bonus or not

[Jake]

I see Barclays are not paying a bonus as their profit is down ( I assume below target). Are their bonus contracts that different from other banks. strangely they seem to be applying some common sense (which in itself is a worry).

That's to their directors, not their staff.

 

[Paul Chapman]

If bonuses are contractually payable and the banks have the money to pay them (even if it came from us!), then they legally will have to pay them, and no amount of political grandstanding or "moral" arguments (however justified) after the event will actually make a difference, like it or not.

But the banks were broke so they didn't have the money to pay them. When Golden Balls lent them our money it should have had conditions attached - but as usual he made a balls-up and didn't attach the conditions, which is why he is now making pathetic noises about being very cross at the banks about paying bonuses.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[matt]

My bonus is purely profit related for the business as whole rather than my performance although it is a percentage of my salary therefore does relate in some way to responsibility and performance.

And there is nothing wrong with that as it is an incentive for all staff towards generating profit and not just sales. But most of the banks haven't made any profit.

Andrew

Precisely!

 

[John. B]

As reported in the Guardian today:
It would seem Barclays are doing a bit better than you thought :roll:
Barclays' balance sheet is now larger than the annual output of the entire UK economy after ballooning to more than £2tn in 2008, it revealed today.

As the bank attempted to win over sceptics concerned about potential black holes in its Barclays Capital investment banking division,
the chief executive, John Varley, insisted the sheer size of the bank's assets and liabilities would not be a source of instability for the bruised financial system. The annual output of the UK economy is about £1.5tn.

Varley defended the bank's accounting policies, which have fuelled concerns about potential losses,
by reporting profits of £6.1bn – helped by a £2.2bn gain from the acquisition of the US businesses of Lehman Brothers last year. [-X [-X [-X [-X

John. B

 

[paulm]

I agree Paul, bit like the British jobs for British workers thing, political grandstanding but legally maybe can't be delivered.......

Cheers, Paul

 

[head clansman]

Hi all

IMHO Seeing the tax payers now own a large slice of most banks it's time heads started to roll .

PETER T SAID Senior bank execs get paid a huge amount of money, and are expected, by the shareholders, to get results.

SO WE ARE THE NEW SHARHOLDERS

To get the most spectacular results they must take risks. If they take risks and fail, they get fired.

Well they failed miserable, spectacular results? ( so why no firings)

JENX SAID The cracks are more than beginning to show, and there will be more to come, no doubt.

As the song says... " there may be trouble ahead......"

trouble with a BIG T for me and you that is they wont care less there pockets are well and truly lined.

Its time now we as shareholders spoke out they have lived like fat cats now for far to long every body in the bank who actually got bonus related earning should be sacked with no payments at all . the guy at the top in RBS will walk away with over 8 million a year pension when he get the chop, ha , how does any system pay out money like that to get performances but it actually does the opposite and brought this country to its knees . waite till some get the chop and others don;t then we'll see some rats come up out of the vaults

Pull those belt notches in boys i fear some very troubled and lean times ahead.hc

 

[Paul Chapman]

I agree Paul, bit like the British jobs for British workers thing, political grandstanding but legally maybe can't be delivered.......

If I were Gordon Brown (perish the thought :shock: :shock: ) and any of the banks we had bailed out paid a bonus, I would risk taking them to court, arguing that they were, before the bail out, technically insolvent, and were using the bail out money for a purpose for which it was clearly never intended. I think Gordon would win but I doubt he has the balls to do it.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[head clansman]

Hi Paul

Thats a very valid point , but why waite till the moneys been pay out sack them now and let them take the tax payers to court not the other way round and let them try there luck without all that bonus money to back them up at least it will still available for its intended use.hc

 

[Paul Chapman]

I think the banks want to pay bonuses throughout their organisations. Probably the best course would be to tell the banks in advance that if they pay bonuses he will take them to court - get ahead of the curve for once 8)

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Jake]

I agree Paul, bit like the British jobs for British workers thing, political grandstanding but legally maybe can't be delivered.......

If I were Gordon Brown (perish the thought :shock: :shock: ) and any of the banks we had bailed out paid a bonus, I would risk taking them to court, arguing that they were, before the bail out, technically insolvent, and were using the bail out money for a purpose for which it was clearly never intended. I think Gordon would win but I doubt he has the balls to do it.

Cheers :wink:



Paul

He'd lose if there was contractual entitlement. On what basis do you think he could do that? If they wanted to do things which were that drastic to existing accrued private law rights, they would have had to let the bank go into insolvency - and we couldn't afford to let that happen.

 

[Jake]

Hi Paul

Thats a very valid point , but why waite till the moneys been pay out sack them now and let them take the tax payers to court not the other way round and let them try there luck without all that bonus money to back them up at least it will still available for its intended use.hc

This seems an admirably astute way to ensure that the banks that the taxpayer has invested in turn into ineffective and worthless husks which will never recover to give a payback to the taxpayer.

They have to keep the damn things running and afloat and (increasingly) profitable, so they recover and can be sold off again. Unfortunately, that is going to require bankers.

Otherwise you might as well just let them go bust in the first place.

 

[Paul Chapman]

He'd lose if there was contractual entitlement. On what basis do you think he could do that?

I'm no lawyer, but I reckon the fact that without the bail out money none of the staff would have a contract would be a good place to start the argument.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[andrewm]

Varley defended the bank's accounting policies, which have fuelled concerns about potential losses,
by reporting profits of £6.1bn – helped by a £2.2bn gain from the acquisition of the US businesses of Lehman Brothers last year.

There is a big difference between profits and shareholder value though. Barclays may have made big profits (however they account for them) but by refinancing they have significantly reduced shareholder value which is what matters to shareholders (a lot of them individuals who hold Barclays shares because they held windfall shares in the likes of Woolwich which was taken over and proably many more who hold Barclays shares in their pension schemes.)

 

[Peter T]

I think Gordon would win but I doubt he has the balls to do it.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

Should that be Eye Balls??

 

[Jake]

He'd lose if there was contractual entitlement. On what basis do you think he could do that?

I'm no lawyer, but I reckon the fact that without the bail out money none of the staff would have a contract would be a good place to start the argument.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

If you keep the bank solvent, you keep it solvent. You can't keep it solvent, but say that its contracts don't count because it wouldn't have been solvent if you hadn't kept it solvent.

It's OK being wiser than the government, but you ought to find a route that works first.

 

[head clansman]

Hi jake

there are a lots of bankers out there who can and would do these jobs under new contract terms and i'm in no doubt cannot do no worse a job than what we have seen of late .

this is a monumental cockup on a gigantic scale by the banking bosses which is going to take a monumental risk to put right. In the mean time start at the top and sack them . hc

 

[newt]

Yes why are they not being sacked, the BBC sacked that women for saying a word that is not PC, the bloody bankers screw up and keep their jobs plus a bonus. I give up.

 

[andycktm]

The Gov. should have let the "bad" banks go to the wall,and let the good one's have the business.Because you can bet we will be here again in 10-15 years or how ever long the cycle is!
Late 70's recession ,late 80's recession and now this one.

 

[Waka]

As there are more savers than borrowers in banks, I'd like to see a run on banks by savers if they pay out the hugh bonuses, that will make them sit up and listen, I'll certainly be removing my money.

As for the rights of bonuses, I thought they were performance related, if they've been bailed out then the performance has not been met, therefore no bonus.

 

[Jenx]

They may well be 'Performance Related' .. but that rather depends on what the KPI's are, on which the individuals are being judged... they may not necessarily be what we'd perhaps expect .