Associate
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 2,283
- Location
- Rainham, Kent
Here's a nice short article explaining why the top bankers shouldn't be pocketing huge bonuses right now - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/
Sorry, if my company does poorly I don't get a bonus...
- Thread starter NeilF
- Start date
Where will they go? They can't all work for HSBC, and most other banks have been partially nationalised and/or are shedding as many workers as they can. If they want to continue earning most of them will stay, it's not like there aren't masses of unemployed bankers looking for work right now.
Please explain to me how a guaranteed bonus, irrespective of performance can ever be a good thing?
Last edited:
I've generally been told that appraisals and pay reviews aren't directly linked. Obviously they are related but salary has never been on the agenda during annual reviews where I work.
Essentially just because there are no pay rises, it doesn't mean to say that an appraisal is a waste of time. It gives employees an opportunity to forge a personal development plan and possibly set some objectives which could possibly influence pay reviews the following year. Don't forget that even if there is no salary review, the chances are that promotions may result in a salary increase. An appraisal can be an opportunity to sound out your prospects within a company and see if there is room for progression.
It can be frustrating where I work as we see a director stood in front of us, telling us how happy certain clients are who some of us have worked on projects for. Yet due to failures in other areas beyond our control, we get no payrise. This creates a feeling of lethargy amongst some staff as no matter how hard they work, how many targets they hit, they are no better off than if they'd failed miserably. You see others earning twice as much money as yourself, meanwhile losing the company money. Effectively you have to subsidise the failures of others and while of course 'everyone is on the same team', it doesn't really provide much of an incentive to workers. I'm slowly warming to the idea of ring-fenced bonus schemes.
Our pay review has already been postponed from October to April, and I can see quite a few people walking if we get mugged off again in a couple of months without there at least being some kind of bonus scheme introduced. The way inflation has soared of late, average prices must be a good 6% higher than they were at the time of the review in October 2007.
Last edited:
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Should they instead spend all the money on legal teams for the resulting employment tribunerals?
For better or worse the government has decided to invest in RBS and its investment banking business. The last thing they want to do is destroy their asset by disincentivising/driving away the people who actually know how to run an investment bank and earn money for the company. Any bonus that employees do receive will be in line with pay for this sector and anything less make it very difficult for the company to retain good staff and compete.
Please explain how these people actually know how to run an investment bank? ........ they were running it when IT WENT BUST FFS! or as near as **** it is to swearing.
Hardly good staff; where do you get these ideas from? The only incentive I'd give 'em is maybe staying in a job instead of going to jail.
Its not like this industry started last year. These guys have been happily managing your retirement fund, providing financial services for multi national corporates, and providing liquidity to the international markets for many many decades. That what I mean when I say 'people who know how to run an investment bank'.
There have definitely been some serious mistakes made, and the people responsible need to be held to account, but the knee jerk reaction of punishing everyone working in the bank, regardless of whether they performed well or not, might be more detrimental to the tax payer than letting them get on with the job. Without the people, all the tax payer owns is handful leases to fancy buildings and some office supplies.
Last edited:
NeilFawcett said:
Well, unless RBS share price goes even lower or they go out of business, it's pretty much a guaranteed money making exercise in the medium-long term. That we're buying it from deficit is a different debate, but given the choice between bigger defitcit and RBS going out of business, seriously affecting confidence in the markets and devaluing people's pensions, I say bail them out. Market hysteria has to be prevented at some point.
Big banks aren't the only people who employ skilled traders. Think hedge funds / unit trusts.
My point is that you can't look at someone's salary package and say objectively whether it's good or bad. A guaranteed bonus is just a bit of salary paid in one lump at the end of the year. Is that *good* or *bad*? Meaningless question.
For the record I'm entirely in favour of bitchslapping the guys, managers and execs who walked into, managed and oversaw this whole fiasco. I just don't think the majority of the rest of the industry should be punished for it, which some people here seem to be implying.
Last edited:
i find it genuinely interesting that people take the "it's my money, I MUST HAVE A SAY, AND YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!" attitude so easily, irrespective of 'financial climate' there is criticism every single year of financial sector bonuses.
there is no black and white "bonuses are bad" or "bonuses are good" situation, some people will deserve them and their part of the company may be making sufficient money to pay those bonuses, some will not, maybe there should be adjustments made and some contracts changed, but it should all happen within the law, which it will. the coming year, 2 or few is going to see some changes, they're essentially carrying on as normal for as long as they can
portillo is currently on the tv basically saying "dont pay them, see where they're going to go" the fact that they dont have alternative jobs doesnt mean it's right to screw them out of deserved bonuses...
there is no black and white "bonuses are bad" or "bonuses are good" situation, some people will deserve them and their part of the company may be making sufficient money to pay those bonuses, some will not, maybe there should be adjustments made and some contracts changed, but it should all happen within the law, which it will. the coming year, 2 or few is going to see some changes, they're essentially carrying on as normal for as long as they can
portillo is currently on the tv basically saying "dont pay them, see where they're going to go" the fact that they dont have alternative jobs doesnt mean it's right to screw them out of deserved bonuses...
Not a punishment, more a stipulation for using public money that stops their redundancy and the company going bust. I hardly think it could be argued against.
I don't understand the outrage, surely the few people who performed well, despite the company over all doing poorly, deserve every reward in there contract?
Or are people annoyed that people who did poorly, and lost money, are getting money from bonus's?
Or are people annoyed that people who did poorly, and lost money, are getting money from bonus's?
I think it's more that the bonuses will be awarded to most staff, not just the ones who performed in the top 5%. The banking industry has been so deep into the bonus culture for so long that they don't know any other way, it's been a permanent fixture of their yearly salary that they think it's deserved no matter what.
My bonus is very simple, if the company makes money, i get a bonus awarded according to how well it's done, if the company does poorly everybody from the top down gets nothing.
It's not even that blatant, not only have they lost money but they've been saved from obliteration by the taxpayer, they should be glad to have jobs never mind a bonus, thanks to their folly a lot of people have no job, money or home equity.
Are you saying you think that some staff, who didn't make there targets will be getting bonus's anyway? If so what makes you think this?
Right, so if the company has failed to meet targets, but you meet a target, its fair you get that bonus? I see nothing wrong with that?
It depends on the company, most will pay a bonus if you meet your targets, which really isn't that difficult, they go with a normal distribution so only the bottom 10-15% of staff are deemed not to have achieved their targets, the other 75% will get a bonus which is where i said 'most of'.
The banks have somehow got this crazy system where they award bonuses even if the company loses money.
My company bonus pot is determined according to the ammount of profits earned, if there isn't any, then there's no pot to go around, simple. Yes it doesn't feel fair but you're being paid a salary to do your work well, a bonus is purely for exceptional performance of the individual and company, not an automatic salary extension.
Last edited: