Rbs Bosses Bonus

[Esmond Million's Bung]

So we the tax payer own 83% of RBS and we cannot stop the greedy bastard taking close to 1 mill in a bonus payment FFS, the world truly has gone mad, ******* bankers **** em all.

[Mr Mosquito]

So we the tax payer own 83% of RBS and we cannot stop the greedy bastard taking close to 1 mill in a bonus payment FFS, the world truly has gone mad, ******* bankers **** em all.

The problem is, and no way do I want to condone the massive bonuses of banksters, the RBS bankster that's getting the huge bonus has stopped RBS going under. If RBS fails the British taxpayer stands to lose £billions, so perhaps in this instance the monster bankster bonus is well justified.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

The problem is, and no way do I want to condone the massive bonuses of banksters, the RBS bankster that's getting the huge bonus has stopped RBS going under. If RBS fails the British taxpayer stands to lose £billions, so perhaps in this instance the monster bankster bonus is well justified.

Come on gobbers as you more than most know, the then government could have put a civil servant in his place and he could have done the same job and also this guy hasn't put his underpants over his tights and single handedly saved 'our' bank and this like many others has not even lived up to their government remit and lent money to small businesses, but as usual 6,000 staff have had to take what is effectively a pay cut for the past 3 years and many others have lost their jobs.

it stinks.

[notsobigfatdave]

It’s no different from Football in a lot of respects. If you want a Premier League Striker you have to pay Premier League Money, or you don’t progress and languish in the lower tier.

I don’t particularly agree with it but if he’s earned it and that’s the going rate for someone of his calibre then so be it.

[myol'man]

Bonus for success, far enough. What gets me with a lot of these CEO's is they get a bonus when they fail too.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

It’s no different from Football in a lot of respects. If you want a Premier League Striker you have to pay Premier League Money, or you don’t progress and languish in the lower tier.

I don’t particularly agree with it but if he’s earned it and that’s the going rate for someone of his calibre then so be it.

i've heard it all now, it was the 'premier league bankers' who got us into this mess in the first place and they'll do it again sooner or later. The more they are paid the more risks they will take, it's called greed and the lame argument of 'he'll go elsewhere if we don't pay him his inflated bonus', great let him go and bring in the next whizz kid, there is always one lurking in the shadows waiting for his chance.

[Mr Mosquito]

Come on gobbers as you more than most know, the then government could have put a civil servant in his place and he could have done the same job and also this guy hasn't put his underpants over his tights and single handedly saved 'our' bank and this like many others has not even lived up to their government remit and lent money to small businesses, but as usual 6,000 staff have had to take what is effectively a pay cut for the past 3 years and many others have lost their jobs.

it stinks.

I'm pretty sure that his bonus will be paid in RBS shares. Therefore, the better this bankster boss does at RBS then the more his shares will be worth. A pretty good deal for the taxpayer - considering the situation - because the last thing we need is for RBS to go under.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I'm pretty sure that his bonus will be paid in RBS shares. Therefore, the better this bankster boss does at RBS then the more his shares will be worth. A pretty good deal for the taxpayer - considering the situation - because the last thing we need is for RBS to go under.

indeed it is shares, my problem as I have already alluded to that Hester gets the bonus as if he has actually come with all of the strategies himself, RBS has made a profit but has not succeeded in the other part of the remit lending to small businesses in fact anything but, so perhaps the bonus should be halved or better still shared amongst everybody in the company after all didn't somebody who might even be the prime minister say "we are all in this together"?, of course we are.

[Barrs Court Red]

I don't see a problem. His contract probably has conditions like this written in. I doubt this bonus is a whim

[Nibor]

The Daily Mail outrage is both sadly ironic and ridiculous.

A salary + bonus of £2.2m for someone who runs a business of 140,000 employees and led it from a huge loss to a huge profit is actually rather underpaid.

I never understand why people are so bitter about others being successful, if you want to earn more do it.

If you don't like the salaries the market decides for other people, try a communist country.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

The Daily Mail outrage is both sadly ironic and ridiculous.

A salary + bonus of £2.2m for someone who runs a business of 140,000 employees and led it from a huge loss to a huge profit is actually rather underpaid.

I never understand why people are so bitter about others being successful, if you want to earn more do it.

If you don't like the salaries the market decides for other people, try a communist country.

You're probably correct, this guy for instance was not involved at the highest level of the banking cartel when all of this started of course, oh but hang on he was, ah but only following orders, still just one thing missing surely he deserves his knighthood and now.

[Mr Mosquito]

The Daily Mail outrage is both sadly ironic and ridiculous.

A salary + bonus of £2.2m for someone who runs a business of 140,000 employees and led it from a huge loss to a huge profit is actually rather underpaid.

I never understand why people are so bitter about others being successful, if you want to earn more do it.

If you don't like the salaries the market decides for other people, try a communist country.

It is a form of communism - state intervention - when a government intervenes in the affairs of a private company. The banksters are now in a no lose situation because any losses they make will be underwritten by the general taxpayer. The Banksters thus have the best of the free market where they can earn massive bonuses and the best of communism where they're underwritten by the state with none of the downsides. I wish I'd trained to be a bankster.

[Big Stan Hibbert]

_{Tough call this one... I have to say I think that the Lloyds boss declining his bonus was admirable albeit his period of absence made it difficult to justify any other course of action. In terms of Hester, yes RBS has been bailed out but it is in the interests of the taxpayer for the bank to be run as a private company not as a public service. I don't know the details of his strategic decision making but if Hester is credited with setting the bank on the right footing towards long term survival and even profitability then it could be argued that he deserves his bonus. I understand that many people have lost their jobs and that is devastating for those affected, however, if it means that the majority have retained employment and are therefore able to contribute to the country's coffers by paying income tax then that is better for all of us.}

_{I'm more inclined to voice my anger at those in government who allow extortionate sums of public money to be spent looking after people who have neither earned it or deserve it.}

[Nibor]

You're probably correct, this guy for instance was not involved at the highest level of the banking cartel when all of this started of course, oh but hang on he was, ah but only following orders, still just one thing missing surely he deserves his knighthood and now.

Here's the thing: People that run big businesses get paid a lot of money. Why? Because the people able to do it well are sought after and the market drives the price up. It's called capitalism.

You know nothing about the guy concerned and you're just having a general bit of Daily Mail outrage. It's a bit silly.

It is a form of communism - state intervention - when a government intervenes in the affairs of a private company. The banksters are now in a no lose situation because any losses they make will be underwritten by the general taxpayer. The Banksters thus have the best of the free market where they can earn massive bonuses and the best of communism where they're underwritten by the state with none of the downsides. I wish I'd trained to be a bankster.

There's no underwriting going on, the government owns the majority of equity and therefore it is in their interest for the bank to perform well and the share price to go up. The idea of the management being in a no lose situation is completely wrong because as majority shareholder the government can remove the management if they want to. If this was communism the guy at the top would still be rich, and everyone else would be far poorer.

[Red-Robbo]

Here's the thing: People that run big businesses get paid a lot of money. Why? Because the people able to do it well are sought after and the market drives the price up. It's called capitalism.

You know nothing about the guy concerned and you're just having a general bit of Daily Mail outrage. It's a bit silly.

.

But unlike most people who run big businesses, he's running one effectively owned by us - the taxpayer. One that has a blank cheque guarantee of success behind it from us, the taxpayers.

I don't see why someone who is effectively a public servant should be paid that much. And, if Hester doesn't like it, he can c.ock off. I'm sure there many many more people who can do just as effecient a job for less money.

[Mr Mosquito]

Here's the thing: People that run big businesses get paid a lot of money. Why? Because the people able to do it well are sought after and the market drives the price up. It's called capitalism.

You know nothing about the guy concerned and you're just having a general bit of Daily Mail outrage. It's a bit silly.

There's no underwriting going on, the government owns the majority of equity and therefore it is in their interest for the bank to perform well and the share price to go up. The idea of the management being in a no lose situation is completely wrong because as majority shareholder the government can remove the management if they want to. If this was communism the guy at the top would still be rich, and everyone else would be far poorer.

The government are supposed to be underwriting the loans the banks make to small businesses in order to cut the interest rates the small businesses pay. In this respect Esmond Million's Bung is quite right where he wrote that the Banksters have not even lived up to their government remit and lent money to small businesses. We are moving closer to a Communist system when formerly private companies come under state control and when our country is coming under the increasing control of the unelected EU despots.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Here's the thing: People that run big businesses get paid a lot of money. Why? Because the people able to do it well are sought after and the market drives the price up. It's called capitalism.

You know nothing about the guy concerned and you're just having a general bit of Daily Mail outrage. It's a bit silly.

