Salary.
2022 mini-budget discussion
- Thread starter Harlequin
- Start date
- Status
Salary.
Who is to say their salary will go down now? I don't see any evidence of bankers getting pay cuts, quite the opposite.
Pay cuts != salary cuts.
But no, you're not likely to see someone's salary slashed in a given role but you're likely to see new offers that weight variable pay more heavily. A higher variable component can make things far more competitive, higher fixed pay -> lower overall comp for what should be obvious reasons.
Having high fixed costs isn't a good idea at all, it leaves things pretty inflexible and it also makes things rather uncompetitive with other locations trying to attract the same talent.
If people are worried about short-term risk taking then that's what clawbacks are there for - I don't see how pushing salaries/fixed costs ridiculously high helps there, if anything that lessens the effectiveness of any clawback provision as the clawbacks tend to apply to variable comp not salary.
Last edited:
We'll see, I'm very sceptical. I think they will treat the current very generous situation as the base and only increase from there. The point about unlimited bonuses is they encourage taking excessive risk because that is how you achieve the exceptional returns. This can backfire spectacularly as in 2008.
I am unfamiliar with clawbacks, did they have them before 2008? The point is this excessive risk taking was not frowned on by senior management, it was encouraged. The whole system was rotten.
Last edited:
The epidemic in each country was at different stages at the time those countries locked down. New Zealand locked down when the disease had barely got a foothold whereas we were warned that our epidemic was getting very out of control well before we locked down.
Also, experts have said locking down just one week earlier would have saved around 20,000 lives which was a big number in the early days of the pandemic.
Coronavirus: enforcing UK lockdown one week earlier 'could have saved 20,000 lives'
Former scientific adviser to No 10 says earlier restrictions could have halved death toll
www.theguardian.com
He only went on morning TV talking enthusiastically about it and telling us all to take it on the chin. Herd immunity was even being discussed on Big Brother and in depth on Newsnight, unless you want me to believe Johnson over my own eyes and ears. That's strange if the government were silent about it and it wasn't government policy. Where did it all come from I wonder? Also, Dominic Cummings claims it was government policy and Johnson is lying, Johnson says he never even mentioned it so I know who I believe. He was the one who also shook hands with numerous COVID patients in a hospital and joked about not washing them afterwards when he was supposed to be giving us clear guidance in order to stay safe.
Sweden has a very high proportion of single person households and a very conformist culture, not the selfish libertarian one we have here. They have in-built advantages yet still did much worse than their comparable neighbours. The people involved were rebuked by the king and more restrictive measures were then brought in:
King of Sweden blasts country's 'failed' coronavirus response
Criticism of anti-lockdown stance comes as hospitals struggle to cope with surge in cases
www.theguardian.com
Just because Europe, America and pretty much anyone with a right wing nutjob leader who denied the virus did poorly it doesn't mean we couldn't have nipped it in the bud. Many Asian countries and New Zealand did and if we had followed suit it would all have been over in 2020 and for real (not like what's going on now). Also, some European countries did much better than others and we were among the worst.
The NHS and the local authorities were doing a much better job in the beginning tracing and isolating contacts until Johnson decided to stop them and institute 'herd immunity' and when that failed gave the contract well after many other countries had their own actually working system in place to a former jockey Tory crony.
Ah the old Tory excuse. Why were we paying well over the odds to Tory friends and donors who often had little experience in the field rather than specialist companies in the UK who begged the government to help but were rejected? No wonder the PPE was often substandard or useless. Great job managing an emergency there, very quick and efficient.
On your last points, the evidence is out there and as clear as day. If you believe it's all conspiracy theories when even Johnson himself has admitted it then I have a bridge to sell you.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,072
- Location
- Shepley
Javid.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2014
- Posts
- 7,961
- Location
- The Cronx
Stop guessing about “banker” renumeration (they aren’t bankers). Stop saying they’ll take more risks - it”s much more complex than risk = bonus. Sorry it’s my back yard.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2014
- Posts
- 7,961
- Location
- The Cronx
They’d be better described as financial services professionals. Traders, fund mangers, operations, paper issuers (they are bankers), C Suite (i hate that term), quants, PE execs, private wealth managers and a couple of classic definition bankers (treasury mainly). And some sales people of course.
You won’t get rich in Risk or Compliance unless you are the COO.
You won’t get rich in Risk or Compliance unless you are the COO.
Last edited:
Sorry, I was just using the term 'banker' as it's used in the common parlance, I know that they are not working in high street banks or something like that.
