contracts to include the bonuses.

At least these guys are making a profit unlike most of the public sector who just hire more and more, then when it doesnt go their way they strike and yet they hardly ever show a profit, but that is beside the point.

Give it a year and Brown will sell it off for a cool billion to a chinese bank, to give them a foot hold in the UK for their start of world domination.

[esselte]

Dupont666 said:

At least these guys are making a profit ...

Yep,so much of a profit that it only took a few billions of public money to save their company...

Edited by esselte on Sunday 18th October 21:22

[jimothy]

Fittster said:

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.

Breaking up wouldn't work - they use retail deposits as cash in the system to lend against. How else do you think they pay interest on savings accounts, can afford to run branches/cash machines/free banking... If they split it up, banks like HSBC would have to shut down most of their investment arm and pay sod all for accounts in their retail arm.


And one point that no-one else has mentioned.

Bank bailouts £22B
Tas take from the finance sector in 2008 £127B

Damn those bankers taking much, much less from the government than they put in. You'd expect the same help if you were an individual who was made unemployed (dole), so why shouldn't successful business have the same.

[Dupont666]

esselte said:

Dupont666 said:

At least these guys are making a profit ...

Yep,so much of a profit that it only took a few billions of public money to save their company...

Edited by esselte on Sunday 18th October 21:22

unlike the billions that is paid into the public sector black hole and their pension scheme?

In fact the billions that were paid to the banks were nothing compared to what is spent on the public sector, but everyone is used to that and so doesnt care anymore and its expected.

[esselte]

Dupont666 said:

esselte said:

Dupont666 said:

At least these guys are making a profit ...

Yep,so much of a profit that it only took a few billions of public money to save their company...

Edited by esselte on Sunday 18th October 21:22

unlike the billions that is paid into the public sector black hole and their pension scheme?

In fact the billions that were paid to the banks were nothing compared to what is spent on the public sector, but everyone is used to that and so doesnt care anymore and its expected.

Both as bad as each other in my book...you seem to have an issue in admitting that the banks made a huge cock-up and needed the help of public money to rescue them,it's obvious that people,some of whom have lost their jobs/houses because of this are a bit peeved that what they see as the cause of their troubles is being rewarded with large bonuses...

[Fittster]

jimothy said:

Breaking up wouldn't work - they use retail deposits as cash in the system to lend against. How else do you think they pay interest on savings accounts, can afford to run branches/cash machines/free banking... If they split it up, banks like HSBC would have to shut down most of their investment arm and pay sod all for accounts in their retail arm.


And one point that no-one else has mentioned.

Bank bailouts £22B
Tas take from the finance sector in 2008 £127B

Damn those bankers taking much, much less from the government than they put in. You'd expect the same help if you were an individual who was made unemployed (dole), so why shouldn't successful business have the same.

Not all banks work in both the investment and retail markets, so it would be possible to split them up. In the US the Glass-Steagall Act introduced the separation of bank types according to their business (commercial and investment banking. This act was repealed in 1999 but there is no reason why a similar law couldn't be drafted in the UK.

HSBC wouldn't shutdown its investment bank, it would simply split up its operations into 2 legal enterties. The investment bank could act (within the law) as it wished but if it got its sums wrong it would be allowed to go bust as this wouldn't damage the wider economy.

The idea that things can continue just as they always have is incorrect, for a start the government couldn't afford another set of bailouts.

But the banks aren't successful businesses, if you have 10 good years then go bust your business isn't successful. Why shouldn't the banks face the same risks as other PLCs? There are risks involved with capitalism that the banks need to accept.

[Road Pest]

Does no one care that the FSA review is out this week!

[fido]

esselte said:

some of whom have lost their jobs/houses because of this are a bit peeved that what they see as the cause of their troubles is being rewarded with large bonuses...

no i'm just peeved at Labour trying to keep their election chances alive by diverting ALL the blame for the mess they've created onto the Banks - it's not just borrowing in the private sector but also i nthe public sector - can you see a link?! also some of those who have lost their houses were part of the credit/housing pyramid scheme were also part of the problem ..

Fittster said:

But the banks aren't successful businesses, if you have 10 good years then go bust your business isn't successful. Why shouldn't the banks face the same risks as other PLCs? There are risks involved with capitalism that the banks need to accept.

That's all fine, but then don't expect them to lend to people/companies they don't want to lend to instead of screaming "they are not lending enough!" as seems to be a common theme (along with bonuses) at the moment - which is how we got into this mess in the first place. Oh of course, they are also meant to provide a public service, and there lies the problem .. other PLCs aren't in the same situation.

Road Pest said:

Does no one care that the FSA review is out this week!

I'm reading about that at the moment - though i'm wondering if they, like this inept government, are also trying to justify their existence.

Edited by fido on Sunday 18th October 21:52

[Dupont666]

esselte said:

Dupont666 said:

esselte said:

Dupont666 said:

At least these guys are making a profit ...

Yep,so much of a profit that it only took a few billions of public money to save their company...

Edited by esselte on Sunday 18th October 21:22

unlike the billions that is paid into the public sector black hole and their pension scheme?

In fact the billions that were paid to the banks were nothing compared to what is spent on the public sector, but everyone is used to that and so doesnt care anymore and its expected.

Both as bad as each other in my book...you seem to have an issue in admitting that the banks made a huge cock-up and needed the help of public money to rescue them,it's obvious that people,some of whom have lost their jobs/houses because of this are a bit peeved that what they see as the cause of their troubles is being rewarded with large bonuses...

Public money that they gave the most amount to the government..... the bailout was less that 20% of what they put in the year before hand.

Those people who risked everything on the financial boom that the banks created were assuming that it would never end and fool on them for assuming so.

Those that truly lost out that were minding their own business have my condolences... but most were happy when they made the money off the boom and not thinking of the rainy day.... greedy people buying up all the houses, buying loads of shares, etc etc.... they also attributed to the bad mortgages by making the property so expensive that people who shouldnt have tried to buy did and then when it went pop they lost everything... bad financial decisions in my book...

[Road Pest]

fido said:

esselte said:

some of whom have lost their jobs/houses because of this are a bit peeved that what they see as the cause of their troubles is being rewarded with large bonuses...

no i'm just peeved at Labour trying to keep their election chances alive by diverting ALL the blame for the mess they've created onto the Banks - it's not just borrowing in the private sector but also i nthe public sector - can you see a link?! also some of those who have lost their houses were part of the credit/housing pyramid scheme were also part of the problem ..

Yes and the way Politicians were flipping second homes begs the question who was profiting when they should have been paying a bit more due dilligence?

[loltolhurst]

Dupont666 said:

esselte said:

Dupont666 said:

At least these guys are making a profit ...

Yep,so much of a profit that it only took a few billions of public money to save their company...

Edited by esselte on Sunday 18th October 21:22

unlike the billions that is paid into the public sector black hole and their pension scheme?

In fact the billions that were paid to the banks were nothing compared to what is spent on the public sector, but everyone is used to that and so doesnt care anymore and its expected.

i dont think anyone on here would disagree with you about the public sector but its not much of an argument to say well theyre just as bad so lets allow it?

[Fittster]

fido said:

Fittster said:

But the banks aren't successful businesses, if you have 10 good years then go bust your business isn't successful. Why shouldn't the banks face the same risks as other PLCs? There are risks involved with capitalism that the banks need to accept.

That's all fine, but then don't expect them to lend to people/companies they don't want to lend to instead of screaming "they are not lending enough!" as seems to be a common theme (along with bonuses) at the moment - which is how we got into this mess in the first place. Oh of course, they are also meant to provide a public service, and there lies the problem .. other PLCs aren't in the same situation.

