Bankers bonuses!.

Simple question, do you agree?

edit: not sure why I'm getting so many negs. All I did was touch upon a point of debate?

(edited 12 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Just shocking.

Most people are ignorant of what they do, how they got to where they are and jump on the bandwagon of bashing bankers bonuses, some even go on question time just to say it and get a round of applause. Didn't see anyone complaining when they could earn a loan they couldn't afford, or a house, or a car, none of it mattered as long as there were re-financing like Ocean or Chelsea etc. If you don't trust bankers earn your money and buy a house upfront, plus keep your money somewhere else. You rely on banks and they rely on you, deal with it.

Inb4 neg

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 3

Malay4ever

chris, each to thier own

Reply 4

Tommyjw

Simple answer. No-one here knows anything about it and all they do is rant on and on about bla bla bla they deserve it or not. Fact is unless we know the in depth financial performance of each bank, and each department and thus allowing us to see if those individuals benefit the company larger than the amounts they are getting paid, we cant say anything.

For me, bonuses are fine for the majority of people. Some seem to get completely extraordinary amounts that go way above some of the large figures you see anyway, but.. as above.. i have no idea if their contributions deem it fair, none of us do, and im not one to be such a jealous tight ass that i think they should not get it no matter what. Pisses me off when people who work part time at tesco think they have the right to look up at people in such industries and say stuff such as " they dont deserve all that money when our economy is the way it is" when the reality is the majority of people would love to be there and wouldnt give away any of their bonus if some random single mother on question time told them they should.

Do footballers deserve what they are paid? No. But is it financially viable to pay them that? Yes. Who is to say banking is any different?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 5

marcusfox

Bonuses are fine. Everyone gets bonuses for performance. If they get them for screwing up, its the fault of the person writing the contract.

People are missing the point completely, these salary packages and bonuses are set by the market.

Top executives can, to some extent, name their own price and regardless of company performance.

It’s like a top International footballer going to say Arsenal, where things are currently going a bit tits up, that footballer doesn’t have to pay the price of failure, even if he is playing crap.

Salaries are largely all based on skill, experience, reputation and the consequent market value.

There’s no law that says if RBS goes tits up he shouldn’t get paid and that goes for any employee.

No, the tail is now wagging the dog it’s exactly the same as the football chairman picking the team over the manager’s head.

Labour, to their credit when bailing out RBS, decided that the government would not get involved they would not be active shareholders.

They decided this based on the previous experience of Old Labour walking all over our nationalised industries in the 1970s, with their union cohorts in tow. With the inevitable result that those industries turned into basket cases, losing money faster than we could print the stuff.

Now Labour, in opposition and playing to the populist gallery, have disgracefully reneged on that deal, knowing full well that the likely consequence of them getting their way is that they are almost certainly pissing all our RBS tax bailout up the wall.

Complaining about RBS bonuses, we just did all our money in, RBS will now become the next British Leyland and Labour don’t give a crap because burning all our money, for their own short term political gain, is what they do best.

I don’t know about you but I would rather have had my money back and, based on his track record, this was certainly the man to do it.

It now only remains to be seen how long it is before Hester and his team resigns.

They are being asked to put their reputations on the line whilst it is clear that the interference, not just on bonuses, is coming thick and fast – that situation won’t last long.

Then, when they go, no one worthy will touch the job, it will be just like Chelsea after the Special One left.

No matter how much money is thrown around at Chelsea, Abramovich just can’t get the best managers anymore because none of them will go there when they know he will interfere all the time.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 6

MagicNMedicine

Do you agree what?

That bankers are allowed bonuses? Yes. The concept of performance related pay is important in a field like banking.

In a competitive market you would have pay being linked to performance. The problems come when some party holds market power and so the link between pay and performance is broken, eg when banks or other firms make huge losses which are borne by their shareholders and/or the taxpayer and still award management large bonuses. Sometimes lobbying power influences this - the argument that the people who currently hold the positions are the only people capable of doing it so even if they are not performing, they are entitled to high bonuses to keep them.

In the 1970s a big problem in the UK economy was the "closed shop" of trade unions that were exerting huge levels of market power falsely inflating wages and holding the government to ransom, Mrs Thatcher broke that. Now there's a closed shop of management in the banking sector that has managed to protect its high bonuses despite horrendous failures. Not saying all banks are failing or all managers are bad, some have performed and deserve their bonuses...

Reply 7

H.JJJ

Original post by Tommyjw

Because the media and govt needed a scapegoat.

Joe Public has no ****ing idea. I remember some people saying bankers bonuses created the global recession, but could not even tell me what inflation was. Amazing...

Reply 8

bishbash72

There's a world of difference between a bonus for someone who works in a private bank and a bonus for someone working for a bank owned by the taxpayer.

Reply 9

marcusfox

Original post by Callum828

There's a world of difference between a bonus for someone who works in a private bank and a bonus for someone working for a bank owned by the taxpayer.

Not really. If you want a decent boss at the helm, you'll have to pay the going rate, including bonuses, or you'll find he'll go elsewhere to get what he would ordinarily be entitled to, and you'll only be left with second rate choices.

Reply 10

miml

I don't see how people can complain? A privately owned company can pay it's employees whatever it wants. There is no cost to the taxpayer, but rather the general public receives a lot of money from these companies.

As for state owned banks, well they have to compete, because employees are free to leave and will if they are not compensated in line with the street.

Reply 11

Malay4ever

Lets throw in a different viewpoint then.

ARE FOOTBALL PLAYERS DESERVING OF THEIR HUGE INCOMES? Sure they give us entertainment but how do they help the running of society?

ARE BANKERS MORE DESERVING THAN FOOTBALL PLAYERS?

Reply 12

bishbash72

Original post by marcusfox

The last batch of decent bosses caused a recession. I think we can do without them.

Reply 13

Jake22

Innit bruv....bankers....the government and that....

Reply 14

SnoochToTheBooch

couldn't really give a **** about it...

Reply 15

User570431

If they didn't get them they would leave.

Reply 16

chefdave

No I do not agree with their massive (often) taxpayer funded bonuses!

Mervyn King the Governor of the Bank of England receives a basic salary of £375k p/a, why on earth do we have other public sector bankers such as Hester of RBS earning over double that without the bonuses?

Nobody in the public sector deserves a bonus. They're doing a terrible job.

Reply 17

chefdave

Original post by marcusfox

In a free market prices are set at the margin, there are plenty of other competent people who'd jump at the chance to be in Hester's shoes for a fraction of his remuneration. It doesn't matter how good you are you can always be replaced.

Reply 18

Existentialistic

Original post by H.JJJ

I remember some people saying bankers bonuses created the global recession, but could not even tell me what inflation was. Amazing...

Just wow...

To be fair though, the deregulation of commission based compensation did serve as an incentive in the sale of debt obligations (and even more so of the sale to those who had little/no collateral and were more likely to default). But that is just the tip of a very, very large ice burg, and I'm sure the person you're referring to didn't really mean it like that!

On topic: If they've earned it then yes. The whole bank slating that's been going on throughout the media recently is little more than a witch hunt. If you're going to scream and shout about banker's bonuses (who are, essentially, the bank bone of the British economy) then why not scream and shout about footballers, or the CEO's of massive property companies, or the bosses of transport companies, or the CEO of Exxon Mobil... etc.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 19

Amhorangerdgerriug

Although I'll probably get negged to high heaven, I think that in banks run privately (i.e. not RBS) people should be able to pay their employees whatever they like, and we are in no position to tell them not to, it's their money at the end of the day. In taxpayer funded banks, however, I disagree with such large bonuses.