RBS CEO Bonus

[flanajb]

To please the 99% of this population who are brain dead and to hopefully get their vote come the next election!

Presumably you consider yourself to be one of the 1%?

I don't, given that stupid, inaccurate and most offensive comment.

Ok, fair point. Maybe 99% is too high. If I adjust the figure to 70% would that be more acceptable?

 

[studders]

Nope. Still offensive and rather arrogant.

'To please 99% of those who Politicians like to think are Brain dead and, hopefully, to get their vote come the next election'

'Might' be slightly better.

 

[chipmunk]

Hi Roger,
Ok, 8 levels is a bit on the low side but it doesn't really need to be that many more IMHO for an organization without a "bloated" middle management.

If each person in a 8 level organization has 5 supervisees then it would accomodate an organization of 1 + 5 + 25 + 125 + 625 + 3125 + 15625 + 753125 more than 94000 employees.

But I also note that RBS, according to Wikipedia, has 141000 employees so I hold my hand up. I admit that we therefore need to add one more level which would then accomodate an organization up to about 450,000 employees.

So, if we stick to the 50x that leads to each level having 50^(1/8) = 1.63 or 63% extra salary than the lower level which is "ok", isn't it?
So this would still mean that the £630k cap is "reasonable" IMHO.

Jon

 

[flanajb]

Nope. Still offensive and rather arrogant.

'To please 99% of those who Politicians like to think are Brain dead and, hopefully, to get their vote come the next election'

'Might' be slightly better.

On reflection my comment is offensive and I apologise, but it is born out of frustration.

When I hear people saying "Why should a Banker earn ££££££££ when Nurses, Doctors and other public sector workers earn ££££?" I feel like banging my head against a brick wall. They don't seem to grasp that the wages of public sector workers are paid for by the private sector. If public sector wages were higher than private sector wages, then the books would not balance and our deficit would be even more massive than it is now.

I have read so many comments from people (admittedly, not on this forum) who comment about all aspects of what is going on with regards to welfare reform and the RBS CEO bonus issue, and you can't help but think to yourself 'these people are clueless'.

Just read some of the comments posted on the BBC News website regarding the RBS bonus issue. More people seem to be in favour of just not paying his bonus, regardless of the implications that will have, or the usual boring question 'why should he earn that much'.

 

[chipmunk]

Nope. Still offensive and rather arrogant.

'To please 99% of those who Politicians like to think are Brain dead and, hopefully, to get their vote come the next election'

'Might' be slightly better.

On reflection my comment is offensive and I apologise, but it is born out of frustration.

When I hear people saying "Why should a Banker earn ££££££££ when Nurses, Doctors and other public sector workers earn ££££?" I feel like banging my head against a brick wall. They don't seem to grasp that the wages of public sector workers are paid for by the private sector. If public sector wages were higher than private sector wages, then the books would not balance and our deficit would be even more massive than it is now.

I have read so many comments from people (admittedly, not on this forum) who comment about all aspects of what is going on with regards to welfare reform and the RBS CEO bonus issue, and you can't help but think to yourself 'these people are clueless'.

Just read some of the comments posted on the BBC News website regarding the RBS bonus issue. More people seem to be in favour of just not paying his bonus, regardless of the implications that will have, or the usual boring question 'why should he earn that much'.

Well it may be a comment from one of the "clueless" but many of these private sector companies are owned by OUR pension funds. So, they may be private but they are also PUBLIC Limited Companies - PLC's :wink:

Luckily it seems that the disquiet on inflated salaries does seem to be gaining some momentum in these tough times. Particularly since it is suspected, if not known for sure, that these folks are almost certainly working hard to avoid paying as much tax as the rest of us are subjected to. Admittedly they are behaving perfectly legally but they are aided and abbetted by an insanely complicated tax system.

Remuneration committees are mainly the problem. The non-execs who are supposed to make up these committees are not truly accountable IMHO and certainly not "independent".
Reform is needed.
Jon

 

[studders]

On reflection my comment is offensive and I apologise, but it is born out of frustration.

Apology accepted, thank you.

And yes, I can appreciate the frustration. Most (of my) comments re Bankers etc. are purely tongue in cheek so shouldn't be taken too seriously.
That said I can see both sides, the Bankers who've done a good job, above and beyond etc., and those on very low income who feel aggrieved that someone who works no harder than them yet gets so much more.

 

[Digit]

Many years ago I was involved in a similar debate with a Trot, and I surprised him by writing a list of 'worth' on the basis of their importance to a community, as opposed to their own belif in their worth. It ran thus...

Farmers.
Sewage workers/waterworks.
Dustmen.
Police officers.
Teachers.
Etc.

...these are important, the rest tend to be self important.

Roy.

 

[cambournepete]

When I hear people saying "Why should a Banker earn ££££££££ when Nurses, Doctors and other public sector workers earn ££££?"

