Is this a laughing or a crying matter?

[mint]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6945945.ece

[woolybanana]

If these people are the brightest and the best, those who generate the greatest profits, ideas and innovations for the bank, then yes, because ultimately it will weaken the ability of the bank to compete. But if they are timeserving deadweight, then no.

And the loss of a bank is always a crying matter as shareholders lose out, and those shareholders are very often the pension funds which pay the pensions of our dear readers!

After all, the 1WW wiped out the brightest and best of a generation and contributed to decline.

[Chancer]

I sometimes find it hard to take seriously articles that misrepresent, through incompetence or otherwise even the most basic, easily verified facts to get a good headline.

More than 100 staff leaving, making up 5% of RBS investment arm.

Well that got my attention straight away, do they really employ more than 20,000 staff to play with customers hard earned?

Not according to later in the article when they say they employ 14,000 [8-)]

Still two zeros too many for my liking, RBS used to be one of my customers, not the investment arm but the commercial divison responsible for factoring invoices and I have never worked for such a bunch of overpaid underworked people in my life.

I did the access control for the whole building which they put to good use to keep their disgruntled and often bankrupted customers away from disturbing their daily work avoidance routine.

Some of these customers poured their hearts out to me and it was terrible to hear how they had been treated/abused by RBS.

From my side I inadvertantly profited several times from their incompetence and never had a conscience about it.

[Chancer]

[quote user="woolybanana"]

If these people are the brightest and the best, those who generate the greatest profits, ideas and innovations for the bank, then yes, because ultimately it will weaken the ability of the bank to compete. But if they are timeserving deadweight, then no.

[/quote]

If the article can be believed then the £6-700 mill represents only 8% of the banks income, take away the operating costs, the bonuses paid to over 1000 traders, the considerable salaries of the other 13000 staff and whats left is hardly likely to be the cash cow of the group.

The Gov are probably pleased to see them go, saves paying out more millions in golden handshakes.

[woolybanana]

Yes, I suspect the brightest and the best left long ago.

However, given the reduction in employment opportunities in the banking sector, where are these people going to go, local authorities?

[suein56]

[quote user="Chancer"]

More than 100 staff leaving, making up 5% of RBS investment arm.

Well that got my attention straight away, do they really employ more than 20,000 staff to play with customers hard earned?[/quote]

They don't; your arithmetic is a bit off. If 100 people = 5% then 2000 = 100%, not 20K.

[Chancer]

No Sue its my typing [:)]

The article quoted 1,000 people leaving.

I will leave the error for posterity!

Its a shame big Ron is no longer on the forum, I could never let an error like that go unchecked before as he would have jumped on it in an instance, he certainly kept me on my toes and looking over my shoulder [;-)]