Rbs board to quit if Chancellor vetoes £1.5b in bonuses

[pkitchen]

This is going to be interesting. What do you think boys and girls...

Edited by pkitchen on Wednesday 2nd December 16:06

[anonymous-user]

Would it be difficult to replace them?

[rhinochopig]

pkitchen said:

This is going to be interesting. What do you think boys and girls...

Edited by pkitchen on Wednesday 2nd December 16:06

Interesting stand-off. Not sure being on the board of a very famous failure is ideal to have on your CV at the moment when job hunting though. Tough call if it's in their employment T&Cs.

[Shay HTFC]

Let them quit.

I'm fed up of big bosses saying how everyone will leave the country if certain legislation comes into effect or whatever. Now we are hearing how bosses will leave a company. Let them sodding leave and find work elsewhere then.

There will be plenty more perfectly capable people happy to fill their places.

Edited by Shay HTFC on Wednesday 2nd December 16:12

[pkitchen]

rhinochopig said:

pkitchen said:

This is going to be interesting. What do you think boys and girls...

Edited by pkitchen on Wednesday 2nd December 16:06

Interesting stand-off. Not sure being on the board of a very famous failure is ideal to have on your CV at the moment when job hunting though. Tough call if it's in their employment T&Cs.

Feels like political dynamite because the potential bonus is bigger than last year, against all the government mumblings about the need for bankers restraint. Damned if you do damned if you don't...

[Fittster]

If the majority shareholder says jump, you jump.

[plasticpig]

IIRC the government and thus the taxpayer owns over 70% of the voting shares. I am pretty sure the public will not want to pay out £1.5bn in bonuses.

[Kermit power]

plasticpig said:

IIRC the government and thus the taxpayer owns over 70% of the voting shares. I am pretty sure the public will not want to pay out £1.5bn in bonuses.

I am a member of the public. I do want them to pay out £1.5bn in bonuses, because I want my 70% to be worth something down the line.

I do think bankers' bonuses are ludicrously large, but it's also a free market, so if one bank isn't paying those large bonuses and others are, then all the best people will leave the bank that isn't and move to one that is. As long as some banks are paying those bonuses, I don't see how others can cease to do so and expect to retain the ability to be successful?

If short-term politics of envy are allowed to prevail now, then I really worry that our 70% shareholding is going to be worth peanuts in the future.

For the record, I am not a banker, I do not work with bankers, and none of my family are bankers!

[rypt]

Kermit power said:

if one bank isn't paying those large bonuses and others are, then all the best people will leave the bank that isn't and move to one that is

The same BEST people that got the bank into this mess in the first place?

Edited by rypt on Wednesday 2nd December 16:57

[Oakey]

Kermit power said:

plasticpig said:

IIRC the government and thus the taxpayer owns over 70% of the voting shares. I am pretty sure the public will not want to pay out £1.5bn in bonuses.

I am a member of the public. I do want them to pay out £1.5bn in bonuses, because I want my 70% to be worth something down the line.

I do think bankers' bonuses are ludicrously large, but it's also a free market, so if one bank isn't paying those large bonuses and others are, then all the best people will leave the bank that isn't and move to one that is. As long as some banks are paying those bonuses, I don't see how others can cease to do so and expect to retain the ability to be successful?

If short-term politics of envy are allowed to prevail now, then I really worry that our 70% shareholding is going to be worth peanuts in the future.

For the record, I am not a banker, I do not work with bankers, and none of my family are bankers!

That old chestnut again. Of course, if they were so good we wouldn't be in this mess.

And as someone else points out. Where would they go? Having 'Board Member of RBS' on your CV is hardly going to impress anyone, is it?

[herewego]

I believe there will be some jobs at Wetherspoons but it involves handling money under constant CCTV surveillance.

[Kermit power]

Oakey said:

Kermit power said:

plasticpig said:

IIRC the government and thus the taxpayer owns over 70% of the voting shares. I am pretty sure the public will not want to pay out £1.5bn in bonuses.

I am a member of the public. I do want them to pay out £1.5bn in bonuses, because I want my 70% to be worth something down the line.

I do think bankers' bonuses are ludicrously large, but it's also a free market, so if one bank isn't paying those large bonuses and others are, then all the best people will leave the bank that isn't and move to one that is. As long as some banks are paying those bonuses, I don't see how others can cease to do so and expect to retain the ability to be successful?

If short-term politics of envy are allowed to prevail now, then I really worry that our 70% shareholding is going to be worth peanuts in the future.

For the record, I am not a banker, I do not work with bankers, and none of my family are bankers!

That old chestnut again. Of course, if they were so good we wouldn't be in this mess.

And as someone else points out. Where would they go? Having 'Board Member of RBS' on your CV is hardly going to impress anyone, is it?

