Benjamin Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote user="NickP"]Not me that needs the help Benjamin [:D][/quote]So the point of your posting was what?A wind up for Quillan or just generally taking the p*ss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote user="Russethouse"] I think you might find its the tax payer that secured the jobs...however according to the BBC : Earlier this month, RBS announced it would cut 3,500 jobs from its global banking division.The cuts will mean RBS has removed 11,000 employees from its staff, almost halving its 2007, pre-credit crunch headcount of 24,000.[/quote]When you've sold off 16 non-core businesses, a reduction in numbers is inevitable. [:(]Whether or not it's proportional, then I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just john Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I'm with you Q (and common sense), Miliband =Sillyband, How clueless does he need to demonstrate he is? 'Out of touch with the people'? Out of touch with reality.It does seem that a lot people have no idea what is required to turn the poison chalice that Fred and Gorgon Fucked up into a golden goblet that could be sold to get the original investment back.How about this analogy; Miliband is feeling pretty sick, ( he should do after the last performance of his party in power); the surgeon is persuaded to perform a health giving operation that is complicated with no immediate guarantees, his family agrees, with a contract, but, whilst on the operating table, lifeblood seeping away, suddenly he is persuaded by some mad ideology to rise up and berate the surgeon tackling the operation and his fee. Save a few quid now and loose how many squillions? Pay up and look big, or don't pay and look a Bloomin' Flippin' Chump. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefluvvie Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Quote pachapapa: 'Hard Luck taxpayers.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9050671/Taxpayers-lose-900m-as-RBS-shares-fall.html'Hardly unexpected! Just goes to show how very short sighted all the bonus criticism was! £963,000 (in share options!) would have been a drop in the ocean versus the plummeting value of RBS following Stephen's rejection of his paltry bonus.So well done British taxpayers and press - your envy and jealousy is pulling RBS back down just as it was becoming more secure.ChiefluvvieAhhhhh just watched Ed Milliband on BBC Breakfast - put me right off my devilled kidneys and kedgeree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote user="Chiefluvvie"]Ahhhhh just watch Ed Milliband on BBC Breakfast - put me right off my devilled kidneys and kedgeree![/quote]He's starting to come across as more shameless than even Teflon Tony. [:P] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Why can't all these people just be paid (well) to do their job - why do we have to pay extra when they are already on very good salaries ?And don't say because everyone else does and we need to attract the best........that's how it all escalated to this point.In addition comparisons with Barclay's and the bonuses they are awarding don't really work, Barclay's wasn't rescued with tax payers money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefluvvie Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 RH - it's called 'incentivising' - it's there to encourage exceptional performance, give people something to aim for, a sense of achievement for them and their organisation - in it's simplest form it's a carrot - been around forever!Sure people are paid a salary but often (not always!) , once signed up they rest on their laurels, take their dreary PAYE and perform or not. Bonuses are a way to enable people to shine and recognise them accordingly. Beleive it or not - we're not all the same!!!Chiefluvvie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 A simple payrise always seemed like a good incentive to me ! This is incentivising gone berserk - frankly it doesn't seem to matter how well or badly people do, they seem to collect just the same ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefluvvie Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 No RH - a pay rise won't cut it I'm afraid. Most organisations would find it very difficult to reduce your basic pay if you underperformed.......Chiefluvvie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote user="Russethouse"]Why can't all these people just be paid (well) to do their job - why do we have to pay extra when they are already on very good salaries ?And don't say because everyone else does and we need to attract the best........that's how it all escalated to this point.In addition comparisons with Barclay's and the bonuses they are awarding don't really work, Barclay's wasn't rescued with tax payers money[/quote]In a case like this, which happens elsewhere at times, you want the best man for the job. Unfortunately they are working somewhere else and has a better salary than you can afford to pay them. One way round this and also to ensure you get the best out of them is to top up their package to the same value or even a bit more as they had before. This can be done by offering a performance related bonus and shares is a good way of doing it. He was not promised a value of shares he was promised a quantity which at the time was valued at around half of what it is now. So if he performs well then the value of the shares increases so when he gets to collect his X amount of shares they are worth a lot more. So basically it's in his and the investors interest to ensure he does do a good job.As you rightly pointed out Barclay's didn't require