Should failed bank RBS be allowed to exceed EU bonus cap?

scorza

scorza

scorza

Caporegime
Joined
22 Jun 2004
Posts
26,684
Location
Deep England
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25739567

That's the question the Chancellor is faced with this morning. EU law now means that if banks want to pay their staff more than 100% of their salary as a bonus then they have to get the approval from their shareholders and because RBS failed spectacularly it is ~80% owned by the reluctant taxpayer. RBS wants to give away 200% bonuses for some of its staff.

Personally I say not for these reasons:

- RBS lost over £5 billion last year (Source)
- The improvement in the UK economy last year means that any improvements in individual's performance may not be down to them.
- The main argument for the bumper bonuses seems to be that if you don't give out bonuses then salaries will rise instead. This is actually a good thing because big bonuses are have been proved to increase risky behaviour which is not desirable in banking.
- There won't be an exodus for top people abroad imo, a "brain drain" is a scaremongering tool that has never ever occurred in the UK.
- The IT glitches that affected their customers indicates they have more pressing things to spend the money on than giveaways for staff.
- Their involvement in scandals such as LIBOR.

All in all, I say a 100% bonus is more than enough. However I fully expect the Chancellor to give his permission, as he likes to look after his mates in the City :(
 
Last edited:
If my employer, a global IT company, ever made a loss, our jobs would be at risk and there would be 0% bonuses, nevermind 200% of salary bonuses.

To pay any bonuses after the massive losses they made, criminal activities and requirement to be bailed out by the tax payer is laughable - they have failed in every measure.

A nod from Osbourne would only confirm his hypocrisy, spinelessness and/or corruptness.

As the shareholders, the tax payers should decide, via public vote.
 
Last edited:
No.

I think all these bank's / banker's should be held to account for the mess they left the country in. I never bought into the Tory mantra of "We're all in it together" I certainly never run up thousands of pounds worth of debt in the boom years... If I couldn't afford it I didn't get it. Yet these banker's master minded & through pure greed plunged the country into 5 years of austerity and possibly another 7-10 years on top of that they. Wrecking not just our lives but also the lives of our children... Families up & down the country can't afford to feed there kids and still the banker's get a BIG BONUS.
 
The problem is when people talk about this they forget that the money still exists regardless of who it is paid to. It's not like the cash is coming from the government so if RBS don't pay the bonuses to the staff it will just end up in the top CEOs or shareholders pockets instead (all of whom are already rich).

Instead of just capping bonuses, I'd rather see a law that recognises that no one employee is an island and that bonuses must be shared more equally amongst the business' staff at the lower end of the pay scale. Yes a banker there may have made a billion for RBS by sitting at his terminal buying and selling non-existant stuff, but where would he be without the cleaner keeping his work area clean, the engineer keeping the lifts in their swanky offices working, the receptionists booking people in or the security guard keeping the riff-raff out?
 
Last edited:
Yes, AFAIK the head of RBS now are not the people who were there when the ship sank, they are the ones who came in after to try and get things back on track and they have actually done a good job (Just because it's "failing" doesn't mean it's failing anywhere near as much as it "was"). It makes sense people should get a bonus for good work.
 
Just to point out from the BBC article

It reported an operating profit of £3.5bn, which excludes all of the special charges and is a considerable improvement on the previous year's performance.
Click to expand...

The bank actually had a good year trading and the loss was mainly generated by adjustments to loan values and liabilities etc..
 
estebanrey said:
The problem is when people talk about this they forget that the money still exists regardless of who it is paid to. It's not like the cash is coming from the government so if RBS don't pay the bonuses to the staff it will just end up in the top CEOs or shareholders pockets instead (all of whom are already rich).
Click to expand...

Surely after all the pain RBS shareholders have suffered since 2008, surely they should be first in line for any payouts. Personally I think RBS investing so they are a successful business again.
 
No, once they are no longer owned by the tax payer they can try it. Would you accept it if MPs wanted to tripple their salary for the year for a job well done?

Honestly i don't know why we sit behind banks making sure they don't fail, we should have a national bank or something if people wanted guarenteed protection. Iceland got it right!
 
kayomani said:
Honestly i don't know why we sit behind banks making sure they don't fail, we should have a national bank or something if people wanted guarenteed protection. Iceland got it right!
Click to expand...

Iceland? Whose reaction to their national bank being in serious trouble and in danger of collapse was to start up another bank and move the money over then let the first bank fail taking millions of British citizens saving with it? who then held a referendum on whether or not to pay back the money they owed (and had effectively stolen) and actually voted not to? Yeah great example :rolleyes:
 
estebanrey said:
The problem is when people talk about this they forget that the money still exists regardless of who it is paid to. It's not like the cash is coming from the government so if RBS don't pay the bonuses to the staff it will just end up in the top CEOs or shareholders pockets instead (all of whom are already rich).
Click to expand...

RBS is 80% owned by the government; in this case the shareholders are the government.

It would be typical of Osborne to allow it; but on the other hand rather hypocritical of him to block it at the same time as the Tories attempt to remove the cap altogether through the courts.
 
ubersonic said:
Iceland? Whose reaction to their national bank being in serious trouble and in danger of collapse was to start up another bank and move the money over then let the first bank fail taking millions of British citizens saving with it? who then held a referendum on whether or not to pay back the money they owed (and had effectively stolen) and actually voted not to? Yeah great example :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Kaupthing bank and others are private companies, if you give your money to a private person or company I don't see why you feel the tax payer should pick up the tab, its insured gambling effectively. Its no different to giving your cash to a dealer on the corner to a dealer hoping a for a return, there is always a chance they might be corrupt as was the case with this perticular bank. In this case they got locked up and you lost everything apart from the FSA decided to pick up the tab for UK people.

When that bank collapsed they only delt with their domestic assets and debt which is totally reasonable and even going beyond what they should do in my eyes. International debt and assets were left in the old bank, I don't know the details but that sounds reasonable to me.
 
We have zero control over banks and we should stop pretending that fairness and morality exist within capitalism. Some people benefit at some point but just choose to ignore its ugly side.
 
Of course not, but bankers don't care. They are already getting around the bonus rules by making the bonus tied to a position, rather than to an individual. The regulations are immaterial if they are allowed to exploit loopholes in the rules like this.

We shouldn't be surprised that dishonest people who get away with dishonesty continue to be dishonest. That's what happens when you don't put people in prison for stealing billions.
 
It all depends... Yes the company made losses BUT some individuals within that company will be working their *** off to try and keep their job and will have reduced the losses.

They, in short, should be rewarded for this. However, to get into 5 billon worth of losses, a large proportion of staff will not have been doing things correctly (in my opinion), therefore they should not get bonuses and their job should be put at risk.
 
Nothing wrong with a bonus if they were working hard to fix the issue...BUT, no ****ing where near 200% what the hell.

Should be like 5-10% bonus like us 'normal' folk.
 
MooMoo444 said:
Nothing wrong with a bonus if they were working hard to fix the issue...BUT, no ****ing where near 200% what the hell.

Should be like 5-10% bonus like us 'normal' folk.
Click to expand...

I assume you work in the same kind of role in the banking industry? If not, your post is irrelevant.
 
Keep their bonus's and be allowed more than the 100%. These people work their arses off and its Britains last area of commerce isnt it really?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom