bankers bonuses

Yes Tefal, by these bankers making lots of money for the banks the value of the bank goes up. This means the 'government' share of the bank is worth a lot more.

So again, I do not see a problem with paying the best people to perform their best.
 
LordSplodge said:
Welcome to Capitalism.

Don't like it go live in North Korea as even the Chinese are in on it now...
Click to expand...

This isn't capitalism, it's a dysfunctional market which even Adam Smith needed to be corrected by government intervention.

LordSplodge said:
Serious question: London is one of the major financial centres of the world, what do you think would happen to the UK if we (and only we) added large levies/taxes to the banks?
Click to expand...

Serious question: What will happen to the country if there's another banking crisis? Can we afford to bail out the banking industry again?
 
most contracts don't include actual bonus figures or formula's, only those who move on guaranteed bonuses - and this isn't a very common thing.

In most investment banking contracts the banks state that the individual can receive a discretionary bonus, meaning that legally they can legally get away with paying them nothing. Banks like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns used to have the formulas included in some of their contracts, but this is largely a thing of the past.

it's probably worth bearing in mind that the main asset class that has lost large amounts of money over the past couple of years has been structured credit. so almost all of those equity, bond, interest rate, FX, commodity salespeople/traders have made money for the banks. this moeny is liable to be taxed, as is the individua;'s subsequent bonus payments.

think of the money we'd lose in taxes if (potentially) geographically mobile banks such as BNP Paribas, Soc Gen, Commerzbank, Deutsche, Credit Suisse moved most of their teams back to their native countried/HQ.
 
simulatorman said:
The profit the bank makes will be irrelevant because the government would still step and not let it go down the pan.
Click to expand...

What i mean is if we're 100Billion in the black from our investment this time then yeah we could afford to bail them out for another 50-100B.

so yeah it's gonna come down to time and the circumstances.
 
LeJosh said:
They get a set percentage of profit they create, seems fair.
Click to expand...

it is fair. Issue being taking very dodgy risks to try and get a lot of profit to get more of a bonus.

I have no issue with bankers getting large bonus's if they have worked hard and done well. Also keeps them here instead of trotting off else where
 
What business is it of government or the public, if a NON BAILED-OUT bank pays it staff large bonuses?

I work for a Investment Bank who did not take any bailout money, and was never in any danger. So why should I have my bonus reduced just because of public opinion?

Toshj is right, most contracts state "may receive upto X% as a discretionary bonus.

My contract states I can receive up to 27% of salary in bonuses, depending on performance. Bonuses at my place get paid at the end of Feb, and we find out in the first week. :) Considering i personally and the bank have had a good year, im looking forward to it, but i hope public opinion etc does not ruin it.
 
mangobreeder said:
What business is it of government or the public, if a NON BAILED-OUT bank pays it staff large bonuses?

I work for a Investment Bank who did not take any bailout money, and was never in any danger. So why should I have my bonus reduced just because of public opinion?

Toshj is right, most contracts state "may receive upto X% as a discretionary bonus.

My contract states I can receive up to 27% of salary in bonuses, depending on performance. Bonuses at my place get paid at the end of Feb, and we find out in the first week. :) Considering i personally and the bank have had a good year, im looking forward to it, but i hope public opinion etc does not ruin it.
Click to expand...

which bank do you work for?
 
mangobreeder said:
What business is it of government or the public, if a NON BAILED-OUT bank pays it staff large bonuses?

I work for a Investment Bank who did not take any bailout money, and was never in any danger. So why should I have my bonus reduced just because of public opinion?
Click to expand...

All banks were bailed out, the entire industry had to be propped up from world governments. All that money you did such a good job with wouldn't exist if action hadn't been taken.

Tefal said:
What i mean is if we're 100Billion in the black from our investment this time then yeah we could afford to bail them out for another 50-100B.
Click to expand...

And when will that be pray tell? I personally don't think it will be in this new decade. It takes a while to turn a company from "reckless and bankrupt" to "sound and healthy".
 
mangobreeder said:
My contract states I can receive up to 27% of salary in bonuses, depending on performance. Bonuses at my place get paid at the end of Feb, and we find out in the first week. :) Considering i personally and the bank have had a good year, im looking forward to it, but i hope public opinion etc does not ruin it.
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand this correctly, but do you mean that your annual bonus can be a maximum of 27% of your annual salary?

As in, "Good job, here's 15K" (for example on an annual salary of around 60)?
 
cm1179 said:
ok so i know nothing about economics (as pointed out to me by another poster in another thread) but have we learnt nothing from a few years ago and bankers taking bonuses in the face of our economic crisis?
RBS is still the majority owned by the tax payer is it not? why are they giving out bonuses of just under a billion?

http://www.sharecast.com/cgi-bin/sharecast/story.cgi?story_id=3961708

are the bankers simply laughing at us? i don't have a major problem with bankers getting a bonus, i do have a problem with the figures they are talking about! just seems ridiculous to me.
Click to expand...

OP, what do you propose banks do with their profits then? They can either pay their shareholders and/or pay their staff. As they are paying dividends to their shareholders it's only the staff that remains to be paid. They are complying with whatever regulation is being thrown at them so where exactly is the problem?

As for RBS, unless they pay their talent competitively they will lose it and the government as a major shareholder will lose much more money in the long run as the value of the company and its profits will fall.

Note: I am not working in the finance industry or even remotely related to it.
 
Far too much fuss is made about the bonuses. Mostly driven by jealousy I believe.

The treasury is massively dependent tax revenues generated by the city. If we drive then banks away we will all have to pay more tax and get less in return.
 
EdwardTeach said:
Far too much fuss is made about the bonuses. Mostly driven by jealousy I believe.

The treasury is massively dependent tax revenues generated by the city. If we drive then banks away we will all have to pay more tax and get less in return.
Click to expand...

Banks are the convenient scapegoat, who moaned about the bonuses as little as 3 years ago?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom