RBS handing out bonuses

[Road Pest]

Uhura_Fighter said:

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.

Yes but you are making the assumption that the people who are being paid bonuses are the ones who failed.

[Dupont666]

Uhura_Fighter said:

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.

how many times have people had to say and how many times do people not listen???

The people getting the bonuses are not the ones who failed?

People who failed (unless its a contractual bonus) get fk all.... those who head the billion pound desks and those attached to it get bonuses... they did not fail. If they are denied their bonus then they are going to leave...

so now you lose cause the people that bought the dodgy stock leave and then you tell all your successful people running the big desks that even though they made loads of money, they are not getting a bonus... so you lose again???

I suspect that those that got them are contractual and the ones making the money.

To say they fail as a banker and therefore get no money is not how it should be looked at if it wasnt them.

Are you really saying that this is the best thing for a government owed company? Sure get rid of the cause, but if you get rid of the money makers how are they going to pay anything back? With fairy dust?

[Uhura_Fighter]

Dupont666 said:

Uhura_Fighter said:

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.

how many times have people had to say and how many times do people not listen???

The people getting the bonuses are not the ones who failed?

People who failed (unless its a contractual bonus) get fk all.... those who head the billion pound desks and those attached to it get bonuses... they did not fail. If they are denied their bonus then they are going to leave...

so now you lose cause the people that bought the dodgy stock leave and then you tell all your successful people running the big desks that even though they made loads of money, they are not getting a bonus... so you lose again???

I suspect that those that got them are contractual and the ones making the money.

To say they fail as a banker and therefore get no money is not how it should be looked at if it wasnt them.

Are you really saying that this is the best thing for a government owed company? Sure get rid of the cause, but if you get rid of the money makers how are they going to pay anything back? With fairy dust?

I see the point you have made (and made well if I am honest) but why/how is France Sweden, Spain, Netherlands, Italy and Germany all pushing for a bonus cap and wasn't the G20 also pushing for a cap. Didn't Bank of America cut the bonuses?


I am not in banking (I am sure you can tell) and only see what the press say, maybe that is my problem as I do not know enough about the issue. (I will be the first to admit)

[Road Pest]

Assumption is the mother...

[rocksteadyeddie]

Dupont666 said:

how many times have people had to say and how many times do people not listen???

The people getting the bonuses are not the ones who failed?

People who failed (unless its a contractual bonus) get fk all.... those who head the billion pound desks and those attached to it get bonuses... they did not fail. If they are denied their bonus then they are going to leave...

so now you lose cause the people that bought the dodgy stock leave and then you tell all your successful people running the big desks that even though they made loads of money, they are not getting a bonus... so you lose again???

I suspect that those that got them are contractual and the ones making the money.

To say they fail as a banker and therefore get no money is not how it should be looked at if it wasnt them.

Are you really saying that this is the best thing for a government owed company? Sure get rid of the cause, but if you get rid of the money makers how are they going to pay anything back? With fairy dust?

This man ^^^^ talks sense and manages to avoid the ill-informed hysterical rants that fill the comment pages of too many of the supposedly intelligent newspapers.

Most (if not all) of the people who 'failed' have gone. Sadly they have taken their money with them. This is morally wrong, but legally unavoidable as no laws have been broken.

Some people have contractual bonuses but not many. The argument is far more about paying to retain good staff, who have made excellent profits for the bank in 2009 (and in many years before). Lots of banks will pay, so if RBS doesn't what do you think will happen? Most bonuses are paid defered for 3 years with a proportion in shares btw. This is no bad thing.

Most long-term employees of the banks have lost a lot of money as the value of their shareholding is now the square root of f-all. They had no more to do with the losses at RBS than I did with the Boxing day tsunami.

The risk with implementing bonus caps is that you change a lot of variable compensation (bonuses) into fixed compensation (salary). This has happened at a number of the big US banks (pay rises of 50-100%) and to my mind is wrong. Why do you want to increase your fixed costs when bonuses provide an excellent way of varying compensation in line with performance. To use a football analogy; who got the better deal with Michael Owen? Newcastle on £80k a week or Manchester Utd on pay-as-you play/score?

Most businesses at RBS remain highly profitable. They are highly profitable in large part because of the people that they employ. As a taxpayer I want to make sure that these people continue to work hard, make money, and stay in the employ of RBS, rather than it become a shell bank with average people, and a significantly lower chance of the taxpayer getting our money back.

Finally, all the major banks are always searching for, and recruiting, top quality talent. Feel free to apply if you can do a better job than those people who are currently employed there.

[theaxe]

rocksteadyeddie said:

Lots of sensible things...

Banking is one of the few things that the UK does well. Unfortunately we're in danger of wrecking it through short sighted policies based more on jealousy and anger than coherent thought. Once again I'm with Boris on this one.

Edited by theaxe on Monday 19th October 13:07

[Fittster]

theaxe said:

Banking is one of the few things that the UK does well. Unfortunately we're in danger of wrecking it through short sighted policies

We aren't doing it well if the industy has to be bailed out from time to time. It's not jealously to think how the industry regulation should change so the taxpayer is protected from any future crashes.

Would you advocate simply continuing with the old regulation for the industry?

[Dupont666]

Fittster said:

theaxe said:

Banking is one of the few things that the UK does well. Unfortunately we're in danger of wrecking it through short sighted policies

We aren't doing it well if the industy has to be bailed out from time to time. It's not jealously to think how the industry regulation should change so the taxpayer is protected from any future crashes.

Would you advocate simply continuing with the old regulation for the industry?

Again, you are back on the bailing out rather than the OMG its given us so much (£900 billion plus) and now it needs a helping hand as it had back lash on bad decisions made in USA and that filtered down... We need to protect this industry to keep it going and producing moneyfor the UK for years to come instead of keeping on the £22 billion was spent on it, blah, blah, blah....

The Government can do what it wants to the FSA, it can improve it and sort it out, after all the government set it up initially... just stop meddling with the banks...

If you want the tax payer to be protected, its a simple case of move the finance sector out of the UK, then you will be protected from its volatile influence... is that what you would like?

ITs a high risk sector that brings in the big bucks...

if you want the no bucks then let the investment banks go and stick with the mortgage banks, but dont quote the "we want our cake and eat it ideas"... did you complain in the boom years? Did you save for a rain day in those years or did you just grab them with 2 hands and enjoy them not thinking about what goes up must go down in the cycle of the shares?

[Spiritual_Beggar]

It's human nature to be greedy. It's the main reason why Communism doesn't work.

It is because of this 'greed' that I place more blame on Brown and his wonderful Tri-partide system for financial regulation.

The government, or more specifically Brown, has managed to sly away from the spotlight on this whole mess, but in my eyes they are just as implicite as the Greedy bankers (or should I say head bankers) that took the extrememly high risk options.

[fido]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

It's human nature to be greedy. It's the main reason why Communism doesn't work.

It is because of this 'greed' that I place more blame on Brown and his wonderful Tri-partide system for financial regulation.

The government, or more specifically Brown, has managed to sly away from the spotlight on this whole mess, but in my eyes they are just as implicite as the Greedy bankers (or should I say head bankers) that took the extrememly high risk options.

+1. I am actually not happy with the RBS payouts for a different reason. They've effectively been given a huge helping hand which the other non-propped up banks (one of which i work for) have not received - chatting with some ex-colleagues at RBS it appears that they've had a better deal in terms of number of redundancies, bonuses or even a Christmas party .. some of didn't get one. Of course, there's the loss of corporate image, but that doesn't matter a great deal when you're worried about meeting your mortgage payments (or next Porsche). Again, i think it was a political decision to assist RBS, HBOS - need i say more - but the clue has one eye. We need more regulation .. of politicians.

Edited by fido on Monday 19th October 13:53

[Fittster]

Dupont666 said:

Fittster said:

theaxe said:

Banking is one of the few things that the UK does well. Unfortunately we're in danger of wrecking it through short sighted policies

We aren't doing it well if the industy has to be bailed out from time to time. It's not jealously to think how the industry regulation should change so the taxpayer is protected from any future crashes.

Would you advocate simply continuing with the old regulation for the industry?

Again, you are back on the bailing out rather than the OMG its given us so much (£900 billion plus) and now it needs a helping hand as it had back lash on bad decisions made in USA and that filtered down... We need to protect this industry to keep it going and producing moneyfor the UK for years to come instead of keeping on the £22 billion was spent on it, blah, blah, blah....

The Government can do what it wants to the FSA, it can improve it and sort it out, after all the government set it up initially... just stop meddling with the banks...

If you want the tax payer to be protected, its a simple case of move the finance sector out of the UK, then you will be protected from its volatile influence... is that what you would like?

ITs a high risk sector that brings in the big bucks...

if you want the no bucks then let the investment banks go and stick with the mortgage banks, but dont quote the "we want our cake and eat it ideas"... did you complain in the boom years? Did you save for a rain day in those years or did you just grab them with 2 hands and enjoy them not thinking about what goes up must go down in the cycle of the shares?

Use a long enough time period and the ship building, mining, cloth weaving, etc industries have all contributed positively to the state but I don't see an argument that we should be subsidizing them.

If you think the state and the banks should be hugely interlink do you favour nationalising the remaing independent banks? It's possible that the government could run banks far better than the commercial sector as it can borrow at lower rates. I think the state should be seperate from the commercial sector, clearly you don't.

No idea why your talking about IT. The government doesn't get involved in them an neither should it.

Edited by Fittster on Monday 19th October 13:55

[Dupont666]

Fittster said:

Dupont666 said:

Fittster said:

theaxe said:

Banking is one of the few things that the UK does well. Unfortunately we're in danger of wrecking it through short sighted policies

We aren't doing it well if the industy has to be bailed out from time to time. It's not jealously to think how the industry regulation should change so the taxpayer is protected from any future crashes.

Would you advocate simply continuing with the old regulation for the industry?

Again, you are back on the bailing out rather than the OMG its given us so much (£900 billion plus) and now it needs a helping hand as it had back lash on bad decisions made in USA and that filtered down... We need to protect this industry to keep it going and producing moneyfor the UK for years to come instead of keeping on the £22 billion was spent on it, blah, blah, blah....

The Government can do what it wants to the FSA, it can improve it and sort it out, after all the government set it up initially... just stop meddling with the banks...

If you want the tax payer to be protected, its a simple case of move the finance sector out of the UK, then you will be protected from its volatile influence... is that what you would like?

ITs a high risk sector that brings in the big bucks...

if you want the no bucks then let the investment banks go and stick with the mortgage banks, but dont quote the "we want our cake and eat it ideas"... did you complain in the boom years? Did you save for a rain day in those years or did you just grab them with 2 hands and enjoy them not thinking about what goes up must go down in the cycle of the shares?

Use a long enough time period and the ship building, mining, cloth weaving, etc industries have all contributed positively to the state but I don't see an argument that they should be subsidizing them.

If you think the state and the banks should be hugely interlink do you favour nationalising the remaing independent banks? It's possible that the government could run banks far better than the commercial sector as it can borrow at lower rates. I think the state should be seperate from the commercial sector, clearly you don't.

No idea why your talking about IT. The government doesn't get involved in them an neither should it.

Was a typo... Its not ITs

Also its not being subsidised, the State has a share in them... what was in contention was the fact that people dont like the public waste of £22 billion ot keep them afloat at the moment and then they pay out bonuses.

Subsidising is like paying farmers not to farm, they dont do that with the banks as far as im aware, but give winky time...

In the end the banks that are partly state owned are going to be pumping a lot of money back in and will pay it all off, unless Winky destroys them in the spin of "bonuses should not be allowed" as a parting shot before he leaves government.

People just dwell on this small amount that the state has got away with paying for a large interest in the banks.

As mentioned earlier... if you dont like the bonuses, go after the head traders and bh to them... watch them leave and then see RBS fail big time as a bank which cant do anything cause joe public thnks it knows what is best for their money....

Shame they dont take such interest or give a st when it comes to what they rest of the public money is spent on... notice the MPs and everyone else like to keep the banks in the number one firing spot even though they are actually paying it back already??? Thats a lot better return than most of the st that the public money is used on...