tax payers money but neither were bonuses given for several years. I believe I am right in saying that this last bonus was the first one for three years i.e. the previous two years they never got a bonus from the top down. They sorted out their own problems, cut jobs, disconnect the high street banking from investment banking, closed some branches etc and also sold off some smaller subsidiaries. Not too different to what Hester has done at RBS but with less fuss. Also some of the RBS staff loses are through the sale of banks (branches where renamed as Lloyd's Bank then sold off as demanded by the government) which will now become part of the new Virgin bank. So in reality not as many people have lost their jobs as there are those no longer drawing a salary from RBS because they will be paid by Virgin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 And do RBS incentivize other staff ? Personally I'm a big fan of the John Lewis model - ALL those who contribute to the success of the company are rewarded on the same percentage scale - after all even Mr Hester can't do his job without a considerable amount of help from other RBS staff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote user="Russethouse"]And do RBS incentivize other staff ? Personally I'm a big fan of the John Lewis model - ALL those who contribute to the success of the company are rewarded on the same percentage scale - after all even Mr Hester can't do his job without a considerable amount of help from other RBS staff[/quote]Yes they do from the top down. £34 million has been set aside to pay all the bonuses. Depending on your position it will be either free shares, shares at a preferential rate or at lower levels just a cash bonus. By giving shares it is a bit like John Lewis in that people who work for the bank own a small part of the bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickP Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote user="Benjamin"][quote user="NickP"]Not me that needs the help Benjamin [:D][/quote]So the point of your posting was what?A wind up for Quillan or just generally taking the p*ss?[/quote] No wind up, not taking the piss, just adding a little gentle mischievous humour to a very boring subject being discussed by "experts". [:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachapapa Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote user="Quillan"][quote user="Russethouse"] And do RBS incentivize other staff ? Personally I'm a big fan of the John Lewis model - ALL those who contribute to the success of the company are rewarded on the same percentage scale - after all even Mr Hester can't do his job without a considerable amount of help from other RBS staff[/quote]Yes they do from the top down. £34 million has been set aside to pay all the bonuses. Depending on your position it will be either free shares, shares at a preferential rate or at lower levels just a cash bonus. By giving shares it is a bit like John Lewis in that people who work for the bank own a small part of the bank.[/quote]A candy floss soft option.A better incentive would be an option to purchase, possibly at a preferential price, exercisable during a 5 year period. If the shares appreciate as a result of the individual or group effort then the option to buy will have benefited the option holder, company and shareholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 Or better still your allocated the shares year by year on paper and when you leave you get all ther shares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianagain Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 So as I understand it here, the financial crisis was not the fault of the banks and the financial services, they were just the innocent victims of the policies of Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. All that irresponsible lending, complicated derivitives (credit default swaps anyone?), excessive bonus packages, the mortgage crisis were encouraged by government policy. No wonder these people need incentivising[:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote user="brianagain"]So as I understand it here, the financial crisis was not the fault of the banks and the financial services, they were just the innocent victims of the policies of Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. All that irresponsible lending, complicated derivatives (credit default swaps anyone?), excessive bonus packages, the mortgage crisis were encouraged by government policy. No wonder these people need incentivising[:D][/quote]YOur right, it was the irresponsible lending and buying loans from other banks which then defaulted that's caused the problems and the blame has to be laid at the doors of those responsible. However in the aftermath people either jumped or were pushed out of their jobs and more responsible people bought in to sort things out and try and return the banks to a credit situation. Hester was one of many but he happened to get RBS which is owned by the taxpayer. The fact that he has undone a lot of the massive c*ckups created by those before him and returned the bank to profit should he be penalised and vilified like the bad bankers. If he had not turned the bank round then it may have needed even more tax payers money or worse collapsed leaving loads of people with no money or savings. Rather than have a go at those bankers that have rescued some of these banks I think it would be better to go after those that caused the banks to fail in the first place. If your a gangster the courts can seize your assets and quite frankly that's what the government should be doing to the likes of Goodwin and his 'mates' from RBS and the same for the other ex chairmen of the banks that had to be bailed out (HSBC etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idun Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 So basically it was irresponsible lending that did for it. Does it matter who you loan to, if the borrower doesn't pay back you are in the caca. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breizh Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote user="idun"]So basically it was irresponsible lending that did for it. Does it matter who you loan to, if the borrower doesn't pay back you are in the caca.[/quote]Yes. However, also ask what caused the irresponsible lending. These things don't happen in a vacuum. Points to consider.......................and think global, not parochial, as in UK.US Govn anti-discrimation policy which forced lenders to treat all ethnic groups equally. Thereby forcing them to lend to Hispanic/Afro-Americans equally as to Caucasians, even though these groups disproportionatly rest in lower income groups. Hence, Sub-Prime. A laudable policy, but due to the Law of Unindended Cosequences had an effect elsewhere!Hands up, who chose their pension plan on performance? Did you ask how that performance was achieved? In the main from the best performing stocks. Inadvertantly you forced the banks to over-perform. Thereby, cut corners, and take higher risks. UK pensions funds are the worlds biggest investers. The French trade credit industry and nuclear industry (yes!). They pulled the plug on HSBC's US mortgage business 2 days before a Quarterly report, in order to fund the billions of penalties on Areva's EPR reactor in Finland. HSBC put 2 lines in it's Q Statement, and the suddenly the cat was out the bag. Sub-Prime was in the headlines. Personally, I was surprised HSBC, as the world's biggest bank, with umpteen trillion of assets, didn't transfer the risk to it's own books, but I'm not a banker!Bank recruitment policy. They recruit the best and the brighest, even if it is the lowest of the low position. They don't recruit people just to do a job. This means you end up with loads of infighting, and overmotivated people, who will ANYTHING to move up the greasy corporate pole.Thirst for credit. Business, Govns, people, all wanted credit, all at the same time. The money had to come from somewhere. The prime example was Germany. Integration of East Germany didn't come cheap. The banks had to provide the funds, and they got very creative indeed. Hence, the nationalisation of so many big banks in Germany, and the horrendous state of those that managed to stay private! Hypobank, WestLB, LandHypo, Commerzbank, UBS(Swiss), all the Landesbanken simple ran out of capital and were bust. Now, was that their fault, or the German Govn, and by default, it's citizens. Everyone has been pointing fingers, and sometimes nastier things, at bankers, since the Bible. Personally, I think we get the bankers we deserve, and it is very convenient for politicians, and people, to point fingers when it all goes t*ts up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 I see Goodwin has lost his knighthood for services to the banking industry, if that's not an oxymoron then I don't know what is. Well I bet he is crying in his champagne tonight, not. I think more to the point he is laughing all the way to the bank which no doubt is in a tax free haven somewhere. My dad always said that "if you punch a man on the nose he will remember for a week, if you take the money out of his pocket he will remember for years". In other words rather than just take his knighthood away they should strip him of his assets or at least make him pay back all the money he earned (+bonus + pension etc) at RBS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renaud Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Thank you breizh, excellent insights into the origins of the crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idun Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Breizh, I do understand. Taking his knighthood, I wasn't bothered about that. I'd have prefered if they have taken his primes and his bloody pension, let him keep his state pension, I am not that ungenerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Ice-ni Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Old saying - no such thing as bad debt, only bad lending.John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianagain Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 [quote user="breizh"]US Govn anti-discrimation policy which forced lenders to treat all ethnic groups equally. Thereby forcing them to lend to Hispanic/Afro-Americans equally as to Caucasians, even though these groups disproportionatly rest in lower income groups. Hence, Sub-Prime. A laudable policy, but due to the Law of Unindended Cosequences had an effect elsewhere![/quote]This is the same line used byright wing politicians (Gingrich and Romney) in the US seeking to shift blame away from thebanks. If this were true it fails to explain a similar scenario inmany other countries around the world. House price inflation,reckless mortagage lending and the subsequent crash at Northern Rockor Bradford & Bingley can hardly be lblamed on US Govtpolicy. Similar problems were experienced in places such as Ireland,Australia and to a lesser extent, France and Spain.Brian (again) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I must be missing something, what has the ethnicity of a person got to do with their ability to repay a loan ? A bad risk is a bad risk, no matter what colour you are, surely ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now