Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Bankers Justifying Bonuses


Recommended Posts

The excuses are getting more and more rediculous.

There are still posters justifying the un-justifiable with increasing outlandish reasoning.

Just for fun lets help them

I AM A BANKER AND DESERVE MY VERY LARGE BONUS BECAUSE...........

In no more than 25 words please

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The excuses are getting more and more rediculous.

There are still posters justifying the un-justifiable with increasing outlandish reasoning.

Just for fun lets help them

I AM A BANKER AND DESERVE MY VERY LARGE BONUS BECAUSE...........

In no more than 25 words please

Do you know the price of cocaine and lapdancers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The excuses are getting more and more rediculous.

There are still posters justifying the un-justifiable with increasing outlandish reasoning.

Just for fun lets help them

I AM A BANKER AND DESERVE MY VERY LARGE BONUS BECAUSE...........

In no more than 25 words please

Because if i don't get one i will be sad :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I just do, alright? If you're not a banker you're obviously too stupid to understand why, so there's no point trying to explain it to you.

Well OK. I suppose you deserve yours :P

You've got the main thrust of their arguement being that we could not understand why they deserve it and are much too stupid to be told so we should just accept it.

So very good effort with just one very important mistake. I count 27 words? :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

bonus' for the sake of them irrelevent of the employees performance is clearly not correct.

But when you have say a trader who made £250 billion profit for a bank in their trades then you kinda have to pay him £25 million bonus do you not?

If you don't, they just go elsewhere. An extreme example, but it goes on.

i don;t really see how the bonus' are the main issue really.

(i don't work in a bank i am a civil servant, so you probably hate me as much LOL)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The excuses are getting more and more rediculous.

There are still posters justifying the un-justifiable with increasing outlandish reasoning.

Just for fun lets help them

I AM A BANKER AND DESERVE MY VERY LARGE BONUS BECAUSE...........

In no more than 25 words please

......it will match the very large k**b sticking out of my head

Link to post
Share on other sites

bonus' for the sake of them irrelevent of the employees performance is clearly not correct.

But when you have say a trader who made £250 billion profit for a bank in their trades then you kinda have to pay him £25 million bonus do you not?

If you don't, they just go elsewhere. An extreme example, but it goes on.

i don;t really see how the bonus' are the main issue really.

(i don't work in a bank i am a civil servant, so you probably hate me as much LOL)

If traders were truly making £250 billion profit for their banks, then why did so many need bailing out? It was all short-term, on paper - gimme, gimme, gimme. By that reckoning if a trader makes a loss, shouldn't they have to pay the bank back?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The forum probably needs a sober, calm discussion about the natural role of banks and bankers in wealth creation - so when you sober up and calm down, start a thread about it.

;)

here it is...Banks were bust...theyve been rescued. they SHOULD be claiming JSA...Bonuses should be coming back to the bailers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

here it is...Banks were bust...theyve been rescued. they SHOULD be claiming JSA...Bonuses should be coming back to the bailers.

and so those individuals creating the new profits for the bank agree to work for nothing in the meantime? why?

I share your sense of outrage, but we should have stopped this far, far earlier; when we were enrolled. We swallowed the pill and in practical terms the banks can't be stopped from deciding their wages and expenses and this was known when the dosh was doled out. The issue is purely political profiteering on the part of politicians who want to be seen as 'the people's friend' TM

Link to post
Share on other sites

and so those individuals creating the new profits for the bank agree to work for nothing in the meantime? why?

I share your sense of outrage, but we should have stopped this far, far earlier; when we were enrolled. We swallowed the pill and in practical terms the banks can't be stopped from deciding their wages and expenses and this was known when the dosh was doled out. The issue is purely political profiteering on the part of politicians who want to be seen as 'the people's friend' TM

nah, the individuals should be on JSA. Shareholders and savers would better spend the bonuses, which are a tax avoidence scheme in themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

here it is...Banks were bust...theyve been rescued. they SHOULD be claiming JSA...Bonuses should be coming back to the bailers.

Quiet. No argument here.

Here's the teeth grinding irony though. If banks lose people who make them money then they lose money and we never get paid back!

There is no point rescuing a bank, then hobbling it so it can't compete any longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If traders were truly making £250 billion profit for their banks, then why did so many need bailing out? It was all short-term, on paper - gimme, gimme, gimme. By that reckoning if a trader makes a loss, shouldn't they have to pay the bank back?

sorry i made a typo. i should have put £250 Million. Not Billion.

From my very limited understanding of the whole banking crisis I don't really see how the bonus' are much of an issue. THe only issue I see people have with them is the intrinsic issue they have with people getting paid a lot of money for doing a certian job. Like I said before, I do see the issue if they don't perform, but if they do, then I see no issue with paying whatever the market deems appropriate.

Like i said, if a trader made his/her bank £250 million then i would suggest the ball mark figure for that trader would be a bonus of 10%... Seems only fair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry i made a typo. i should have put £250 Million. Not Billion.

From my very limited understanding of the whole banking crisis I don't really see how the bonus' are much of an issue. THe only issue I see people have with them is the intrinsic issue they have with people getting paid a lot of money for doing a certian job. Like I said before, I do see the issue if they don't perform, but if they do, then I see no issue with paying whatever the market deems appropriate.

Like i said, if a trader made his/her bank £250 million then i would suggest the ball mark figure for that trader would be a bonus of 10%... Seems only fair.

It's this kind of lack of vision that allows these ******wits to continue.

A trader may make his bank 250 million by risking the banks money. Like at any casino a gamble may or may not pay off. However in order to incentivise the gamblers the banks offered bonuses making risk taking more attractive. The cumulative effect of all the incentives and gambles was a banking system that gambled the farm and lost. All bonuses to that point should have been re-clawed as they represented mal risk assessment. Instead of that the farm was returned to the gamblers who then decided that since the farm was not at risk under any circumstances they could gamble on whatever they wanted risk free. They then congratulated themselves by paying bonuses to reward exactly the type of behaviour that should have lost them their jobs in the first place. No banker ever has made £250 million. They have merely appropriated it through gambling. It's not productive and it skews the entire financial system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's this kind of lack of vision that allows these ******wits to continue.

A trader may make his bank 250 million by risking the banks money. Like at any casino a gamble may or may not pay off. However in order to incentivise the gamblers the banks offered bonuses making risk taking more attractive. The cumulative effect of all the incentives and gambles was a banking system that gambled the farm and lost. All bonuses to that point should have been re-clawed as they represented mal risk assessment.

It doesn't explain why all bets went south at the same time. You are missing the biggest piece of the jigsaw, and that piece is related to systemic costs which have little to do with bankers themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you understand derivatives? Well do you? No?? Well we don't either, but we have a special understanding of how we don't understand them, and have the capacity to think up something even better for the next time, so neeer! Look at my car. Look at it. Consider my house. Thanks, bye.

Sorry, word count++ lol

Edited by jammo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.