As private companies they should be free to lend how they wish. I'm sure people/companies can find lenders today, just not at the rates they are used to but today we know the world is a risky and therefore more expensive place.

Are PLC banks a public service? An individual can get financial services via the state (post office) or a mutual society. Private companies can borrow just at a higher rates today, I'm not sure the state should subsidize/support PLCs in order to try and keep cheap credit available to other commercial organisations.

[Dupont666]

loltolhurst said:

Dupont666 said:

esselte said:

Dupont666 said:

At least these guys are making a profit ...

Yep,so much of a profit that it only took a few billions of public money to save their company...

Edited by esselte on Sunday 18th October 21:22

unlike the billions that is paid into the public sector black hole and their pension scheme?

In fact the billions that were paid to the banks were nothing compared to what is spent on the public sector, but everyone is used to that and so doesnt care anymore and its expected.

i dont think anyone on here would disagree with you about the public sector but its not much of an argument to say well theyre just as bad so lets allow it?

Im not saying that..... what im saying is how quick people are to forget the fact they gave the government probably close to a trillion pounds and now they have had issues (not everyone) and now need a payout of £22 billion.

Explain how that is different from someone asking for help after putitng in thousands into NI and tax and then needing some help and getting it.... this is just at a commercial level.

[Uhura_Fighter]

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.

I had posted it after being in the pub (and having one or two drinks when I got home)

It does piss me off as people at RBS only have a job due to the government spending our/my money on them and somehow some people will be getting a bonus. I do not think people should get a bonus till RBS is stable and the tax payer has been paid in full with "a little extra" on top.

Hasn't the US done some sort of cap on bonuses paid in the states?

[Dupont666]

Uhura_Fighter said:

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.

I had posted it after being in the pub (and having one or two drinks when I got home)

It does piss me off as people at RBS only have a job due to the government spending our/my money on them and somehow some people will be getting a bonus. I do not think people should get a bonus till RBS is stable and the tax payer has been paid in full with "a little extra" on top.

Hasn't the US done some sort of cap on bonuses paid in the states?

And yet the opposite is allowed of the Tube workers and the RM (plus its subsidiaries), they owe billions and are still allowed to do what the fk they want are all owned by the government and what is happening with them?

They all get pay rises above the rate of inflation and are paying contractors £500+ a day....

Should people not concentrate on those rather than the ones that will actually pay it back Plus loads on top?

[Road Pest]

fido said:

Road Pest said:

Does no one care that the FSA review is out this week!

I'm reading about that at the moment - though i'm wondering if they, like this inept government, are also trying to justify their existence.

Edited by fido on Sunday 18th October 21:52

That is my point when I started the other thread. It may have some major ramifications if they make some major proposals. What comes out in their review could be either catastrophic or good. I wouldn't put money on the latter.

It's pretty much hand in hand with taking the crutch away from the financial sector but seems to be ignored.

[ineedagallardo]

How much money did the goverment bail out RBS?

I read somewhere that the pot for bonuses was to the tune of £4 billion.

I also read a while back that one of the American banks had paid back a third of what they had initialy been bailed out by the US treasury.

Are RBS eventualy going to pay back any of the money given to them? As after all if they can afford £4 billion worth of bonuses they must have made a very tidy profit on top - if fact more than enough to pay back what they borrowed?

[Uhura_Fighter]

Dupont666 said:

And yet the opposite is allowed of the Tube workers and the RM (plus its subsidiaries), they owe billions and are still allowed to do what the fk they want are all owned by the government and what is happening with them?

They all get pay rises above the rate of inflation and are paying contractors £500+ a day....

Should people not concentrate on those rather than the ones that will actually pay it back Plus loads on top?

You are right, there is a lot of st going on regarding RM etc, perhaps you should start a thread on it.

I am not sure of the link you are trying to make with regard to some postman, tube workers and people who failed at RBS being paid bonuses.