There's no underwriting going on, the government owns the majority of equity and therefore it is in their interest for the bank to perform well and the share price to go up. The idea of the management being in a no lose situation is completely wrong because as majority shareholder the government can remove the management if they want to. If this was communism the guy at the top would still be rich, and everyone else would be far poorer.

I know that he has been involved in banking since 1982, which sort of puts him at the scene of the crime so to speak and I also know that a year after taking over from Goodwin he and his board of directors threatened to quit if they weren't allowed to give bonuses to it's investment division.

[Mr Mosquito]

I know that he has been involved in banking since 1982, which sort of puts him at the scene of the crime so to speak and I also know that a year after taking over from Goodwin he and his board of directors threatened to quit if they weren't allowed to give bonuses to it's investment division.

Those RBS banksters have, effectively, got the government and us as taxpayers by the throat. The banksters could bring RBS down if they don't get their way and the government will lose £billions of taxpayers' money.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Those RBS banksters have, effectively, got the government and us as taxpayers by the throat. The banksters could bring RBS down if they don't get their way and the government will lose £billions of taxpayers' money.

and of course 'we' have already been put in our place once by the really nice guy who told us "governments don't rule the world Goldman Sachs rules the world".

[Mr Mosquito]

and of course 'we' have already been put in our place once by the really nice guy who told us "governments don't rule the world Goldman Sachs rules the world".

It makes a refreshing change from when the Unions supposedly ruled Britain during the 1970s. Mrs Thatcher helped crush the Unions and promoted the financial markets, now it's the financial markets and the banks holding the country to ransom and not the Unions. We've been had big time by those banksters.

[Nibor]

The government are supposed to be underwriting the loans the banks make to small businesses in order to cut the interest rates the small businesses pay. In this respect Esmond Million's Bung is quite right where he wrote that the Banksters have not even lived up to their government remit and lent money to small businesses. We are moving closer to a Communist system when formerly private companies come under state control and when our country is coming under the increasing control of the unelected EU despots.

That's quantative easing being done to stimulate growth, it has nothing to do with underwriting losses and it does not give the management of a bank a no lose situation in the least.

The idea we're moving closer to communism is absolute piffle. We're moving quite in the opposite direction. More and more government services are being privatised and contracted out. Temporarily taking shares in a couple of banks during a banking crisis doesn't change that.

But unlike most people who run big businesses, he's running one effectively owned by us - the taxpayer. One that has a blank cheque guarantee of success behind it from us, the taxpayers.

I don't see why someone who is effectively a public servant should be paid that much. And, if Hester doesn't like it, he can c.ock off. I'm sure there many many more people who can do just as effecient a job for less money.

He's running a PLC of which the government has chosen to be a shareholder. The idea a civil servant could run that business is laughable, it would crash overnight. If you want to have effective leadership in that bank, and I suggest a taxpayer should want that to see a return, you have to pay the going rate.

I know that he has been involved in banking since 1982, which sort of puts him at the scene of the crime so to speak and I also know that a year after taking over from Goodwin he and his board of directors threatened to quit if they weren't allowed to give bonuses to it's investment division.

I'll take that as a yes then - you know nothing about the individual, the job or his performance.

All this furore just boils down to "waaaa waaa waaa I want more". Stop whinging and go get it, the fact that you can do this is about the only thing good in a capitalist system.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

That's quantative easing being done to stimulate growth, it has nothing to do with underwriting losses and it does not give the management of a bank a no lose situation in the least.

The idea we're moving closer to communism is absolute piffle. We're moving quite in the opposite direction. More and more government services are being privatised and contracted out. Temporarily taking shares in a couple of banks during a banking crisis doesn't change that.

He's running a PLC of which the government has chosen to be a shareholder. The idea a civil servant could run that business is laughable, it would crash overnight. If you want to have effective leadership in that bank, and I suggest a taxpayer should want that to see a return, you have to pay the going rate.

I'll take that as a yes then - you know nothing about the individual, the job or his performance.

All this furore just boils down to "waaaa waaa waaa I want more". Stop whinging and go get it, the fact that you can do this is about the only thing good in a capitalist system.

oh the irony of that statement.

[Nibor]

oh the irony of that statement.

Explain?

What's stopping you from earning that sort of money?

[Mr Mosquito]

That's quantative easing being done to stimulate growth, it has nothing to do with underwriting losses and it does not give the management of a bank a no lose situation in the least.

