Saturday, Feb 21, 2009
That didn't take long
Times: RBS gets around promise to end cash bonuses
The Times has learnt that RBS, which is 68 per cent owned by taxpayers after a £20 billion government bailout, is offering its staff loans against the bonuses that they are owed but which have been deferred until 2010 under a deal with the Government.
Posted by gardeniadotnet @ 12:21 AM (764 views) Add Comment
17 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. Aldus said...
*Sigh* We are impotent, defeated, doomed. The British government could perform some Huxleyesque Brave New World type experiment on the entire population.
Even then, we would do nothing.
We do not know how to stop them......
Its like living in one of those pods in the Matrix.
2. gardeniadotnet said...
From the comments:
It would appear Bankers know no bounds and have no shame.
Employees of any other institution so devoid of a profitable business model would be grateful for employment and a wage, not bonuses.
3. bob1 said...
rip the scum limb from limb
4. techieman said...
One of the comments:
"Has noone else noticed that RBS is sacking workers at the same time as paying bonuses? This money would be better used to save a few jobs. It must be great knowing you are getting fired at the same time as your colleagues retain their jobs and also get bonuses. "
Well it depends on what you do doesnt it - i am sure a bank teller who makes 17k a year will be quite pleased that a MBS desk trader got fired - and for the MBS trader well really who would care!
OK so if we de-emotionalise all this i would like the government aka owners of RBS to tell us a few pertinent facts. Basically who are "we" paying bonuses to and how much did they contribute to the bottom line of RBS. I dont want names i want salary range populations and what % of their salary iis bonus, how much they made "us" last year - if their salary was say over £50k and also whether these payments were contractually due. Above say £150k i want per person bonuses and how much they individually put to the bottom line. If there are management staff who get above £150k then i would want the management function to be shown and whether or not that sector was profitable.
Yes there will be some whys and wherefores and ifs and buts, but only really at that point can we have a sensible debate rather than ... All people who work for banks = bad and therefore sackable or they make 10 times what i do so they must be nasty. YES if they deserve 10 times what we make then fairs fair - if not (and i think if they have not they would probably have already been culled) then sack em , lower their pay or whatever.
I'd like to see some indepth unbiased reporting on this before we make up our minds. I suppose correspondence with HMG might get somewhere?!??
5. growler said...
Don't blame the bankers. It's like blaming sharks for being sharks. The incompetence is with Government and FSA for not making the terms of their nationalisation watertight. I'm not surprised at all at our ridiculous PM and Chancellor.
6. Eternal Sceptic said...
Surely if a bonus is to be paid, it should be on the profitability of the entire business unit(i.e.Bank)There is no profit, unlikely to be one for many years, therefore what is the possible justification for paying any sort of bonus. I know nu labor likes to reward failure in schools, but to reward failure in the real world is an exercise in total stupidity. In any other business failure is rewarded by dismissal-why, why, WHY should banks be any different. If the taxpayers demanded a referendum on this issue the outcome is a foregone conclusion- Does crash gordo listen to anyone anymore?
7. alan said...
Good to see some investigative journalism from the Times (-or was it a leak from one of the people who got fired).
Obviously, banking managers are still capable of innovation when considering their own interests. The annoying thing is that all the while taxpayers (like me) are made to pay.
As has been stated above, some analysis of who gets what and why could be informative. It's hard not to become emotive over the banking and economy issues.
Unfortunately, in the UK today, things are not settled by a clear examination of the facts, more likely by an offhand comment from Jane Goody.
8. techieman said...
Actually i would have thought that TUPE would apply (if the banks were fully natiuonalised - im really unsure about majority ownership - i assume that the corporate ownership (i.e. the shareholders whether gov or not) remains (but thats an interesting IMO point).
Thats really quite ironic since something introduced to make sure that the employees rights are secured when a new owner comes in is no biting "us" in the ar5e. On one level now we might understand what problems small business face when they take over someone ... ah but then again that would be properly part of the due dilligence, as the government performed on a multi-billion pound company in a weekend ;-).
9. bob1 said...
techieman: I think you are betraying your old red jacket pit trader prejudice against traders like the MBS crew. Did you know that the average New York MBS trader only made $104K in 2008? That's about what a graduate sale rep makes. The only people that should be hounded about bonuses is the top management of retail banks. If the retail banks hadn't tried to act like the investment banks/hedge funds we wouldn't be in this mess. The over trading/leverage was caused by the retail bank bosses being sick of being the school nerds. People like Fred the Shred and that plonker at Northern Rock tried to play with the big boys which exponentially increased the market risk ratios.
