Why the difference in reporting between RBS and Lloyds?

[Sway]

Just seen that Lloyds have posted a significantly higher loss in their annual report, and a paying relatively more in bonuses in comparison to the scale of loss yet the news commentary carried a completely different tone.

Yesterday there was significant comment regarding bonuses, today the coverage was almost apologetic regarding the reasons for the loss 'its all due to PPI', and mentioned that bonuses were 30% lower than last year. Came across a lot more positive in tone.

Am I reading too much into it, or should the scale of opprobrium be far greater on Lloyds considering their far worse performance?

[roachcoach]

But their loss was almost entirely due to PPI provisioning - which means its a known quantity and without that, would have probably been alright(ish).

In other words probably expected to do better (i.e. make money) next year, external explosions not withstanding. Also, wasn't it better than expected?

They're also into the government for a much lower amount.


Just a guess, I may be wrong.

ETA: Also that they are clawing back bonuses from the head people due to the PPI stuff, however symbolic, perhaps is making a difference in the court of public opinion?


ETA 2: I see the been says the average bonus is £3900, the folks I know there (not investment types) typically are hard pressed to get much over 10% of annual salary and they aren't all that well paid. Massive skew at the top end dragging that number up.

Edited by roachcoach on Friday 24th February 12:43

[Sway]

roachcoach said:

But their loss was almost entirely due to PPI provisioning - which means its a known quantity and without that, would have probably been alright(ish).

In other words probably expected to do better (i.e. make money) next year, external explosions not withstanding. Also, wasn't it better than expected?

They're also into the government for a much lower amount.


Just a guess, I may be wrong.

ETA: Also that they are clawing back bonuses from the head people due to the PPI stuff, however symbolic, perhaps is making a difference in the court of public opinion?


ETA 2: I see the been says the average bonus is £3900, the folks I know there (not investment types) typically are hard pressed to get much over 10% of annual salary and they aren't all that well paid. Massive skew at the top end dragging that number up.

Edited by roachcoach on Friday 24th February 12:43

Pretty much all of which is applicable to RBS (apart from the difference in taxpayer stake).

Yet RBS's loss is significantly less. The PPI loss is significantly less as well, which shirley implies that they weren't as bad at mis-selling?

I am not yet aware of the average bonus within RBS, I have a personal interest in the typical bonus to an average RBS peon. I can't imagine it will be much different.

[Ozzie Osmond]

roachcoach said:

PPI provisioning - which means its a known quantity

R-i-i-i-i-i-i-ight

Until it's all written back and they pay themselves bonuses based on the "profits".

[Northern Munkee]

Hester was interviewed on c4 news Thursday and was asked about PPI, and said RBS exposure was only £800m compared to Llloyds at £4.3b( I think he said).

[deadslow]

Mis-selling is great, isn't it. If you go door to door conning grannies for £50, you get the jail, but if you do it on an industrial scale for billions, it's called mis-selling, and you may have your bonus reduced.

Scum