Rbs Bosses Bonus

[Mr Mosquito]

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

....indeed, don't take life too seriously because you'll never leave it alive !!!!!!!

[Guest]

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".

He was a spoof

[Nibor]

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.

Remuneration committees are almost always chaired by the chairman, it's the voting members that count.

If you look at the pay levels of executives in RBS now and five years ago you might notice a massive downward trend.

You also should consider that he will pay 50% income tax on the shares present value and capital gains on anything they make between now and selling them (and of course 50% on salary too).

If you were to sack him and hire someone cheaper the market would react to that very negatively, markets run on perception and emotion more than finances.

[Red-Robbo]

If you were to sack him and hire someone cheaper the market would react to that very negatively, markets run on perception and emotion more than finances.

As RBS shares are hardly being traded, that wouldn't matter very much.

And once someone with a more reasonable earning expectation came in and did as good (or better) job, the price would pick up, prior to denationalisation.

As I said, the bank presents a rather unique situation, but sadly the same old snouts in the trough attitude still prevails in its boardroom it seems. In the big picture, £963,000 of shares (which will probably be worth much more when Hester decides to cash them in) is peanuts, but what this sorry affair demonstrates yet again is we have a PM who is big on rhetoric but minuscule on action.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

He was a spoof

I am well aware of that, it was said tongue in cheek by both of us, this guy has a long history of making statements such as this to embarrass institutions, but hey 'many a truth said in jest'.

[Nibor]

As RBS shares are hardly being traded, that wouldn't matter very much.

And once someone with a more reasonable earning expectation came in and did as good (or better) job, the price would pick up, prior to denationalisation.

As I said, the bank presents a rather unique situation, but sadly the same old snouts in the trough attitude still prevails in its boardroom it seems. In the big picture, £963,000 of shares (which will probably be worth much more when Hester decides to cash them in) is peanuts, but what this sorry affair demonstrates yet again is we have a PM who is big on rhetoric but minuscule on action.

He's a politician, don't expect anything else!

The main point I'd make is that when you dig right down into it what's usually at the bottom of complaining about this sort of thing is "we don't get that much, why should he?"

I hate this attitude in the UK. Everyone has the opportunity to work their ass off, apply their ability, learn, build their own business, climb the ranks in someone else's - whatever.

This guy's probably had to study his ass off and then work 50+ hour weeks for 30 years and beat off competition to get where he is.

We seem to begrudge the people who do that the reward rather than see it as inspiration to do the same. Not a trait that does us any good, and we'll suffer for it in the future when you see what competition is doing for the workforce in countries like China.

He was hired to turn the bank around, I'd congratulate him on succeeding. The taxpayer will see a return eventually (in fact you could argue it is already since RBS hold about £22bn in GB gilt). His earnings considering his responsibility are modest. You might not like that but I'd be surprised if you could find any CEO of a 140k employee company that profits at £2bn a quarter who earns less, in fact I'd be amazed.

If people directed their outrage into doing something positive for themselves this country would be a much happier place.

[Red-Robbo]

He was hired to turn the bank around, I'd congratulate him on succeeding. The taxpayer will see a return eventually (in fact you could argue it is already since RBS hold about £22bn in GB gilt). His earnings considering his responsibility are modest. You might not like that but I'd be surprised if you could find any CEO of a 140k employee company that profits at £2bn a quarter who earns less, in fact I'd be amazed.

If people directed their outrage into doing something positive for themselves this country would be a much happier place.

Yes well done Stephen Hester, but I don't think he did it all single handed. As EMB said, I expect he had about 119,000 people to help him. And of course the fact that the taxpayer pumped in billions and continues to provide a de facto guarantee for the business must've helped!

But here's the thing. I think pretty much everyone working in that sector at a corporate level earns way too much, particularly when you weigh up their use to the rest of humanity. The game's not straight. It so happens that here we, the business owners, had a lever to start to influence the ridiculous salaries paid in banks. Yet our representatives chose to do nothing.

You'd almost think they had a vested interest in such inertia...

[Nibor]

Yes well done Stephen Hester, but I don't think he did it all single handed. As EMB said, I expect he had about 119,000 people to help him. And of course the fact that the taxpayer pumped in billions and continues to provide a de facto guarantee for the business must've helped!

But here's the thing. I think pretty much everyone working in that sector at a corporate level earns way too much, particularly when you weigh up their use to the rest of humanity. The game's not straight. It so happens that here we, the business owners, had a lever to start to influence the ridiculous salaries paid in banks. Yet our representatives chose to do nothing.

You'd almost think they had a vested interest in such inertia...

I'm sure he wasn't the only one to get a bonus and these things are relative to your level of responsibility.

Goodwin is the one to get irate about, he failed and took no responsibility and got an awful lot more out of it.

Anyway, if you think the pay at the top is too high, the only way in this system you get to change it is to climb there yourself. The thing is, doing that will change your outlook.

[Antman]

It's fundamentally wrong. We continue to justify the outrageous bonuses on the basis that these people will leave if we don't. So what? Let em! There's lots and lots of talented people kept down by this inequitable arrangement, people who could be allowed to grow and show their talents, people who wouldn't expect this culture of disproportionate rewards, people who care about their fellow man and the communities they live in. It's a ******* disgrace, and we let the Tories into power to perpetuate it all.

Pass me the AK47 brother

[Red-Robbo]

I'm sure he wasn't the only one to get a bonus and these things are relative to your level of responsibility.

Goodwin is the one to get irate about, he failed and took no responsibility and got an awful lot more out of it.

Anyway, if you think the pay at the top is too high, the only way in this system you get to change it is to climb there yourself. The thing is, doing that will change your outlook.

As someone who was slated to read PPE at Oxford (before I took fright at the state of the freaks at the interview) I suppose I could've done so, Nib.

But I don't think I'm really smarmy and cun.ty enough to climb to the top of the banking or political ladders. I'd like to think money wasn't my primary motivation in life.

But I would like to see a bit more fairness.

[Mr Mosquito]

This topic has an amazing views to posts ratio. It's a delight to read the viewpoints on this thread - superb, well done lads.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I'm sure he wasn't the only one to get a bonus and these things are relative to your level of responsibility. Goodwin is the one to get irate about, he failed and took no responsibility and got an awful lot more out of it. Anyway, if you think the pay at the top is too high, the only way in this system you get to change it is to climb there yourself. The thing is, doing that will change your outlook.

Very true but Hester was far enough up the food chain to know what exactly was going on.

[myol'man]

Maybe he should have got £1m Peacocks shares for his bonus instead

http://www.telegraph...nistration.html

[Antman]

here's the rub, if this man had a shred of moral decency he would have come out and said he was giving his money to charity - looking at his picture, i'd wager it's likely to go on some more expensive dinners and ski-ing holidays -

'The representation of private interests ... abolishes all natural and spiritual distinctions by enthroning in their stead the immoral, irrational and soulless abstraction of a particular material object and a particular consciousness which is slavishly subordinated to this object.'

[Fiale]

Mr Hourican one of the surviving senior executives still at RBS :

In March 2010 – following the investment bank's most successful year – Mr Hourican got £7.7m pay package

In 2011 - his total package was worth £6.2m

Remember that a lot of the RBS execs threatened to walk out if the did not get their bonuses, one exec asking for £4 million - which is £3.8 million more than his civil servant boss at the Treasury.

[Antman]

Remember that a lot of the RBS execs threatened to walk out if the did not get their bonuses, one exec asking for £4 million - which is £3.8 million more than his civil servant boss at the Treasury.

let them walk - why do we continue to be blinded by the untruth that these people are the 'only ones' who can run our businesses.

a lot of people who have worked their whole lives in their respective industries know these businesses better than these managers and company directors who flit from business to business claiming imoral wages and bonuses - we choose to subscribe to the myth of the 'market' - it's bollocks, but we seem too scared to admit it.

what about the hundreds and thousands of people who implement the banks activities daily - where's their bonuses?

[Antman]

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.

and there lies the problem - these days people think our only option as a society is to go 'get it for yourselves'

social responsibiltiy and morality are seemingly out of fashion/favour because after all that takes too much thinking and might threaten the 1 or 2% that still keep the wealth and ownership to them selves. we really need to work harder to find a more equitable society.

