Fat bonus wrong ?

[dbmtb]

oops double post

 

[technodup]

I can see your previous point if it was private, but it's state. But your fighting your case well, and yes it could just be a fudge smoke screen that we get at the end of the day and no real say will be granted.

It's temporarily state. The plan is to sell it back to the private sector.

It's a mess, and there's no easy answers either way. But clamouring for the government to effectively run a bank when they are demonstrably shit at running anything else wouldn't be my choice. The list of abject government failures even in the last decade is as long as my arm, they just can't do big projects well. Either lot. All they're good at is wasting our money.

But then I'd have government doing as little as possible in every sense.

 

[NAILTRAIL96]

The gov simply couldn't afford for RBS to go tits up.
They needed a man capable and with a proven history, he actually took a cut to take that role and it will either raise his profile or kill his career.

He has already refused one bonus as it was still early days, now his remit has actually changed from his original contract and yet he stayed when he could have had a severence package and walked.

We all need RBS to go well and if he can save us the best part of a billion pounds and thousands of jobs is he not worth ten million over five years?.

 

[technodup]

You'll convince no-one with that sort of level headed pragmatism.

Off with his head.

 

[bryan555]

Yeah, RBS need someone good, and yeah, they should be paid fairly for what they do, their skill, instincts and experience. But fair isn't 2.2 million a year. Certainly it's better than 7m, but it's still pretty foul when it's bankers greed that led us down this path of doom.

I'm all for share options, a great idea, and a good incentive, but we're talking about nearly a million, in this climate? I reserve The right to be sickened by the sheer greed, and pissed off that the people who actually create things, as opposed to the money lenders, are the ones that are suffering.

I don't know the how to solve the countries financial problems, but paying bankers massive bonuses is not working.

Deregulation has failed us all in the long term. Shame on you mr brown. Tie the bankers hands back up with red tape, they can't be trusted to do the right thing.

 

[technodup]

Deregulation has failed us all in the long term. Shame on you mr brown. Tie the bankers hands back up with red tape, they can't be trusted to do the right thing.

The issue is we have the a private problem 'fixed' with public money. Brown was responsible for both. Dealing with the problem before or letting them go to the wall after- either would be preferable to what we've got.

I read a piece the other day comparing bankers to lapdancers (stay with me). Apparently lapdancers pay the club for the right to dance and take home most or all of their earnings. The same could apply to financiers- they pay to work and only get bonuses on profits generated.

It could mean banks and other institutions auctioning off the positions to the highest bidder. The highest bidders being the best at, or at least the ones most confident in making money. And if they've paid for the privilege they'd presumably be more careful in what risks they take.

Seemed reasonable to me.

 

[greenstiles]

Well here's a link to the good and the bad about the man.......you judge for yourselves ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16759963

And maybe they will actually do this.....after all if we all are expected to cut back because of their mistakes then so should they.......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16688925