I couldn't care less about the board members! It's the people who actually make the money who will leave, and that's the thing that concerns me.

Banks don't do just one single thing. They have lots of divisions and lots of different activities. In any one year, some of them will be profitable, and some of them will not be.

OK, last year, one or two of the divisions at RBS made horrific losses, but other areas were profitable, and without those, the losses would've been even worse.

Imagine you're a successful RBS broker, fund manager or whatever. You're in an area of the bank which has been consistently profitable for years and you personally can point to a number of strong, profitable years on your CV. Now you're told you're not getting your bonus because other areas of the bank screwed up, and you've got a recruitment consultant offering you a nice package elsewhere. Why would you not leave and join another bank?

I agree with not paying the guys at the top who presided over the problem, but as I understand it, it's not their bonuses they're threatening to quit over, but those of the guys lower down who actually produce the profits?

[Halb]

Fittster said:

If the majority shareholder says jump, you jump.

Apt and true

[Kermit power]

Halb said:

Fittster said:

If the majority shareholder says jump, you jump.

Apt and true

Except in this case, the majority shareholder's chief unelected representative is one G Brown. The blind leading the blind was never meant to be taken literally!

[ipsg.glf]

Either way ZanuLabour will come out of this bad. Which is another nail in their coffin!

[Fittster]

Kermit power said:

Halb said:

Fittster said:

If the majority shareholder says jump, you jump.

Apt and true

Except in this case, the majority shareholder's chief unelected representative is one G Brown. The blind leading the blind was never meant to be taken literally!

If they didn't want to work for a one eyed fool they could have refused his cash. I think a lot of people in this world are going to find out the downside of being in debt over the next few years .

'The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.'

Proverbs (ch. XXII, v. 7)

[TooLateForAName]

Kermit power said:

I do think bankers' bonuses are ludicrously large, but it's also a free market, so if one bank isn't paying those large bonuses and others are, then all the best people will leave the bank that isn't and move to one that is. As long as some banks are paying those bonuses, I don't see how others can cease to do so and expect to retain the ability to be successful?

I don't think it is quite such a 'free market' as you might think

[paddyhasneeds]

Kermit power said:

Imagine you're a successful RBS broker, fund manager or whatever. You're in an area of the bank which has been consistently profitable for years and you personally can point to a number of strong, profitable years on your CV. Now you're told you're not getting your bonus because other areas of the bank screwed up, and you've got a recruitment consultant offering you a nice package elsewhere. Why would you not leave and join another bank?

I have to confess that I simply don't understand this school of thought.

There are plenty of businesses out there going to the wall every day because whilst certain parts of the business may act well beyond expectations, the business as a whole fails and it dies, it isn't bailed out by the government and everyone involved loses their jobs and not always with any sort of payout etc.

Nobody says to these people "Well it wasn't your fault chaps, have a few quid", they simply find themselves out of work.

I don't understand why bankers should be treated any differently and fail to grasp that irrespective of their individual, or their units performance, if it wasn't for government intervention they'd be out of a job right now.

Are there really that many vacancies in the financial sector that these people can hold a gun to their current employers heads?

[Halb]

el stovey said:

Would it be difficult to replace them?

Nope.

[Kermit power]

paddyhasneeds said:

Kermit power said:

Imagine you're a successful RBS broker, fund manager or whatever. You're in an area of the bank which has been consistently profitable for years and you personally can point to a number of strong, profitable years on your CV. Now you're told you're not getting your bonus because other areas of the bank screwed up, and you've got a recruitment consultant offering you a nice package elsewhere. Why would you not leave and join another bank?

I have to confess that I simply don't understand this school of thought.

There are plenty of businesses out there going to the wall every day because whilst certain parts of the business may act well beyond expectations, the business as a whole fails and it dies, it isn't bailed out by the government and everyone involved loses their jobs and not always with any sort of payout etc.

Nobody says to these people "Well it wasn't your fault chaps, have a few quid", they simply find themselves out of work.

I don't understand why bankers should be treated any differently and fail to grasp that irrespective of their individual, or their units performance, if it wasn't for government intervention they'd be out of a job right now.

Are there really that many vacancies in the financial sector that these people can hold a gun to their current employers heads?

That is precisely why I do want them to pay the bonuses!

If they had been allowed to fail, then so be it, they would've failed, and all the people would've lost their jobs, but they weren't allowed to fail, and the reason they didn't fail is because we, the taxpayer, purchased 70% of the company.

To reiterate, we purchased 70% of the company. We own 70% of the company. It is in our interests to see the company do as well as possible to maximise the worth of that 70%. It is not in our interests to cut our own noses off to spite our faces by driving away the people most likely to make that 70% valuable.