Who wants to be a millionaire (almost)?
Comments
-
Sketchley wrote:There was an interesting point at the weekend, that a failure to pay a bonus could be seen from the outside as failure and a lack of confidence in the chief exec, and would therefore affect the share price of RBS or their ability to borrow or cost of borrowing or the price of the various investment arms they are trying to sell etc etc etc. The net result being that the tax payer actually could lose money by not paying the bonus, weird I know but kind of makes sense when so much of banking depends on confidence.
Far more likely that if they pay sh!t, they'll get sh!t, and that will end up costing the taxpayer more money. And all because of the noisey, ignorant, envious few.0 -
W1 wrote:rjsterry wrote:W1 wrote:
What's ironic?hmbadger wrote:W1 wrote:RBS share price down 2.5%, or in other words, a loss (on paper) of many thousands of percent greater than the cost of the "bonus".
So well done envy politics, you've cost the taxpayer many millions, by bleating about £900k.
Typically stupid and short sighted.
The irony of it.
All the arguments that you are using to justify the absurdly high salaries/bonuses would apply to the banking executives who where in charge when the bank went bust would they not? Tell me, were they worth the money? Did they have these rarified skills that you speak of?
It is insane to actively want to ensure that people who are best placed to sort out a state owned bank are not going to want to do it, because they will not be remunerated properly.
"Back in the day" the public woulnd't have had a say in how private businesses pay their staff, so I'm not sure of your point. Now we own 83%, there is a war-cry sent up by Labour idiots ensuring that RBS will not have the best staff. That is plain stupid envy politics.
How is his basic salary without bonus not proper remuneration? No-one (with any sense) is suggesting that he should be on £20K: but there is a big gulf between even, for argument's sake, £300K and £1.2M. The argument (at least from me) is not that a particular rate of pay is too high, but that the rate of increase compared with just a few years ago seems to have detached itself from the general rise and fall of the economy and become self-justifying.
The argument that you need to pay that much to get the right person is circular - CEO A is the best in his field and is offered X to make sure his services are retained; CEO B says I do the same job (?) so I should be paid something similar, and soon all the CEOs have had a big jump in earnings - and round it goes. Because the figures, as large as they are, are dwarfed by corporate profits and share values, no-one notices at first.
As posted before, there has been significant research into the mechanisms at work that have driven the rate of increase so far beyond the norm. In short it is a malfunctioning market.
I can't answer this any more eloquently than Rick has below:Rick Chasey wrote:What does irritate me is the inconsistency.
Either you have the model we have now, where execs will get serious pay inflation and enormous amounts of money, or you change it.
Don't just have a go at one guy in one bank - even if it is state owned. Like I said, there are people being paid more than he is working at RBS who aren't getting sh!t.
Either you sort it out across the board or live with it.
At the end of the day, this guy should not be scapegoated.
And god forbid anyone wants to dictate what you earn! What if someone earning less than you thinks it's too much - would you be happy to be paid less on the whim of well-spun populism?
Agreed, he has become the focus of the debate because RBS is mostly publicly owned, but him and the Lloyds chap foregoing their bonuses for one year, on it's own won't change anything.
Well-spun populism? Well, that's politics for you. If he's as good as people say, he can't have been that dumb to think that this issue wouldn't arise - he'll survive.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
About the share price, couldn't the fact that he seems fairly OK to not receive ~1 million quids worth of shares, indicate he's fairly confident that the share price won't rise dramatically, and net the tax payer a profit...
But yea, atm, I think banking stocks are mainly going to be getting driven down by the Euro crisis, anything else comes in second.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
W1 wrote:If I was good enough to run a bank, I wouldn't want to run RBS and I certainly wouldn't do it for that little - because everytime you buy a coffee some grubby little oik will complain about it and say you're not worth it.
Good luck to the guy, it's a thankless task to be head scapegoat.
"That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
W1 wrote:
Ah, I see. So no banker can ever be paid more than 2p an hour because some weren't very good once?hmbadger wrote:W1 wrote:
What's ironic?hmbadger wrote:W1 wrote:RBS share price down 2.5%, or in other words, a loss (on paper) of many thousands of percent greater than the cost of the "bonus".
So well done envy politics, you've cost the taxpayer many millions, by bleating about £900k.
Typically stupid and short sighted.
The irony of it.