I would heartily recommend this book - http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resource/the-spirit-level (and lots more) for those that might want to make the effort to consider their/our position in the wider world.

as old Gandhi said - we must be the change we wish to see in the world.

[Nibor]

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.

and there lies the problem - these days people think our only option as a society is to go 'get it for yourselves'

The problem is people think they're entitled to get an equitable share without putting in an equal contribution. That's not fairness by any stretch of the imagination. Equality isn't the right goal. Equality of opportunity is. After that, it's up to individuals to make the most of it.

I won't pretend we have that equality of opportunity yet. While people are still allowed to be born into wealth they haven't had to earn it won't be "fair". But the ability of the average person in the UK to shape their own life through hard work exists much more than it has in the past and it continues to improve. In my experience the people who complain the most about inequality tend to be those who don't actually contribute much.

[Barrs Court Red]

Interestingly he was appointed while a Labour government. Love it

[marshy]

He's a politician, don't expect anything else!

The main point I'd make is that when you dig right down into it what's usually at the bottom of complaining about this sort of thing is "we don't get that much, why should he?"

I hate this attitude in the UK. Everyone has the opportunity to work their ass off, apply their ability, learn, build their own business, climb the ranks in someone else's - whatever.

This guy's probably had to study his ass off and then work 50+ hour weeks for 30 years and beat off competition to get where he is.

We seem to begrudge the people who do that the reward rather than see it as inspiration to do the same. Not a trait that does us any good, and we'll suffer for it in the future when you see what competition is doing for the workforce in countries like China.

He was hired to turn the bank around, I'd congratulate him on succeeding. The taxpayer will see a return eventually (in fact you could argue it is already since RBS hold about £22bn in GB gilt). His earnings considering his responsibility are modest. You might not like that but I'd be surprised if you could find any CEO of a 140k employee company that profits at £2bn a quarter who earns less, in fact I'd be amazed.

If people directed their outrage into doing something positive for themselves this country would be a much happier place.

Some wise words throughout on this thread Nibor. In 'bold' above reminds me of something I once read. Young guys looking at a flash car, in America they say, 'one day I'm gonna have one like that'. in England they put a scratch along it.

The green-eyed monster has certainly reared its ugly head on this issue. Aside from the fact that we shouldn't be having this argument as RBS should have been allowed to go to the wall, and the fact that his contract was drawn up by the previous government and is largely incentive based, the guy seems to be following his remit to the letter. Anyway what's a million quid these days, ten weeks pay for some footballers and they're not saving the country a shed-load of money.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Some wise words throughout on this thread Nibor. In 'bold' above reminds me of something I once read. Young guys looking at a flash car, in America they say, 'one day I'm gonna have one like that'. in England they put a scratch along it.

The green-eyed monster has certainly reared its ugly head on this issue. Aside from the fact that we shouldn't be having this argument as RBS should have been allowed to go to the wall, and the fact that his contract was drawn up by the previous government and is largely incentive based, the guy seems to be following his remit to the letter. Anyway what's a million quid these days, ten weeks pay for some footballers and they're not saving the country a shed-load of money.

Some wise words and some wild speculation about green eyed monsters, some just think it's plain wrong.

But the wisest words are yours about RBS being allowed to go to the wall. The worldwide bail out of the banks was nothing more than to protect the wealth of the worlds richest 1%, heaven forbid that they shouldn't make money whatever is happening in the world and of we must put in our money into 'their' banks to make sure that they keep theirs.

Also the shares in RBS have fallen by a third in the past 12 months, so perhaps he ain't done as well he and Cammy and Osbourne think.

[Fiale]

Some wise words and some wild speculation about green eyed monsters, some just think it's plain wrong.

But the wisest words are yours about RBS being allowed to go to the wall. The worldwide bail out of the banks was nothing more than to protect the wealth of the worlds richest 1%, heaven forbid that they shouldn't make money whatever is happening in the world and of we must put in our money into 'their' banks to make sure that they keep theirs.

Also the shares in RBS have fallen by a third in the past 12 months, so perhaps he ain't done as well he and Cammy and Osbourne think.

Some wise words and some wild speculation about green eyed monsters, some just think it's plain wrong.

