RBS Results
Comments
-
VTech wrote:Frank the tank wrote:Should the banks that have been bailed out by the public purse to a lesser/greater extent be sold of bit by bit as each part of the bank returns to profitability or shoul the sell back wait untl the entire bank is profitable.
I believe the latter, then the bits that become profitable first can over the ensuing period be putting money back into public coffers. Then when the whole bank is saleable we get our money back aswell.
Thats the issue, they will sell before profit (someones pocket lined) and we wont see profit.
If it were in a company the CEO and board would be liable.
Who on earth expected that rescuing failing banks was going to be a profitable enterprise?
But, yes, your wider point is valid - if you'd been in charge, all of this pain and turmoil would have been avoided by the simple application of your good sense.0 -
ooermissus wrote:VTech wrote:Frank the tank wrote:Should the banks that have been bailed out by the public purse to a lesser/greater extent be sold of bit by bit as each part of the bank returns to profitability or shoul the sell back wait untl the entire bank is profitable.
I believe the latter, then the bits that become profitable first can over the ensuing period be putting money back into public coffers. Then when the whole bank is saleable we get our money back aswell.
Thats the issue, they will sell before profit (someones pocket lined) and we wont see profit.
If it were in a company the CEO and board would be liable.
Who on earth expected that rescuing failing banks was going to be a profitable enterprise?
But, yes, your wider point is valid - if you'd been in charge, all of this pain and turmoil would have been avoided by the simple application of your good sense.
What a childish statement to make. At no point have I or anyone suggested such a thing, I simply made a comment. And before you go on with the tripe spread here, it is a common thing for the government to do, I not complaining, its the way it is and there is nothing anyone can do about it but please dont say its not the case when it so blatantly is.Living MY dream.0 -
Jez mon wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:As for bonuses, it's a different issue. Bansk prefer bonuses because they can go up an down very easily. Salaries can't and make cost bases a lot more unwieldy. People should focus on total comp rather than the bonus element. That is what HR looks at and what banks look at. Broadly speaking, tc is down year on year since 2009.
Banks don't see bonuses as 'rewards' but an element of total pay which they can vary as much as they want.
So say a guy's market value is £500k. You could either give him a 100k salary and pay the rest in bonus, or givr him a 500k salary
But if the msrket value for him falls next year to 300k, with the latter settup you are screwed.
Rick, as someone who IIRC has worked as a headhunter in this industry, is the difference between the top and middling talent tangible, and are they consistently better performers?
Usually. There are exceptions, like the London whale, but they will always exist.
Criteria for hiring traders or sales guys is simple. What's your PnL (profit and loss). Nowadays people want to know VaR too. (Value at risk).The top guys consistently make more profit. Now, of course there are factors that make that more complicated. How much was that down to them or their colleagues. How much of that was a result of the wider franchise. What kind of trades were they doing, and is there longevity in that strategy. But broadly speaking, better people make more money consistently.
It's simple really. And PnL is, in my experience always measursd in millions.0 -
VTech wrote:Before you go on with the tripe spread here, it is a common thing for the government to do, I not complaining, its the way it is and there is nothing anyone can do about it but please dont say its not the case when it so blatantly is.
What on earth does that mean?
It's awesome to discover there are topics you know even less about than cycling.
0