Edited by Dupont666 on Monday 19th October 14:10

[bogwoppit]

The sad thing about all this is the consistent tarring of anyone with anything to do with finance with the same brush. Is Joe Public so stupid that he cannot tell the difference between winners and losers? I don't think so, and yet the media refuse to report the important details - who is getting a bonus and who is not, who is now unemployed etc etc. I am sure that the media pressure against bonuses is being felt within RBS/Lloyds - high performing staff in retail/bancassurance have lost incentives & bonuses and had targets hiked just so it "looks better" to the media.

Underlying all this however there is probably something fundamentally broken, however. Bonuses are normally a great form of performance-related pay. You make money, you get paid. The problem is that a bonus is paid for short term gain. Yes, over 10 years or whatever we are probably still in "net profit" despite the bailout, but you can easily argue it's not good for the economy as a whole to have such high fluctuation.

[Dupont666]

What people forget is that after a certain amount the bonuses are paid in shares and then the person getting the bonus has to stay a certain amount of time before realising all the money...

£5millon bonus maybe £500k cash and £4.5million in shares locked in for 3 years... not many are given out straight away...

[Fittster]

Dupont666 said:

Shame they dont take such interest or give a st when it comes to what they rest of the public money is spent on... notice the MPs and everyone else like to keep the banks in the number one firing spot even though they are actually paying it back already??? Thats a lot better return than most of the st that the public money is used on...

If you care to check my posting history you'll see I've called for the scrapping of the welfare state (including the NHS) and the restriction of UK armed forces to a border protection force. I'm certainly not in favour of government spending.

I'd like to see a far, far smaller state that doesn't interfer in the lives of private individuals or corporation. If organisations take risks that threaten there survival so be it.

[esselte]

Dupont666 said:

What people forget is that after a certain amount the bonuses are paid in shares and then the person getting the bonus has to stay a certain amount of time before realising all the money...

£5millon bonus maybe £500k cash and £4.5million in shares locked in for 3 years... not many are given out straight away...

Has that always been the case or is it new?

[Mojocvh]

Dupont666 said:

What people forget is that after a certain amount the bonuses are paid in shares and then the person getting the bonus has to stay a certain amount of time before realising all the money...

£5millon bonus maybe £500k cash and £4.5million in shares locked in for 3 years... not many are given out straight away...

Must be a REAL hardship that, a REAL hardship.

[Dupont666]

Fittster said:

Dupont666 said:

Shame they dont take such interest or give a st when it comes to what they rest of the public money is spent on... notice the MPs and everyone else like to keep the banks in the number one firing spot even though they are actually paying it back already??? Thats a lot better return than most of the st that the public money is used on...

If you care to check my posting history you'll see I've called for the scrapping of the welfare state (including the NHS) and the restriction of UK armed forces to a border protection force. I'm certainly not in favour of government spending.

I'd like to see a far, far smaller state that doesn't interfer in the lives of private individuals or corporation. If organisations take risks that threaten there survival so be it.

General opinion on joe public.... not aimed at you dude...

[Dupont666]

esselte said:

Dupont666 said:

What people forget is that after a certain amount the bonuses are paid in shares and then the person getting the bonus has to stay a certain amount of time before realising all the money...

£5millon bonus maybe £500k cash and £4.5million in shares locked in for 3 years... not many are given out straight away...

Has that always been the case or is it new?

Thats been going for a good few years if I remember rightly...

It stops them playing off banks against each other and taking the bonus in cash and resigning the same day, getting a guaranteed bonus in contract off another bank and moving there, then not needing to do anything as it is now guaranteed...

It basically was used to force a bit of loyalty into the traders...

[rocksteadyeddie]

esselte said:

Dupont666 said:

What people forget is that after a certain amount the bonuses are paid in shares and then the person getting the bonus has to stay a certain amount of time before realising all the money...

£5millon bonus maybe £500k cash and £4.5million in shares locked in for 3 years... not many are given out straight away...

Has that always been the case or is it new?

TBH it depends where you are. It varies from bank to bank. What is new is the idea that you get paid over a number of years and is subject to 'clawback' from the employer in the event that your business goes bang, or you personal conduct is in some way questionable.