What do you think the effect of uncapping bonuses will be then? What is the relationship in terms of risk? I should have said 'I worry they will take more risk' or 'to me it seems they will be encouraged to take more risk'. I am not actually attacking financial professionals directly, I am criticising the government and the regulatory system.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2014
- Posts
- 7,961
- Location
- The Cronx
To be honest this year I would not worry about a cap, it’s a crap year. Next year probably worse! I don’t think there is a relationship to risk at all because of bonuses, it the regulations that would make that more of an issue if “we” said we would remove them (brexit), however most regs are about global business so it really confuses me how the government can side step these without only increasing the risk to UK investors (which include pensioners and those relying on insurance polices, ahem solvency 2 JRM) - the US and the EU won’t reduce our regulatory requirements to sell into their regulated markets. That stays so there isn’t any saving. It’s all been built and paid for anyway. It’s another ploy like corporation tax to make top execs think it would be great to have a UK based company.
Finally, I wasn’t thinking of you when I posted that, I was squarely aiming at the Tories here who think they know all about financial services
ETA: late and friday (ahem) so I may need to reread and refine tomorrow
Last edited:
Clawbacks and deferred bonuses weren't really a thing pre-2008, no and they pretty much negate your point there.
You're not going to achieve excessive rewards for yourself via taking silly risks. High fixed comp is quite clearly sub-optimal, much better to be able to slash costs when things haven't gone well + pay out rewards appropriately when they have, without pointless restrictions that don't really achieve anything.
Tell me about it. It is certainly a crap year, I can tell as just an ordinary amateur investor in the stock marketTo be honest this year I would not worry about a cap, it’s a crap year. Next year probably worse! I don’t think there is a relationship to risk at all because of bonuses, it the regulations that would make that more of an issue if “we” said we would remove them (brexit), however most regs are about global business so it really confuses me how the government can side step these without only increasing the risk to UK investors (which include pensioners and those relying on insurance polices, ahem solvency 2 JRM) - the US and the EU won’t reduce our regulatory requirements to sell into their regulated markets. That stays so there isn’t any saving. It’s all been built and paid for anyway. It’s another ploy like corporation tax to make top execs think it would be great to have a UK based company.
Finally, I wasn’t thinking of you when I posted that, I was squarely aiming at the Tories here who think they know all about financial services
ETA: late and friday (ahem) so I may need to reread and refine tomorrow
which is extent of my financial knowledge, although I am learning I think.That's really interesting, I didn't think about the effect of EU and US regulations and being bound by them.
My knee jerk reaction was because I worry about the Tory government not learning the lessons from 2008 and helping to bring about another one (which from what I can tell happened mainly due to a lack of good and effective regulation and excessive risk taking).
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2014
- Posts
- 7,961
- Location
- The Cronx
What is it you do Dowie?
I see, that makes sense then. Although 2x salary as a cap still seems like adequate compensation to me but then I'm not a finance professional.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2014
- Posts
- 7,961
- Location
- The Cronx
Tell me about it. It is certainly a crap year, I can tell as just an ordinary amateur investor in the stock market
That's really interesting, I didn't think about the effect of EU and US regulations and being bound by them.
My knee jerk reaction was because I worry about the Tory government not learning the lessons from 2008 and helping to bring about another one (which from what I can tell happened mainly due to a lack of good and effective regulation and excessive risk taking).
I’d be more worried about how the government is going to (has) screw (screwed) the economy rather than financial services. 2007 was all about people being happy to give fully comp insurance to drink drivers, it looks like the Tories want to abolish the drink driving laws, but only in the UK (so you’d have to be sober half way through the channel tunnel). I’m sure that makes sense
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2014
- Posts
- 7,961
- Location
- The Cronx
Mostly your mum.
Nice. She died in 2003. Suspicions confirmed.
Other replies I considered:
But she was cremated!
With your dads wand up your rissole
Not bad for a part time barrista
No that isn’t clean, do it again
Last edited:
It's not just finance where salary is a small portion of total comp, see the tech industry too, at large tech firms a big portion of your comp is in the form of RSUs or options. At succesful startups, it's potentially a huge portion of your total comp. I don't see any rationale for artificially restricting that sort of thing... if anything, especially as far as execs are concerned, their comp ought to be very closely tied to the share price and their performance etc.., maybe their total comp is 7 or 8 figures but it's quite rational for their salary to be some low 6 figure amount and the rest be in equity, bonuses etc.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2014
- Posts
- 7,961
- Location
- The Cronx
Remind us what you do for a job Dowie?
- Status