Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
cashinmattress

Royal Bank Of Scotland To Pay Nearly $1.5Bn In Bonuses After Losing $1.7Bn

Recommended Posts

Link

Nice economic model, if you can get it, though the banks always get it. Remember how the apologists told us that it was critical for the banks to retain talent or else? Well? It looks like that talent isn't as impressive as they told us. Outside of the banks and government, everyone else knew that.

Bailed out Royal Bank of Scotland reported losses of £1.1bn for 2010 – but still plans to pay out bonuses of £950m to its bankers.

The loss is an improvement on the loss of £3.6bn a year ago and the record breaking £24bn loss in 2008, when it was rescued by the taxpayer.

RBS returned to the black in the final quarter even though it was hit by a £1.1bn charge for its Irish banking unit, Ulster.

The proportion of revenue the bank uses to pay its investment banking staff rose to 34% from 26% a year ago.

From the Yanks point of view maybe. They haven't figured out that we Brits reward our thieves instead of doing the American thing and jailing them.

Same old Britain, same as it ever was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link

From the Yanks point of view maybe. They haven't figured out that we Brits reward our thieves instead of doing the American thing and jailing them.

Same old Britain, same as it ever was.

....the Government should sack the Board ...you don't pay bonuses from losses....even to the biggest ego trippers in that waste... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link

From the Yanks point of view maybe. They haven't figured out that we Brits reward our thieves instead of doing the American thing and jailing them.

Same old Britain, same as it ever was.

Problem is, most of those bonuses would have been within RBS Global Markets - the investment banking arm - which made a profit of 5.7 billion after expenses (including bonuses). If they'd shut down that division then they'd have saved a billion or so in bonuses for sure but would have lost over 6B instead of the 1.7B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link

From the Yanks point of view maybe. They haven't figured out that we Brits reward our thieves instead of doing the American thing and jailing them.

Same old Britain, same as it ever was.

Stop your moaning and just pay up.

Signed,

A Banker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is, most of those bonuses would have been within RBS Global Markets - the investment banking arm - which made a profit of 5.7 billion after expenses (including bonuses). If they'd shut down that division then they'd have saved a billion or so in bonuses for sure but would have lost over 6B instead of the 1.7B.

Good argument for separating the retail and casino operations then.... can't see why the banksters are so opposed to such a thing.

Oh hang on, yes I can. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8346399/More-than-100-RBS-bankers-paid-over-1m.html

More than 100 RBS bankers paid over £1m
More than 100 staff at state-owned lender Royal Bank of Scotland earned more than £1m last year, despite Government attempts to restrict bankers' pay.
.../
Average pay for the 19,500 staff in RBS's investment banking arm fell by just over £18,000 per employee to £144,012 and
about a quarter of staff
cleaners, secretaries and other low paid in the division received no bonus at all for last year.

And the government sit idly by and do NOTHING.

"Big Society" "All in it together" Utter shite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph...id-over-1m.html

More than 100 RBS bankers paid over £1m
More than 100 staff at state-owned lender Royal Bank of Scotland earned more than £1m last year, despite Government attempts to restrict bankers' pay.
.../
Average pay for the 19,500 staff in RBS's investment banking arm fell by just over £18,000 per employee to £144,012 and
about a quarter of staff
cleaners, secretaries and other low paid in the division received no bonus at all for last year.

And the government sit idly by and do NOTHING.

"Big Society" "All in it together" Utter shite.

Dave says you need to get behind the banksters and 'move on' RB.

It's not like they're sitting around all day stealing state benefits or anything.

And anyway, Osborne's promised to take back the 36p he was going to take off them but then decided not to and then decided he would 'cause he's acting in your best interests not theirs and he's really tough on criminal theft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a time of booming property and share prices and easy borrowing it could be argued that the rich getting richer has no effect on the poor, since there's a growing amount of wealth.

In times like now, where property prices have fallen, shares have slumped and risen again and borrowing is hard, money isn't quite the infinite concept that it was. So I'm wondering if the obscene wealth of some individuals and corporations - huge salaries and bonuses - is actually making ordinary people poorer. Put simply, if there's a total of £1000 in circulation among 100 people, there's £10 each. If over a period of time one of those 100 people accumulates £500, then there's only £500 left to share between the remaining 99 people, which means there's just over £5 each for them.

Are we getting poorer by the day as a direct result of the ultra-rich troughers hoovering up an ever increasing amount of a finite amount of money?

Limited money supply plus 'eat as much as you like' money buffet for the bankers must mean less for us.

Edited by Hyperduck Quack Quack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the government sit idly by and do NOTHING.

"Big Society" "All in it together" Utter shite.

They don't care. They calculate they can be as brazen and as shameless as they like.

They know that cheap alcohol, chaotic family life and lowest common denominater T.V. wash away any vestige of rage the English slave subjects are capable of feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't care. They calculate they can be as brazen and as shameless as they like.

