Tekforums
Chat => General Discussion => Topic started by: andy[tek] on January 12, 2011, 21:17:24 PM
-
I read this and it confused me how they think they can get away with it really. Surely bonus's are paid on company/job role performance is that just me?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12169238
-
They always just argue the bonuses are pre-arranged, etc. Of course he won't "turn it down again", he's stepping down because he's a sack of sh*t and wants to milk it. I hope the money makes him miserable somehow, what a turd.
-
A lot of them earned it. Its not traders in the city who made the decision to lend money to those with poor credit ratings.
They should shut the f**k about it all because otherwise the country will lose a lot of the best traders - or worse companies upping sticks to Geneva,
taking the best with them & making the rest unemployed.
This country relies heavily on the financial banking since we no longer have a manufacturing industry.
-
I think believing that the man at the top doesn't know whats going on and can't see where things are headed is a bit naive, even if he was doing a good job how is a bonus like that still applicable in this climate?
-
I dont understand the point of these bonuses, they are all on six and seven figure salarys anyway so why do they need more?
-
This thread makes me laugh.
Do you realise what proportion of the numbers these guys shift around £2m actually is?
-
I don't think that has any bearing on their value/worth in monetary terms for employment as much as I think footballers deserve 1/3rd of what they are paid, it's all a bit out of touch with normality.
It's money that could be better used elsewhere than lining an already rich man's pockets isn't it, but because its almost akin to a few clicks of a mouse for them to shift and play with hundreds of millions of day-to-day virtual money they see it as inconsequential.
-
Lotta folk missing the point; if these so-called 'high-earners' weren't paid the salaries and bonuses they do, they'd leave the country. It's a vicious cycle but they simply have to pay the going global rate. It's usually only the poor that whine about it; because they don't understand how capitalism works.
Anyway, what would a £2m do for the 'peeple'. Divide £2m between 60 million people. That's 3p each by my Calc.exe
-
The 2mill is just one mans bonus. The total bonus are more in the region of 5billion.
When most of the banks where saved from collapse by tax payers it completly takes the piss.
-
The 2mill is just one mans bonus. The total bonus are more in the region of 5billion.
When most of the banks where saved from collapse by tax payers it completly takes the piss.
no it doesnt. The banks are propping up this country since the collapse of manufacturing.
Take away the banks & this country will be on awful mess. Its just an easy target for the
politicians to get easy votes by saying they'll do something. Most people are to dumb to understand
how the country operates, yet still allowed to vote. That £5billion in bonuses prob means they have
generated £100billion for the banks which in turns gives people jobs & runs the economy. The only
reason the banking system collapsed is because they (partly forced) let money to anyone for anything.
Look at the boom in house prices - it forced most people to borrow above their means. I bet theres a lot
of people on here who have mortgages 5x their salary - when the norm before the boom was 2.5x-3x
-
Lotta folk missing the point; if these so-called 'high-earners' weren't paid the salaries and bonuses they do, they'd leave the country. It's a vicious cycle but they simply have to pay the going global rate. It's usually only the poor that whine about it; because they don't understand how capitalism works.
Anyway, what would a £2m do for the 'peeple'. Divide £2m between 60 million people. That's 3p each by my Calc.exe
I understand all that, it doesn't make it right though does it? They could instead offer to have the bonuses donated to charity, etc in light of our climate, but that's never going to happen; I'm fully aware I'm pissing into the wind on the subject.
-
It's usually only the poor that whine about it; because they don't understand how capitalism works.
i think its more that they don't like how capitalism works, not that they dont understand it.
for instance, why isn't there a cap on what corporations can earn? profits of 1bn+? fine, feed the excess back into the economy. pay for some street cleaners or some armour for our boys in iraq, or something.
-
Exactly.
Everyone is moaning about and having to make cuts, but bankers are exempt. We shouldn't be putting all our eggs into the baskets of a few banking institutions to keep the economy stable, isn't this why we are in this mess? What's the point having ministers of government to focus on managing the economy otherwise, we should be looking for other solutions. We're sinking and everyone is happy to shrug their shoulders and let them get on with it but it doesn't matter, we'll all be welcoming our new Chinese overlords in about a decade.
-
I didn't come here for a lecture on communism. [/fighting talk reference]
-
... but giving a bank's boss £2m wasn't the cause of the economy's downfall last time, was it? It was reckless mis-management of loans. Whinging about a banker's salary isn't going to chnage anything - people need to question and target the banks' policies and actions - not their pay. :)
-
Offering bank people big bonuses caused the issue, and people understand better than some on here think.
-
... but giving a bank's boss £2m wasn't the cause of the economy's downfall last time, was it? It was reckless mis-management of loans. Whinging about a banker's salary isn't going to chnage anything - people need to question and target the banks' policies and actions - not their pay. :)
exactly.. its not as if the people rubber stamping the loans get a multi-million bonus.
-
It's usually only the poor that whine about it; because they don't understand how capitalism works.
i think its more that they don't like how capitalism works, not that they dont understand it.
for instance, why isn't there a cap on what corporations can earn? profits of 1bn+? fine, feed the excess back into the economy. pay for some street cleaners or some armour for our boys in iraq, or something.
What good would a cap do other that make the UK uncompetitive and send companies overseas. Secondly where do you think these profits go - they're not untaxed payments made to a select group of fat cats... the largest shareholders of large companies are funds - the profits made by these companies are basically going towards pensioners - this is then taxed as income by the govt and does indeed pay for street cleaners, nurses etc...
When the US decided to shake down BP for 20 billion after the gulf oil spill it wasn't BP execs coughing up out of their salaries etc.. rather the dividend was suspending meaning that a bunch of British pension funds took a hit.
Anyway that is all a bit off topic - on the subject of the OP I don't think anyone in a senior management position at a large British commercial bank should be taking a bonus like that this year or next year - they wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the govt propping them up. They were in a strategic/big picture type position and do have to share the blame. They're also quite old, have family ties and generally aren't in a position to move jobs/relocate anyway.
On the other hand I don't see why some trader who makes the bank £XX million shouldn't still get his cut. Tis like a record company getting into trouble and then saying to one of their biggest acts actually we don't want to give you your agreed royalties for the 2 million albums you sold as we've screwed up managing the business and some other people aren't getting bonuses. Reality is there are people in banking who will make money regardless of whether they're working in London or Geneva etc.. what is the point in not paying the £X million bonus to the star trader who made you £XX million - you save yourself £X million then next year he makes your rival £XX million, few other people follow him over and the next year the desk he used to work on reports a loss.
-
Offering bank people big bonuses caused the issue, and people understand better than some on here think.
A few quants working in credit and naive senior managers were the people responsible on the banking side. So not really an argument against bonuses in general IMO but rather senior management/people making long term strategic decisions should have their bonus spread (not paid based on short term gains) and should have clauses to reduce or claw it back should the bank not perform well.
Plenty of other people caused the crisis too - US govt pressure to lend more to ethnic minorities etc.. senior management at US banks then lending to people too easily. Other banks buying the securitised debt without appreciating the risks, credit agencies rating the debt without understanding the risks. Lots and lots of individuals across the US purchasing homes with loans they couldn't afford.
You could also argue that David Bowie caused the credit crunch - he was the trend setter after all - he securitised and sold off the rights to his back catalogue as 'bowie bonds' well before any of the banks started playing around with securitising all this toxic debt.
-
it helped but just think how many got 2m , it makes you wonder why they get a bonus after making a loss