Fat bonus wrong ?

[tintin40]

Don't care. We live in this system. So get on with life. Theirs nothing you can do about it. Those at the top will always f**k those at the bottom.

 

[greenstiles]

''public interference'' LOL it's 82% owned by the public !

 

[technodup]

''public interference'' LOL it's 82% owned by the public !

So? We own it and will benefit from any future sale. We don't run it.

The public doesn't know how to run a global financial institution. It's a public company operating in an open market, salaries have to be competitive.

 

[Neil]

''public interference'' LOL it's 82% owned by the public !

So? We own it and will benefit from any future sale. We don't run it.

The public doesn't know how to run a global financial institution. It's a public company operating in an open market, salaries have to be competitive.

In the private sector, all aspects of the business are open to shareholder scrutiny. So should it be for previously private businesses, now largely publicly propped-up and owned.

They survived on the basis of using public finances that all tax payers have had to realise a hit from (given the knock-on effect on all other things that have to come out of the public purse). So it's hardly unreasonable to expect that the public have a very big say - or at least opinion - as to what goes on.

 

[technodup]

''public interference'' LOL it's 82% owned by the public !

So? We own it and will benefit from any future sale. We don't run it.

The public doesn't know how to run a global financial institution. It's a public company operating in an open market, salaries have to be competitive.

In the private sector, all aspects of the business are open to shareholder scrutiny. So should it be for previously private businesses, now largely publicly propped-up and owned.

They survived on the basis of using public finances that all tax payers have had to realise a hit from (given the knock-on effect on all other things that have to come out of the public purse). So it's hardly unreasonable to expect that the public have a very big say - or at least opinion - as to what goes on.

Inevitably they have an opinion, but they should have no say or sway over policy imo.

Plus as I understand it part of the issue around salaries and performance in the private sector is the shareholders not using their right to scrutinise properly. If major shareholders can't, won't or don't do it I fail to see how or why Joe Public is going to do any better.

They did survive due to the taxpayer, but can you imagine the public outcry if they were (rightly imo) allowed to fail? Savers, shareholders, pensions etc (taxpayers) all losing funds? Can't win.

Either way the little people are fncked.

 

[bryan555]

I know the RBS fella wasn't there when they got greedy and screwed-up their bank, but he hasn't fixed it yet, and the bank hasn't yet paid back the taxpayer the money it has taken.

And he hasn't got his bonus yet. As shares it's essentially deferred until he does succeed or it'll not be worth much.

Ummm, well, if he accepts the bonus, he will have been paid, even if he can't turn the shares into cash for another few years. So (assuming he accepts the shares) he gets his bonus of about a million unless he totally screws up! So the incentive isn't to build the bank int a secure national asset, it's not to totally bollox it up. I wonder why all bonus schemes don't work like that? :roll:

 

[bryan555]

Either way the little people are fncked.

Very true

 

[bryan555]

I'd do it, make a pigs ear of it, get fired and have a nice fat payout - that's how it goes isn't it?

I think I could that for a flat million.
I might apply

 

[Neil]

''public interference'' LOL it's 82% owned by the public !

So? We own it and will benefit from any future sale. We don't run it.

The public doesn't know how to run a global financial institution. It's a public company operating in an open market, salaries have to be competitive.

In the private sector, all aspects of the business are open to shareholder scrutiny. So should it be for previously private businesses, now largely publicly propped-up and owned.

They survived on the basis of using public finances that all tax payers have had to realise a hit from (given the knock-on effect on all other things that have to come out of the public purse). So it's hardly unreasonable to expect that the public have a very big say - or at least opinion - as to what goes on.

Inevitably they have an opinion, but they should have no say or sway over policy imo.

Not sure I agree.

By all means, let the private sector pretty much self-regulate, there - but this isn't the private sector - these banks are largely nationalised. The public do have a right to say, make comment - and en masse, be listened to.

Afer all, the public has had to pay a very big price.

And in just the same way that you'd expect the tax-paying electorate to have an opinion and influence over general pay / remuneration for high-ranking public sector workers.

Plus as I understand it part of the issue around salaries and performance in the private sector is the shareholders not using their right to scrutinise properly. If major shareholders can't, won't or don't do it I fail to see how or why Joe Public is going to do any better.

I'm not necessarily saying that the average, Clapham-omnibus-riding-individual should have direct control, or power of veto on these things - merely that the public, in general, have a right to make comment, and in all fairness to the situation, in perspective, there should be some consideration as to general public opinion on this - in just the same way that any notable policy on public sector funding / finances / remuneration would be expected to pass muster.

They did survive due to the taxpayer, but can you imagine the public outcry if they were (rightly imo) allowed to fail? Savers, shareholders, pensions etc (taxpayers) all losing funds? Can't win.

Well it's a double-edged sword, discussed at the time as well as now - and there have been various standpoints on it.

I've listened to the arguments about how capatilism needs institutions to fail due to market forces and - there's no nice way of saying it - stupidity / arrogance - at times.

But as you say, sometimes some situations are too big to let fail.

IMO, though, the worse thing the (bailed-out) banking and financial sector could do, at the moment, is treat the taxpaying public with contempt and arrogance, ignoring how they managed to survive at a considerable cost to public finances.

Sometimes you have to take one for the team - the public have painfully had to learn this lesson - and still look like they will for some time. In my opinion, some of the issue, at present, is that "We don't ALL seem in it together...".

Either way the little people are fncked.

True dat.

 

[Neil]

I'd do it, make a pigs ear of it, get fired and have a nice fat payout - that's how it goes isn't it?

I think I could that for a flat million.
I might apply

I wonder how "Well I can't do any worse than the last feckwit you had in charge" would look on an application form?