Anyway, if they can get people to come forward to work for nothing in the public sector, replacing paid employees, how long before that concept spreads to the private sector? Like: "work for us for 6 months trial period for nothing and there might be a well-paid job for you at the end of it".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the way they have now moved into offering insurance at rates every other competitor in the market calls suicidal, aided and abetted by the taxpayer bailout : Rivals blast RBS over insurance 'madness'

Like cheap mortgages, Joe Public is prolly loving this. The only diff is when these liabilities turn sour, the taxpayer will have the comfort of knowing it was their state owned company that benefitted from the commissions. It's just a shame all the money is being trousered by the employees.

Aviva and RSA shareholders have my permission to feel doubly aggrieved.

Edited by Sledgehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the way they have now moved into offering insurance at rates every other competitor in the market calls suicidal, aided and abetted by the taxpayer bailout : Rivals blast RBS over insurance 'madness'

Like cheap mortgages, Joe Public is prolly loving this. The only diff is when these liabilities turn sour, the taxpayer will have the comfort of knowing it was their state owned company that benefitted from the commissions. It's just a shame all the money is being trousered by the employees.

Aviva and RSA shareholders have my permission to feel doubly aggrieved.

This is the probelm we all face. That they are owned by the taxpayers means they can take unlimited risks knowing a bail out is always available. TBH they are in it for one reason: robbing the till (bonuses). They care not if it makes a profit or loss as we have recently seen banks still pay millions in bonuses even if the bank has just lost a billion or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on, bonuses are taxed as income, are they not? And at the higher rate, so the net tax take would be higher on bonuses than on corporate profits, yes? So why the fook does everyone keep whinging about bank bonuses?

Also, as proletarians in the strict Marxist sense of the word (they aren't equity holders in their own companies) bankers are some of the few workers who aren't having their surplus value exploited by capitalists. Apparently that's a bad thing too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on, bonuses are taxed as income, are they not? And at the higher rate, so the net tax take would be higher on bonuses than on corporate profits, yes? So why the fook does everyone keep whinging about bank bonuses?

Absolutely - and RBS has so many losses to carry forward, they won't be paying corp tax in the UK for a long while. This way, the State collects 50% of the money back in taxes - which goes towards paying off the 'equity' (read made up printed balance sheet money) put into it.

Why do they whinge, because they refuse to see sense - they think the retail banking at RBS makes the money. It didn't. It was corporate and investment banking that made it. They have this deluded notion that they have personally underwritten RBS and all the banks to the tune of trillions and have indeed ploughed all that cash into them - which is nonsense and has been pointed out to them lots of times, but they refuse to believe it. they think that banks should not be under the same tax rules and should pay more tax because they just should, because they say so and they miss the net billions paid into the UK economy and hence in tax via banking and advisory businesses - because they will come up with the same crap about the trillions in the bailout (which is, as above, tosh).

whilst at the same time ignoring the real reason we are in trouble today, which is government spending - so instead they rail against necessary cuts..... and blame everyone else for not having bought a house in 1999 because they were too expensive...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely - and RBS has so many losses to carry forward, they won't be paying corp tax in the UK for a long while. This way, the State collects 50% of the money back in taxes - which goes towards paying off the 'equity' (read made up printed balance sheet money) put into it.

Why do they whinge, because they refuse to see sense - they think the retail banking at RBS makes the money. It didn't. It was corporate and investment banking that made it. They have this deluded notion that they have personally underwritten RBS and all the banks to the tune of trillions and have indeed ploughed all that cash into them - which is nonsense and has been pointed out to them lots of times, but they refuse to believe it. they think that banks should not be under the same tax rules and should pay more tax because they just should, because they say so and they miss the net billions paid into the UK economy and hence in tax via banking and advisory businesses - because they will come up with the same crap about the trillions in the bailout (which is, as above, tosh).

whilst at the same time ignoring the real reason we are in trouble today, which is government spending - so instead they rail against necessary cuts..... and blame everyone else for not having bought a house in 1999 because they were too expensive...........

Oh I'm so wound up :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just pay them £200billion in bonuses and then with the 50% tax take the deficit will be cleared at a stroke.

This bankstering business is a lark innit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely - and RBS has so many losses to carry forward, they won't be paying corp tax in the UK for a long while. This way, the State collects 50% of the money back in taxes - which goes towards paying off the 'equity' (read made up printed balance sheet money) put into it.

Why do they whinge, because they refuse to see sense - they think the retail banking at RBS makes the money. It didn't. It was corporate and investment banking that made it. They have this deluded notion that they have personally underwritten RBS and all the banks to the tune of trillions and have indeed ploughed all that cash into them - which is nonsense and has been pointed out to them lots of times, but they refuse to believe it. they think that banks should not be under the same tax rules and should pay more tax because they just should, because they say so and they miss the net billions paid into the UK economy and hence in tax via banking and advisory businesses - because they will come up with the same crap about the trillions in the bailout (which is, as above, tosh).

whilst at the same time ignoring the real reason we are in trouble today, which is government spending - so instead they rail against necessary cuts..... and blame everyone else for not having bought a house in 1999 because they were too expensive...........