As RBS is 70% (?) owned by us doesn't that also make him a "public sector" worker?
If they were truly a private company then I wouldn't care what he got as a bonus. But they aren't, so I and many others do care.

Someone else mentioned Bob Diamond, which is a red herring as far as I'm concerned - Barclays didn't use any public money, so well done to them and good luck to him!

 

[Jake]

When I hear people saying "Why should a Banker earn ££££££££ when Nurses, Doctors and other public sector workers earn ££££?"

As RBS is 70% (?) owned by us doesn't that also make him a "public sector" worker?
If they were truly a private company then I wouldn't care what he got as a bonus. But they aren't, so I and many others do care.

Someone else mentioned Bob Diamond, which is a red herring as far as I'm concerned - Barclays didn't use any public money, so well done to them and good luck to him!

But the point is that we own (a large part of) RBS. Do we want it restructured by a competent banking CEO (whose peers are the likes of Bob Diamond), or by someone who will accept a much smaller package for an indefinite period?

I'd rather we spent a bit on competent management, because the sum involved is miniscule compared to the billions we have collectively invested in rescuing RBS. I'm glad the government is resisting the pressure (even if their tactics are pretty shabby, claiming to be contractually bound to pay the bonus when they are not).

 

[flanajb]

When I hear people saying "Why should a Banker earn ££££££££ when Nurses, Doctors and other public sector workers earn ££££?"

As RBS is 70% (?) owned by us doesn't that also make him a "public sector" worker?
If they were truly a private company then I wouldn't care what he got as a bonus. But they aren't, so I and many others do care.

Someone else mentioned Bob Diamond, which is a red herring as far as I'm concerned - Barclays didn't use any public money, so well done to them and good luck to him!

But the point is that we own (a large part of) RBS. Do we want it restructured by a competent banking CEO (whose peers are the likes of Bob Diamond), or by someone who will accept a much smaller package for an indefinite period?

I'd rather we spent a bit on competent management, because the sum involved is miniscule compared to the billions we have collectively invested in rescuing RBS. I'm glad the government is resisting the pressure (even if their tactics are pretty shabby, claiming to be contractually bound to pay the bonus when they are not).

If the tax payer wants to get their money back with profit, then the best thing that can be done is to allow the CEO to do his job and be paid market rates inline with other financial institutions. They also need to stop the constant RBS bashing which does nothing to help the situation.

 

[chipmunk]

Let's not forget where ex-Chancellors and ex-Chief Secretaries to the Treasury end up after their terms of office!

Who would de-rail the gravy train they're hoping to jump on in a few years time? :wink:

Jon

 

[flanajb]

Let's not forget where ex-Chancellors and ex-Chief Secretaries to the Treasury end up after their terms of office!

Who would de-rail the gravy train they're hoping to jump on in a few years time? :wink:

Jon

It's even worse in the US. Wall St has a major influence on US financial policy decisions

 

[RogerS]

......claiming to be contractually bound to pay the bonus when they are not).

How do you know this for a fact, Jake?

EDIT: Ah..found it....http://www.government-online.net/stephe ... -pressure/

I do agree with your comments BTW. I'd rather have an expert getting things sorted out than a numpty earning a pittance and getting it wrong.

 

[RogerS]

One overlooked factor driving up these packages is the attitude of the recipients. It is quite common within a company for a director A to want £x more than director B because it is nothing more that a p*ss*ng contest...sad but true.

 

[chipmunk]

Hi Roger,
I think that you may be right but I also believe that there may also be a mutual back-scratching issue here because the non-execs on the Remuneration Committee on one board can hope to get payback from the non-execs from another. After all the non-execs are rewarded for their tasks too. Who decides their payments/expenses?

It's a small nepotistic world I fear.
Jon

 

[Digit]

I made the same observation earlier Rog. Yes, we need an expert in the job, that's not in dispute.
Now hester may well be the top paid banker in Europe, and provided he maintained that position I very much doubt if he's concerned as to whether his pay is a quarter mil or 4 mil.
The same with Mickey Rooney!

Roy.

 

[bosshogg]

I believe that wealth proliferation, is as befalling to mankind as nuclear weapons are...bosshogg

The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible.
Albert Einstein 8)

 

[RogerS]

Witch Hunts - 1 Fair Play - 0

 

[marcros]

yep, and good luck finding a replacement if and when he leaves- no candidate of any calibre will touch the job with a bargepole.

 

[MIGNAL]

Ah yes. This is the 'they can't possibly be replaced' argument. No one in the world can replace these guys because their skills are so unique that you have to be born with the right genes. Those genes are particular to a select group of people that you can count on the fingers of one hand.
It's also known as the Bankersgeneof2007. We couldn't replace them either. Oh dear.