Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Bankers froth and splutter

City tells Osborne to ‘wise up’ on bonuses

"The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry said that “not for the first time this year, the City feels that politics is unfairly shaping pay and remuneration policy”." ...even while politics is fairly keeping them afloat.

Posted by letthemfall @ 11:36 AM (1012 views)
Please complete the required fields.

6 thoughts on “Bankers froth and splutter

  • Pull the funding. That’ll wipe the smile off their grossly offensive faces.

    Please complete the required fields.

  • For those that do not have an FT password article is currently as follows

    City tells Osborne to ‘wise up’ on bonuses
    By Jean Eaglesham and Brooke Masters

    Published: October 26 2009 21:47 | Last updated: October 26 2009 21:47

    City and business leaders have attacked George Osborne’s “simplistic” proposals to cap bankers’ bonuses, calling on the shadow chancellor to adopt a “wiser” approach to a complex issue.

    The backlash came after Mr Osborne urged the government to impose an “emergency” ban on banks with retail arms paying cash bonuses of more than about £2,000 per employee. Bonuses should instead be paid in new equity capital, freeing up an estimated £10bn of cash for lending to business, he told a London event.

    Critics said his plan would reduce the value of the state’s multibillion-pound holdings in the banks, have no impact on the pure investment banks that lie at the heart of the bonus culture, fail to stimulate lending and unfairly disadvantage UK banks against overseas rivals.

    “It would be much better for [Mr Osborne] to be wiser, in terms of finding the right approach, rather than adapting a more headline-grabbing one,” said Miles Templeman, director-general of the Institute of Directors.

    He called on the shadow chancellor to “be more constructive and say, ‘we do need to address the public concern on this matter but we need to find the right and appropriate mechanism’ … rather than taking a straightforward and simplistic approach”.

    The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry said that “not for the first time this year, the City feels that politics is unfairly shaping pay and remuneration policy”.

    George Magnus, the senior economic adviser to UBS, questioned the direct link between the cash used by the banks for bonus payments and their levels of lending. “If it was as simple as that, they’ve got enough cash already to have expanded their loans,” he told the BBC.

    One banker at an institution that would not be directly hit by the Conservative proposal said the City was discounting Mr Osborne’s rhetoric as a pre-election tactic to boost popularity. “The Tories really will say anything,” the banker said.

    Mr Osborne defended his plans as a “sensible, reasonable step” that echoed moves by the White House to curb the remuneration of American bankers.
    Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don’t cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

    Please complete the required fields.

  • Let’s make it unattractive to work at the institutions in which we have a stake. Yeah, great plan [sarc].
    Politicians as usual attack an effect not the cause as it seems the only way to win votes; it does not seem to be in their interests to make the country a better place.

    Dear Mr Osbourne, it’s also not all that similar to the White House’s proposal of limiting the way bonuses are paid to those receiving the biggest pots, and that’s not the right way to go either.

    Please complete the required fields.

  • 51ck
    Which is the right way to go? The reason usually advanced for allowing bankers to pay themselves what they like is that they will flee to more lucrative lands. Is that really the case, given the restrictions the US are imposing? Some isolated tax haven perhaps, earning a fortune in isolation?

    Please complete the required fields.

  • 51ck-6-51x, you come across more and more these days as an apologist for the banksters.

    It’s time for you to reiterate your self-proclaimed libertarian ideals.

    Please complete the required fields.

  • LTF
    – Well the bail out was wrong in the first place. The Right Way in my opinion would be to replace the central banking model with a free banking one. Of course it won’t be a vote winner since people dislike change, especially when it appears to them to be complicating things vastly ( votes for comfort will lead to a nanny, or even police, state – but slow change is easy to deal with – it’s a sad face of our psychology, although sensible in terms of evolution – we should not seek quick change, but be able to deal with it if it arises ).
    There will always be regulatory arbitrage whilst we have borders and states. If we do impose relatively harsher terms than other states then, yes, those affected will be more likely to relocate. I don’t say that is necessarily a bad thing – just that the specific proposed case of bank regulation will face stiff opposition in the political sphere due to our current state of affairs. Personally I would like no borders and no state, so such questions are still regarding an effect in the chain, albeit an earlier event.

    – I am neither apologist for, nor opposition to, bankers. I do not think my views above nullify my libertarianism ideals in any way whatsoever.
    I am an objectivist and so believe that if the system is flawed I should fully expect ( at least some, if not most ) people who are in a position to do so to take advantage of that fact at least for some time ( whilst they believe it increases their own happiness, whether directly or indirectly ). This is also what we observe! ( Many people who become exceedingly wealthy end up setting up charitable trusts once they realise the obvious ) People should be free to make their own choices, that is the base of libertarianism. If we as individuals believe the world would be a happier place for ourselves by proxy ( i.e. altruistic* ) if we change the system, then I believe we should try to do so. Alternatively, if one ( a *anker ) extracts happiness from driving a Bugatti around the city occasionally stopping to spray Cristal at passers by, then by all means one should go for it. Of course such an individual may well be stopped from doing so by others in the original camp.

    Libertarianism is a vague philosophy when it comes to the subject of property. I would place myself in the anarcho-capitalist camp and therein there is room for those who arbitrage; in fact there is a need for such action, without it the system would be unstable.

    * If one extracts pleasure from perceiving pleasure from others then one’s happiness will be increased by implementing a better society, which would include fixing flaws in the economic system or changing the systems of control and thus increasing mean happiness and hence one’s own.

    Please complete the required fields.

Add a comment

  • 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

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>