I think people are pissed because the government is printing money to cover massive bank debts, allowing banks to borrow at 0.5% and lend at 6%, and allowing said printed money to cause asset bubbles, that further feed inflation that is not being challenged. You say we are not underwriting these banks, but i say that every time we fill our cars, or turn on a light, or buy food, or pay taxes, or have children who will pay in the future, we are most definitely subsidizing the bankers. Its pretty obvious. But here we are, the bankers have us by the short and curlies and we have no option but to pay. Your right its our own fault for allowing such imbalances to take place, and its our own fault for voting in the charlatans that enable them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are pissed because the government is printing money to cover massive bank debts, allowing banks to borrow at 0.5% and lend at 6%, and allowing said printed money to cause asset bubbles, that further feed inflation that is not being challenged. You say we are not underwriting these banks, but i say that every time we fill our cars, or turn on a light, or buy food, or pay taxes, or have children who will pay in the future, we are most definitely subsidizing the bankers. Its pretty obvious. But here we are, the bankers have us by the short and curlies and we have no option but to pay. Your right its our own fault for allowing such imbalances to take place, and its our own fault for voting in the charlatans that enable them.

+1.

Sums it up. They get billions in bonuses and the rest of us either get static pay, lose our jobs and receive below inflation on our savings. Wonderful for the banksters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are pissed because the government is printing money to cover massive bank debts, allowing banks to borrow at 0.5% and lend at 6%, and allowing said printed money to cause asset bubbles, that further feed inflation that is not being challenged. You say we are not underwriting these banks, but i say that every time we fill our cars, or turn on a light, or buy food, or pay taxes, or have children who will pay in the future, we are most definitely subsidizing the bankers. Its pretty obvious. But here we are, the bankers have us by the short and curlies and we have no option but to pay. Your right its our own fault for allowing such imbalances to take place, and its our own fault for voting in the charlatans that enable them.

the government has structured QE to suit themselves. Not the banks. they bought up gilts, not corporate debt. To allow them to print more.

the government is the one that is burning through the same amount in extra spending every 90 days as the entire cost of the bank subsidies (as it stands)

the government is the one that has chosen to not cut spending, to continue borrowing and to slash interest rates to try to be re-elected. You cannot blame the banks for taking advantage - their directors are legally bound to do so. The government could and should simply go through the pain - slash spending, get rid of the deficit - start to reduce the debt.... it should not have slashed interest rates....

the politicians want the banks, if you want the worst historical similar scenario, Nazis demonising everyone else so they could do what they liked. The government is the problem - and so are we, because we don't accept that we have to cut spending.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the government has structured QE to suit themselves. Not the banks. they bought up gilts, not corporate debt. To allow them to print more.

the government is the one that is burning through the same amount in extra spending every 90 days as the entire cost of the bank subsidies (as it stands)

the government is the one that has chosen to not cut spending, to continue borrowing and to slash interest rates to try to be re-elected. You cannot blame the banks for taking advantage - their directors are legally bound to do so. The government could and should simply go through the pain - slash spending, get rid of the deficit - start to reduce the debt.... it should not have slashed interest rates....

the politicians want the banks, if you want the worst historical similar scenario, Nazis demonising everyone else so they could do what they liked. The government is the problem - and so are we, because we don't accept that we have to cut spending.......

Because the banks gamed them into it. The banks are always gaming. The banks are a parasite so large if you kill it you take the host with you. This is why i said we have no choice but to pay, till the patient gets a bit stronger and can take a dose of radiation to wipe those f*ckers out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the banks gamed them into it. The banks are always gaming. The banks are a parasite so large if you kill it you take the host with you. This is why i said we have no choice but to pay, till the patient gets a bit stronger and can take a dose of radiation to wipe those f*ckers out

The bank are not the one handing over £200bn a year in social benefits and spending. the banks are not the ones who are not fixing the multitrillion public sector pensions holes. The banks are not the ones signing up to a trillion pounds worth of PFI deals. the biggest parasite is government - it WILL NOT make the right decisions, because it needs to be reelected and so, like lobsters in a pan, we are slowly boiled alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bank are not the one handing over £200bn a year in social benefits and spending. the banks are not the ones who are not fixing the multitrillion public sector pensions holes. The banks are not the ones signing up to a trillion pounds worth of PFI deals. the biggest parasite is government - it WILL NOT make the right decisions, because it needs to be reelected and so, like lobsters in a pan, we are slowly boiled alive.

OK we remove all £200b of social benefits - what do we do with the 10m starving people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK we remove all £200b of social benefits - what do we do with the 10m starving people?

I don't think it cost £20,000 per head to basic feed and house a person.

But it does cost that muich to ensure they have 50" LCD, happy hours drink and takaway curry after pub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK we remove all £200b of social benefits - what do we do with the 10m starving people?

millions of them stop smoking, drinking, smoking pot and watching sky and actually get a job to, you know, pay for their own food. God forbid, they actually do something useful. And actually pay some taxes, which in turns mean the rest of us have to pay less in tax as well, as they are contributing.

And it means more money for the genuine needy cases.

Share this post


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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 311 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.