British Bonuses for British Bankers
- Thread starter taffboy gwyrdd
- Start date
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
There's some very deliberate bank worker/banker confusion being spead about on the part of the finance indusry here - like nazi prison concentration camp guards trying to dissapear by mixing in with their victims as the russians approach.
elbows
Well-Known Member
I wish it were as simple as bankers being responsible for all our woes. They certainly deserve a lions share of the blame, but there are bigger things going on, give it a year or two and we will need some new scapegoats as the true depth and longevity of the horror reveals itself.
This is very true. Can't help but think that the current row over bonuses is fundamentally govt news-management.
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
^^ Yeah. scum aren't they.
Did you actually read the article???
Sorry - just to clarify: the scum I was referring to wasn't the bank workers but the finance bosses.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
ooooooooooooohhhhhhhhh........a conspiracy theory!!11!
It's certainly a simplistic narrative. Capitalists were only doing what they were allowed. "light touch regulation" from Brown and his international equals is very much at the heart of this too, but they wont want that discussed any time soon and the other tories had just the same ideology.
You're not necessarily paying for it - it might well be a contractual payment - say a % of the millions they made for the bank in the previous year
say some small trading team makes X million through some system they developed they're going to want rewarding for it so you pay them a %. It isn't their fault a bunch of muppets in credit, in an entirely different company within XYZ banking group screwed up and XYZ banking group got bailed out while their particular company/division/team actually made millions. If they hadn't been there in the previous year then the bank would have made even less money and for the sake of paying them a % you're preventing them form buggering off elsewhere and making money for another bank or just setting up their own hedge fund. By not keeping hold of profitable people/teams the bank will stand to potentially lose even more than it would have to pay in bonuses in order to retain them. I'm not saying its right, the whole system probably needs changing but at the moment not paying some of these people really won't make sense as they can and will move to another institution that will pay them.
^^^
Is exactly how it should be but very hard to put into practice - it would be nice perhaps if a % of everyone's bonus* was held for say 5 years so deductions could be made if necessary (probably completely impractical mind)
If someone stands to keep % of the revenue they generate then perhaps on the flip side they should also be made to pay back (from previous 'bonuses') a % of the revenue they lose during a particular year. These are bonuses after all, no need to necessarily make them pay anything out of their salary - if they get to the point where they're liable for more than they've earnt in bonuses then sack them. Might change their attitude towards taking risks a bit.
(*everyone directly responsible for generating significant revenue that is - I'm not talking about general back office workers, or people working in retail banking).
elbows
Well-Known Member
There is a view that banks will just go back to being relatively dull but vital utilities. Its questionable whether they should ever be making silly money, or at least by being low-risk but dull they should only make big bucks due to their size rather than taking risky options that have the potential to generate silly profits.
So those who feel they are worth rather high pay packets will have to look elsewhere. But maybe there will be a lack of options on that front in future, maybe few sectors will be left with workable models to generate silly profits.
It could happen quite quickly if the overinflated job 'market' for CEO's etc goes pop, the great unravelling of 'we have to pay them that much or they will go elsewhere'. Or maybe not, after all these silly levels of pay can be granted because there are not really very many people at the top, one megabonus for them only translates to a very small amount per low level worker.
At the end of the day we all have a tiny amount of power, and the minority only get rich and powerful by pooling a lot of peoples power and being able to harness it for their own ends. People just about lived with that due to plenty of stick and carrot, but now the carrot has gone mouldy and whilst the stick is a nuclear powered laser microwave robocop of awesome physical power, its become unwieldy to use. Interesting times.
So those who feel they are worth rather high pay packets will have to look elsewhere. But maybe there will be a lack of options on that front in future, maybe few sectors will be left with workable models to generate silly profits.
It could happen quite quickly if the overinflated job 'market' for CEO's etc goes pop, the great unravelling of 'we have to pay them that much or they will go elsewhere'. Or maybe not, after all these silly levels of pay can be granted because there are not really very many people at the top, one megabonus for them only translates to a very small amount per low level worker.
At the end of the day we all have a tiny amount of power, and the minority only get rich and powerful by pooling a lot of peoples power and being able to harness it for their own ends. People just about lived with that due to plenty of stick and carrot, but now the carrot has gone mouldy and whilst the stick is a nuclear powered laser microwave robocop of awesome physical power, its become unwieldy to use. Interesting times.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Oh I see another 2300 job losses announced at RBS too.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/alan_c...ce_more_job_cuts_till_after_bankers_apologies
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/alan_c...ce_more_job_cuts_till_after_bankers_apologies
Cynicuseconomicus agrees:
http://cynicuseconomicus.blogspot.com/2009/02/yes-bankers-bear-responsibility-but-now.html
http://cynicuseconomicus.blogspot.com/2009/02/yes-bankers-bear-responsibility-but-now.html
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
Who was DPM when the bankers were allowed to run riot, in the years of plenty for the PFI scam, when the war lies were put together and the NIR being planned?
Step forward a New High Priest of the Phoney Left.
Prince Rhyus
Spokesman of King Antonio
Yvette Cooper on "This Morning" ...
Talkie Toaster
New Member
... and discretionary surely?
Kanda
Diving wanker
... and discretionary surely?
Well both really. Something along the lines of: You will get a bonus of between 10-15% of x blah blah blah
Talkie Toaster
New Member
No, discretionary means the company has the right to not give one at all. Does this not happen in banking like other industries?
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Surely in line with the incentive principle of capitalism the bonuses should be awarded on the basis on sound economic management? If that were the criterion the bonuses these city bosses would get would be bullets upside their dome pieces.
Similar threads