10. techieman said...
bob1 - i am glad you engaged. I dont really understand what you mean though - surely i should be on the side of the boyz? I assume you realise what having a red jacket actually means? The MBS trader was an example - i will concede that may have been a bad one and will admit i didnt realise how much they didnt make (then again is that the mean or the median and does it include back-office staff etc etc.), but that is exactly why i want the answers to the questions i rasied in 3.
Basically my view is that if you make money you should be rewarded WHEN the dust settles (by that i mean when the trade is actually liquidated) and if you dont make money and that is what you are employed to do.... then you should be / will be sacked etc. Of course if your bonus is based on how polite and efficient you are when custoimers come to you as a cashier, then i cant see why those can not be paid - particularly if thats the basis of the industry - i.e. your salary is low but you are to be supplemented by a performance bonus as part of your compensation.
As for the guys at the top - yes i will agree with you there too - but i thought we were taking about bonuses paid to staff in general?
11. bob1 said...
techieman: All too familiar with what a red jacket did. I was referring to the old timer distaste for the new fangled screen traders. Mind you not many from the pit days became technical screen traders, so congrats on your flexibility. I will admit to being in the business but that's all I'll admit to. The MBS trader incomes do not include any backroom staff.
My main point is that it is totally unrealistic to go after anyone but the very top layer of management. The administration and paper work would be ridiculous. The formulas that would be derived from the investigation you suggest, would result in many iniquities. Apart from that it is impractical to get money from people who may have already spent the lot. What is passed is passed. We must move on. Witch hunts are a waste of positive energy. Nelson Mandela had it right with his truth and reconciliation concept.
12. techieman said...
Blimey so now i have swapped my red jacket for me zimmer frame!! And i was an "honest" local - inasmuch as i didnt go for the easy money by relying on the big paper and other stuff. I was always a position trader and not looking for a couple of ticks for size. I even ran a position overnight on the odd occassion! Many of them"us" did become screen traders - just most not for very long!
I just think your initial remark at 2 was a bit simplistic and needed clarity which you have now given. Having given the MBS comment a bit more thought, perhaps in earlier years they made more - maybe the amount you quote is before any bonus and in 2008 they didnt get one for the very reasons we are discussing. But then again i have no knowledge and no real desire to be right or wrong on that but still you get the point.
I basically agree re witch hunts [actually i have previously posted that very thing] - but i am not advocating we go after the people that created the huge trading losses to get our money back - i am saying we only pay bonuses going forward on the basis of what the employee is supposed to do and how well (s)he does it.
Of course it is your decision wether or not you want to divulge your discipline, so if its on the front line i wish you good luck unless of course we are on opposite sides of the same trade! (I doubt it i am a pretty small player to be honest - compared to some of the guys but having said that its all relative isnt it),
13. japanese uncle said...
Banks own the government, not the other way round. Make no mistakes.
14. techieman said...
By the way i dont know if you have seen "Avenue Q" but in that they admit that "everyone is a little bit prejudice". So maybe yours was against the boyz on the floor? Like i said i left before it got moved to Cannon Street which was because i took a bath - so i had been screen trading initially for a small syndicate until i decided it was restricting me because dealing with OPM (when i knew em) carried too much responsibility for me, and made me change my trading style..
There you go i have probably divulged too much!
Am offf now to get some of the value range from Tescos :-). Have a good one.
15. bob1 said...
Techieman: I'm no spring chicken myself! Glad to hear you weren't one of the wicked locals front running my trades. I have read many of your posts re the bonus question and I agree with almost all of them.
Just to be controversial, why do bank tellers need bonuses at all. It is a relatively unskilled job. If they are great with customers promote them. If the are average pay them let them stay, if they are shi$e the the sack them.
As an aside, aren't you alarmed by how many people on this site have decided to trade. It's an evil treacherous game and that's on a good day. More than 99% will lose everything they trade. Not an exaggeration
16. gordon brown said...
Why dont you bears shut up? there is a way out of this.
Create a fund for first time buyers where they apply for average house price deposits? Now tell you me why this wouldnt work?
17. crash bandicoot said...
gordon brown, Create?