All the arguments that you are using to justify the absurdly high salaries/bonuses would apply to the banking executives who where in charge when the bank went bust would they not? Tell me, were they worth the money? Did they have these rarified skills that you speak of?
It is insane to actively want to ensure that people who are best placed to sort out a state owned bank are not going to want to do it, because they will not be remunerated properly.
"Back in the day" the public woulnd't have had a say in how private businesses pay their staff, so I'm not sure of your point. Now we own 83%, there is a war-cry sent up by Labour idiots ensuring that RBS will not have the best staff. That is plain stupid envy politics.
The irony is you complaining that not paying someone a huge bonus is knocking a piffling few per cent off the share price. Because paying top whack and huge bonuses is going to attract the best person right? Someone who can perform great things with the company. Maybe even a European Banker of the Year, or someone like that. Someone like Fred Goodwin. He was paid a lot wasn't he? He must have been good.
Eh? Oh.
He unquestionably was very good for a long time - but his arrogance overtook his talent.
That "piffling few percent" is much larger than the bonus - ironic?
Utterly absurd.
2p an hour? You;re going berserk because the poor diddums is being limited to £1.2M per year.
"Because some weren't very good once?" What you mean like bankrupting a huge banking institution?
This exaggeration is important - you're just not properly taking into account the impact that this has had on ordinary people's lives. And that fact that it is having so little impact on the bankers.
Another point you seem to misundersatnd - I'm not singling out this bloke. It's all of them. They're all overpaid.0 -
Speaking of shares (totally OT), anyone see carphone warehouse today?
Down 50% roughly. Was OK this morning!0 -
-
Who are you (or anyone, for that matter) to say that someone, or an entire inustry, is overpaid?hmbadger wrote:W1 wrote:
Ah, I see. So no banker can ever be paid more than 2p an hour because some weren't very good once?hmbadger wrote:W1 wrote:
What's ironic?hmbadger wrote:W1 wrote:RBS share price down 2.5%, or in other words, a loss (on paper) of many thousands of percent greater than the cost of the "bonus".
So well done envy politics, you've cost the taxpayer many millions, by bleating about £900k.
Typically stupid and short sighted.
The irony of it.
All the arguments that you are using to justify the absurdly high salaries/bonuses would apply to the banking executives who where in charge when the bank went bust would they not? Tell me, were they worth the money? Did they have these rarified skills that you speak of?
It is insane to actively want to ensure that people who are best placed to sort out a state owned bank are not going to want to do it, because they will not be remunerated properly.
"Back in the day" the public woulnd't have had a say in how private businesses pay their staff, so I'm not sure of your point. Now we own 83%, there is a war-cry sent up by Labour idiots ensuring that RBS will not have the best staff. That is plain stupid envy politics.
The irony is you complaining that not paying someone a huge bonus is knocking a piffling few per cent off the share price. Because paying top whack and huge bonuses is going to attract the best person right? Someone who can perform great things with the company. Maybe even a European Banker of the Year, or someone like that. Someone like Fred Goodwin. He was paid a lot wasn't he? He must have been good.
Eh? Oh.
He unquestionably was very good for a long time - but his arrogance overtook his talent.
That "piffling few percent" is much larger than the bonus - ironic?
Utterly absurd.
2p an hour? You;re going berserk because the poor diddums is being limited to £1.2M per year.
"Because some weren't very good once?" What you mean like bankrupting a huge banking institution?
This exaggeration is important - you're just not properly taking into account the impact that this has had on ordinary people's lives. And that fact that it is having so little impact on the bankers.
Another point you seem to misundersatnd - I'm not singling out this bloke. It's all of them. They're all overpaid.
Or would you like your wages to be set by politicians chasing the popular, misunderstood, vote?
Who are "the bankers" whose lives are not impacted? RBS has lost half it's staff. I think that's a significant imact, don't you?0 -
hmbadger wrote:
Like shares that can't be sold for three years for example?0 -
How long would you wait for your pay? A decade? 50 years? What if you've left the company, and someone cocks it all up, and you get nothing - even though you did a very good job?hmbadger wrote:0 -
[/quote]
Who are you (or anyone, for that matter) to say that someone, or an entire inustry, is overpaid?[/quote]
I'm entitled to an opinion.
[/quote]Or would you like your wages to be set by politicians chasing the popular, misunderstood, vote?[/quote]
I wouldn't think it unreasonable for politicians to set limits or guidelines. As for the 'misunderstood', well that's typical of the arrogance of those involved and their supporters. I mean all this financial stuff is really complicated isn't it? You couldn't possibly understand it. You need experts. They really understand things. The world financial system is safe in their hands. What could go wrong?
[/quote]Who are "the bankers" whose lives are not impacted? RBS has lost half it's staff. I think that's a significant imact, don't you?[/quote]
The "bankers" whose lives are not impacted are those who continue to earn huge, unjustified, salaries. You know, the people we're talking about.0 -
Greg66 wrote:hmbadger wrote:They're all overpaid.
How much should they be paid?
Like I said before, it's not the figure itself, it's the rate of increase - somewhere between 43% and 49% in the last year alone - which seems to be unrelated to, their performance, their business's performance, let alone 'average' salaries. I don't understand how this is justified within the businesses themselves.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
hmbadger wrote:
Ok. We get it. The piece of string presently used is too long. You want a shorter piece of string. You have no ideas how long it should be or how the right length should be decided.
Great.
Let me guess. You think the chances of a migration of "fat cats" abroad, where the string would still be appreciably longer, is completely implausible.0 -
Greg66 wrote:hmbadger wrote:
Ok. We get it. The piece of string presently used is too long. You want a shorter piece of string. You have no ideas how long it should be or how the right length should be decided.
Great.
Let me guess. You think the chances of a migration of "fat cats" abroad, where the string would still be appreciably longer, is completely implausible.
How about this: No more than 30 times the lowest full time employee wage? It's an arbitrary number you're looking for.
Try this: let the market actually decide. Currently, the market isn't. The make-up of corporations and the legislations in place mean executives can inflate their pay way beyond what makes economic sense. It's become a mutual arms race for executive wages. That smacks of cartelism, in a strange kinda way.
And re inflated pay in finance? First, you need to understand how/why finance can make so much money, and if that money is of value to the economy, or if it is at the expense?
As I understand it, the financial industry provides liquidity to markets that may not be. What has caused problems is that developments have made finance so liquid that it has become impatient and short-termist, at the expense of longer term gains, and that a lot of the output made in finance are merely derivatives of the underlying asset.
At some point somewhere, more underlying assets have to be created, else the stack of cards will eventually fall.0 -
rjsterry wrote:Greg66 wrote:hmbadger wrote:They're all overpaid.
How much should they be paid?
Like I said before, it's not the figure itself, it's the rate of increase - somewhere between 43% and 49% in the last year alone - which seems to be unrelated to, their performance, their business's performance, let alone 'average' salaries. I don't understand how this is justified within the businesses themselves.
Many many years ago, I had the proximity theory of income explained to me.
Bankers make the most money, because they are closest to actual folding cash. It's like, right next to their desks, piled up in batches like oversized lego bricks.
Accountants do pretty well, because they go in and count the money from time to time. So they get to stand close to the piles for a little while.
Actuaries are sort of valued, in a witch-doctor kind of way. They are viewed with suspicion and revered at the same time, because they can predict when the money will have to be paid out to someone. So they do ok.
Lawyers come next; first transactional lawyers, who get to help spend the money, and therefore come into contact with it for a little while. Then dispute resolution lawyers, who argue over it. They are not well liked though, because they have a mean habit of peeling off a few notes from every pile that is argued about. So no one goes running to them in a hurry.
After that, everyone else is somewhere down the cascade.
I came to terms with the proximity theory of income a long time ago. I think it should be taught in schools.0 -
W1 wrote:
How long would you wait for your pay? A decade? 50 years? What if you've left the company, and someone cocks it all up, and you get nothing - even though you did a very good job?hmbadger wrote:
But it's not his pay though is it? That's the point (or one of them). In the meantime he'd have to struggle along on his salary.
As for how long, then not sure. Long enough to ensure that people are incentivised to build successful long term viable businesses. Maybe 5 years would be a sensible minimum. I'm sure that arrangements could be made for leaving the company - which would of course take into account the reasons for leaving (something that doesn't seem to be done properly at the moment).0 -
Greg66 wrote:rjsterry wrote:Greg66 wrote:hmbadger wrote:They're all overpaid.
How much should they be paid?
Like I said before, it's not the figure itself, it's the rate of increase - somewhere between 43% and 49% in the last year alone - which seems to be unrelated to, their performance, their business's performance, let alone 'average' salaries. I don't understand how this is justified within the businesses themselves.
Many many years ago, I had the proximity theory of income explained to me.
Bankers make the most money, because they are closest to actual folding cash. It's like, right next to their desks, piled up in batches like oversized lego bricks.
Accountants do pretty well, because they go in and count the money from time to time. So they get to stand close to the piles for a little while.
Actuaries are sort of valued, in a witch-doctor kind of way. They are viewed with suspicion and revered at the same time, because they can predict when the money will have to be paid out to someone. So they do ok.
Lawyers come next; first transactional lawyers, who get to help spend the money, and therefore come into contact with it for a little while. Then dispute resolution lawyers, who argue over it. They are not well liked though, because they have a mean habit of peeling off a few notes from every pile that is argued about. So no one goes running to them in a hurry.
After that, everyone else is somewhere down the cascade.
I came to terms with the proximity theory of income a long time ago. I think it should be taught in schools.
Where do those who work in the mint come into this?0 -
Greg66 wrote:rjsterry wrote:Greg66 wrote:hmbadger wrote:They're all overpaid.
How much should they be paid?
Like I said before, it's not the figure itself, it's the rate of increase - somewhere between 43% and 49% in the last year alone - which seems to be unrelated to, their performance, their business's performance, let alone 'average' salaries. I don't understand how this is justified within the businesses themselves.
Many many years ago, I had the proximity theory of income explained to me.
Bankers make the most money, because they are closest to actual folding cash. It's like, right next to their desks, piled up in batches like oversized lego bricks.
Accountants do pretty well, because they go in and count the money from time to time. So they get to stand close to the piles for a little while.
Actuaries are sort of valued, in a witch-doctor kind of way. They are viewed with suspicion and revered at the same time, because they can predict when the money will have to be paid out to someone. So they do ok.
Lawyers come next; first transactional lawyers, who get to help spend the money, and therefore come into contact with it for a little while. Then dispute resolution lawyers, who argue over it. They are not well liked though, because they have a mean habit of peeling off a few notes from every pile that is argued about. So no one goes running to them in a hurry.
After that, everyone else is somewhere down the cascade.
I came to terms with the proximity theory of income a long time ago. I think it should be taught in schools.
That just explains why they are richer than me - I'm fine with that. If I was that bothered, I would have gone into law myself. It doesn't explain the run away growth to I-need-my-bank-statement-printed-on-A3-paper when everything else around is showing modest growth at best, and frequently negative growth.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Paulie W wrote:Greg66 wrote:rjsterry wrote:Greg66 wrote:hmbadger wrote:They're all overpaid.
How much should they be paid?
Like I said before, it's not the figure itself, it's the rate of increase - somewhere between 43% and 49% in the last year alone - which seems to be unrelated to, their performance, their business's performance, let alone 'average' salaries. I don't understand how this is justified within the businesses themselves.
Many many years ago, I had the proximity theory of income explained to me.
Bankers make the most money, because they are closest to actual folding cash. It's like, right next to their desks, piled up in batches like oversized lego bricks.
Accountants do pretty well, because they go in and count the money from time to time. So they get to stand close to the piles for a little while.
Actuaries are sort of valued, in a witch-doctor kind of way. They are viewed with suspicion and revered at the same time, because they can predict when the money will have to be paid out to someone. So they do ok.
Lawyers come next; first transactional lawyers, who get to help spend the money, and therefore come into contact with it for a little while. Then dispute resolution lawyers, who argue over it. They are not well liked though, because they have a mean habit of peeling off a few notes from every pile that is argued about. So no one goes running to them in a hurry.
After that, everyone else is somewhere down the cascade.
I came to terms with the proximity theory of income a long time ago. I think it should be taught in schools.
Where do those who work in the mint come into this?
You know the goblins who work at Gringotts? That's them. Low paid, but they can do magic and all sorts.0 -
rjsterry wrote:That just explains why they are richer than me - I'm fine with that. If I was that bothered, I would have gone into law myself. It doesn't explain the run away growth to I-need-my-bank-statement-printed-on-A3-paper when everything else around is showing modest growth at best, and frequently negative growth.
What's the source of the 43-49% you mentioned? I haven't seen it (but then, I haven't looked).0 -
Greg66 wrote:hmbadger wrote:
Ok. We get it. The piece of string presently used is too long. You want a shorter piece of string. You have no ideas how long it should be or how the right length should be decided.
Great.
Let me guess. You think the chances of a migration of "fat cats" abroad, where the string would still be appreciably longer, is completely implausible.
Well, 2 basic ideas are in the post. See Rick's response if you want a number.
As for the old going abroad threat. That's just like the thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. "You can;t regulate us, we'll go elsewhere."
What I am certain of is that the sky wouldn't fall in.0 -
Greg66 wrote:rjsterry wrote:That just explains why they are richer than me - I'm fine with that. If I was that bothered, I would have gone into law myself. It doesn't explain the run away growth to I-need-my-bank-statement-printed-on-A3-paper when everything else around is showing modest growth at best, and frequently negative growth.
What's the source of the 43-49% you mentioned? I haven't seen it (but then, I haven't looked).
Various the BBC link is where I got the 43% from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15487866
There's also this with a few more figures - from a lefty source, but just looking at how and why, so you shouldn't catch anything.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
hmbadger wrote:I wouldn't think it unreasonable for politicians to set limits or guidelines. As for the 'misunderstood', well that's typical of the arrogance of those involved and their supporters.
Are you happy for a politician to set a limit on your pay?
It's not unrealistic to say that most people on the street don't understand the banking industry. You're showing this yourself, by using sweeping generalisations such as "banker". You can say that's arrogance but do you really believe that it's not true?
In any event, the misunderstanding I was referring to was with regard to the benefits or not of paying this bonus. Do you think most people have looked at the detail, or have just gone with whatever their preferred red-top has said?hmbadger wrote:
The "bankers" whose lives are not impacted are those who continue to earn huge, unjustified, salaries. You know, the people we're talking about.
Ah, so not all "bankers" then, just the ones who still have jobs i.e. the better ones. I wonder how you are in a position to judge whether their salaries are justified?0 -
W1 wrote:hmbadger wrote:I wouldn't think it unreasonable for politicians to set limits or guidelines. As for the 'misunderstood', well that's typical of the arrogance of those involved and their supporters.
Are you happy for a politician to set a limit on your pay?
It's not unrealistic to say that most people on the street don't understand the banking industry. You're showing this yourself, by using sweeping generalisations such as "banker". You can say that's arrogance but do you really believe that it's not true?
In any event, the misunderstanding I was referring to was with regard to the benefits or not of paying this bonus. Do you think most people have looked at the detail, or have just gone with whatever their preferred red-top has said?hmbadger wrote:
The "bankers" whose lives are not impacted are those who continue to earn huge, unjustified, salaries. You know, the people we're talking about.
Ah, so not all "bankers" then, just the ones who still have jobs i.e. the better ones. I wonder how you are in a position to judge whether their salaries are justified?
I'm happy for politicians to set a limit based on some criteria such as average wage. It wouldn;t affect me - I don;t earn some massive multiple of average wage.
"bankers" - just a shorthand, inaccurate of course. It's not evidence of anything.
Understanding of banking industry - no I don't understand all the processes, and neither do most people. I don't think you need to to have a view that the massive growth in top salaries is unjustified.
Of course people haven;t looked at the detail - I think I said that before. The detail isn't important, it's the principle. It's the "we're all in this together" thing. Why is that so difficult to understand?0 -
I've tried to avoid this story because no matter what way I look at it it annoys me more.
Bonuses in principle are stupid. The lead to bad decisions made to achieve the bonus. See also measurements, metrics and targets.
If I had a contract which promise x in return for y. I would be perfectly entitled to receive x if I delivered on y.
Do the politicians/ media believe that I am so feckin stupid that I don't realise that they are attacking this RBS chap as a distraction from their own shortfalls.
When do we get to bully Osbourne, Cameron and Clegg into giving up their salary and benefits for failing to achieve what they promised?
Miliband. Useless twunt.
Do we really believe that this RBS chap is so uniquely talented as to be irreplaceble at the head of RBS? Why does the princinple of "If you don't like it we'll get someone else to do it" not apply here.
If he's that good he wouldn't be so easily bullied.It's the "we're all in this together" thing. Why is that so difficult to understand?
WE ARE NOT ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