The idea we're moving closer to communism is absolute piffle. We're moving quite in the opposite direction. More and more government services are being privatised and contracted out. Temporarily taking shares in a couple of banks during a banking crisis doesn't change that.

Government services being privatized and contracted out is at the behest of the European Union project where our former British state industries like Royal Mail, Gas and electricity could be broken up and sold to French and German companies. That's Franco-German EU fascism at work (Napoleon and Hitler's dream come true) whereas banks being run by the state - for however short a period - is an aspect of communism.

[Red-Robbo]

He's running a PLC of which the government has chosen to be a shareholder. The idea a civil servant could run that business is laughable, it would crash overnight. If you want to have effective leadership in that bank, and I suggest a taxpayer should want that to see a return, you have to pay the going rate.

It's effectively OWNED by the state. We - because we all paid to buy it - are 83% shareholders so we - as the largest shareholder - should have a say in the renumeration.

Where did I say a civil servant should run it? I'm suggesting a banking expert should run it and that that person just might be able to scrape by on a salary of £1.2m without a nearly £1m bonus.

After all, we pay the PM considerably less than that to manage a nation of 60 million people. And said PM ordered that public sector workers must 'set an example' in such cash strapped times and take below inflationary rises.

When the bank is NOT state-controlled it can do what it likes.

[Mr Mosquito]

I'm suggesting a banking expert should run it and that that person just might be able to scrape by on a salary of £1.2m without a nearly £1m bonus.

The best people to put in charge of the state financed banks would be academics - in my opinion. Take the top professors in business management from our universities and let them run the banks. It worked pretty well during World War 2 where the brightest minds were encouraged to help the war effort - e.g. our top mathematicians were used at Bletchley Park to help crack the German military codes.

[Nibor]

It's effectively OWNED by the state. We - because we all paid to buy it - are 83% shareholders so we - as the largest shareholder - should have a say in the renumeration.

Where did I say a civil servant should run it? I'm suggesting a banking expert should run it and that that person just might be able to scrape by on a salary of £1.2m without a nearly £1m bonus.

After all, we pay the PM considerably less than that to manage a nation of 60 million people. And said PM ordered that public sector workers must 'set an example' in such cash strapped times and take below inflationary rises.

When the bank is NOT state-controlled it can do what it likes.

There's a remuneration committee that the shareholders have seats on. The committee there knows a shit load more about the running of the bank and the bloke's performance than you or I, and about the market for people capable of that sort of job. They made the decision.

The bank isn't "state controlled" or public sector, it is a PLC and that's why it has it's own management. They're responsible to the shareholders just like in any other business.

If you don't pay him something close to the going rate you'll end up with someone less capable in charge. That's the last thing we want. He earns the money because his leadership is worth it, and I mean worth it in pure financial terms as in the business would be worth less (share price would fall) without it.

[Nibor]

The best people to put in charge of the state financed banks would be academics - in my opinion. Take the top professors in business management from our universities and let them run the banks. It worked pretty well during World War 2 where the brightest minds were encouraged to help the war effort - e.g. our top mathematicians were used at Bletchley Park to help crack the German military codes.

Cheers for making me go home on Friday with a grin on my face!

[Barrs Court Red]

I think Terry Pratchet has academics summed up by the faculty of the Unseen University.

[Red-Robbo]

If you don't pay him something close to the going rate you'll end up with someone less capable in charge. That's the last thing we want. He earns the money because his leadership is worth it, and I mean worth it in pure financial terms as in the business would be worth less (share price would fall) without it.

The renumeration committee is headed by some old titled duffer who is the bank's chairman. What's he going to say? "Bonuses all around!" the same as they always do.

Cammy promised he was going to put a stop to big bonuses in banks that were largely state owned yet he says he is powerless to stop this. In other words, he lied. Even right-wing figures like Boris Johnson have condemned the size of the bonus.

Hester was appointed at a time he knew the public had paid £45bn (the world's biggest bail-out) to keep the bank from collapsing and that the state was overwhelmingly the largest shareholder in the bank. He would have known that such a big bonus was unacceptable in such unique circumstances, but I'm assuming the ingrained greed of his profession meant he felt he had to ignore such considerations.

As for his worth, if I were to run the government, I'd put it to the test and let him resign (as he's threatened over the issue). I expect a number of very able candidates would be lining up to do the same job without the huge bonus.