But the wisest words are yours about RBS being allowed to go to the wall. The worldwide bail out of the banks was nothing more than to protect the wealth of the worlds richest 1%, heaven forbid that they shouldn't make money whatever is happening in the world and of we must put in our money into 'their' banks to make sure that they keep theirs.

Also the shares in RBS have fallen by a third in the past 12 months, so perhaps he ain't done as well he and Cammy and Osbourne think.

That will benefit them even more - that means when the share regain there true value (RBS have cleared/written of most of there bad debt and made £2billion in profits last year) he will have already made 33% profit as his share options of £923,000 will be based on current value - not a bad little earner

Personally I wish governments would stay out of capital markets like this - the only way for banks/markets to govern themselves is to know that they will fail if they gamble to much - if you cannot loose you may as well gamble.... these banks and all those in the line of creditors would have folded or lost money, but next time people would at least more careful in speculation - even better all this bad/valueless crap currently say on peoples books for the tune of trillions of dollars would have been written off and we could all start with a fresh (albeit smaller) slate.

[Fiale]

Sorry for double quote - the edit option is not working for some reason.

[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.

The irony is that this is exactly what the dear bankers are saying, i'm not asking for anymore, just a better use of my taxes, than buying another horse so his missus actually estranged, can look good as one of the masters of the Warwickshire hunt.

[The Batman]

Interestingly he was appointed while a Labour government. Love it

That's what I found so hilarious about Miliband's rant at the Tories allowing it was that the agreement was made by the last labour government.

[Antman]

The problem is people think they're entitled to get an equitable share without putting in an equal contribution. That's not fairness by any stretch of the imagination. Equality isn't the right goal. Equality of opportunity is. After that, it's up to individuals to make the most of it.

I won't pretend we have that equality of opportunity yet. While people are still allowed to be born into wealth they haven't had to earn it won't be "fair". But the ability of the average person in the UK to shape their own life through hard work exists much more than it has in the past and it continues to improve. In my experience the people who complain the most about inequality tend to be those who don't actually contribute much.

I think we're probably talking about the same principle - that of a more equitable society. (i'm not suggesting for a moment that there should be some 'engineered' arrangement, but not everyone wants to live in a market lead, capitalist system)

I think you're in danger of making a sweeping generalisation when you say about those who complain about inequality dont contribute - the millions of working people who have come out against pension reform cannot be described as not contributing, an awful lot of the poorest in our society simple cannot escape the vicious cycles (inadvertantly? / intentionally?) implemented by our existing capitalist system, and on a wholly anecodotal level talking to lots of people who like me, run businesses, are finding their working lives becoming harder and harder, working hours longer and their rewards being less and less. yes there is a % of 'moaners' but any less than the % of 'spongers' at the other end of the scale (royal family)

anyhow, the more this debate happens in the public arena, the better it is for all of us.

http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2010/06/28/rsa-animate-crisis-capitalism/ - another interesting perspective

[marshy]

That's what I found so hilarious about Miliband's rant at the Tories allowing it was that the agreement was made by the last labour government.

....and he was actually a member of the Cabinet that approved it.

[Antman]

....and he was actually a member of the Cabinet that approved it.

and in opposition cameron was outspoken on how he wouldn't allow it, and here we are...

[Barrs Court Red]

How can he not allow it, when the contracts been signed? State intervention, that'll certainly encourage business to invest here won't it.

[Antman]

How can he not allow it, when the contracts been signed? State intervention, that'll certainly encourage business to invest here won't it.

so why was he so vocal in opposition? and doubtless you think that Cameron selling off the Northern Rock at a huge loss was labours fault too? - trying to blame Labour for what was clearly, and proven to be a global market meltdown, started by the big investment banks on Wall Street is nonsense (in the same way the mayor of New York , Bloomberg, is blaming Obama) true Brown was guilt of not regulating the city, but be clear here, the tories are taking that de regulation and letting it go far further - the recent euro agreement crisis stemmed from the fact that Cameron couldn't allow to see his mates (and funders) in the city get put under regulation that would help stop them gambling like they did before.

you'll find that a lot of inward investment is directly linked to state intervention, in the forms of subsidy and tax write offs - Vodafone being let off billions by the revenue isn't in effect 'State intervention'? of course it is.