Fuengirola Saint Posted 27 January, 2012 Posted 27 January, 2012 I'm a bit confused with what George Osborne said today re the bonus for RBS chief Stephen Hester's bonus. George Osborne says that he can't just change the bonus contract signed by the last government, If that's the case how come he was able to change the contracts signed under the last government of millions of public sector workers last year. does anybody think he's lying? ;-)
Lets B Avenue Posted 27 January, 2012 Posted 27 January, 2012 Does he get it paid into his dogs bank account?
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 27 January, 2012 Posted 27 January, 2012 I'm a bit confused with what George Osborne said today re the bonus for RBS chief Stephen Hester's bonus. George Osborne says that he can't just change the bonus contract signed by the last government, If that's the case how come he was able to change the contracts signed under the last government of millions of public sector workers last year. does anybody think he's lying? ;-) Yes but he's a banker and so we have to chuck money at him. It's because they're so great.
dune Posted 27 January, 2012 Posted 27 January, 2012 I wouldn't expect Socialist types to understand this issue. You haven't disappointed.
Minty Posted 27 January, 2012 Posted 27 January, 2012 I wouldn't expect Socialist types to understand this issue. You haven't disappointed. So what's your opinion on it dune?
buctootim Posted 27 January, 2012 Posted 27 January, 2012 Am I the only one to not care about such bonuses? If we as a society are turning on the high earners, can't we focus on the pointless celebrities, footballers and pop stars that earn even more. Hester is getting unfair treatment as he appears to be quite effective at RBS - he is solving their problems but didnt create them. There is a wider problem with executive pay though - in that it has become unrelated to the performance of the company (whether by share price or profits) and instead is linked to dodgy performance metrics which get fudged. Most the FTSE 100 companies share prices are still languishing around the levels of 15 years ago - but executive pay has rocketed since then. The whole argument about paying to attract the best talent is clearly spurious but a few credulous people still lap it up.
dune Posted 27 January, 2012 Posted 27 January, 2012 So what's your opinion on it dune? That it's obscene, BUT if you don't offer these incentives here then these incentives will be offered in ****hai or Bombay etc. In the scheme of things a 1,000,000 bonus is less than peanuts.
TopGun Posted 27 January, 2012 Posted 27 January, 2012 That it's obscene, BUT if you don't offer these incentives here then these incentives will be offered in ****hai or Bombay etc. In the scheme of things a 1,000,000 bonus is less than peanuts. I'm fairly convinced you could get a pretty decent CEO for a largely nationalised bank on a reasonable wage.
trousers Posted 27 January, 2012 Posted 27 January, 2012 Question - is this CEO accelerating the recovery and turnaround of this company or not? If he is then it's a win-win for RBS and the taxpayer (and, as such, the furore about his remuneration is idealogical rather than logical) but if he isn't succeeding in turning the business around then he shouldn't receive any reward. Simple really.
aintforever Posted 27 January, 2012 Posted 27 January, 2012 Just a symptom of a world sick with greed. I can't see the current capitalist system lasting much longer.
View From The Top Posted 27 January, 2012 Posted 27 January, 2012 A bonus should be for success, not just because in that sector they are the norm.
trousers Posted 27 January, 2012 Posted 27 January, 2012 A bonus should be for success, not just because in that sector they are the norm. ^This
buctootim Posted 27 January, 2012 Posted 27 January, 2012 Most people seem to respect and trust John Lewis, they pay their 76,000 staff well above industry norms and the company has doubled in size in 10 years to the stage where it now turns over £8.2bn pa. Their head guy earns £500,000pa. Marks & Spencer is very similar in size to John Lewis. Their performance over past 10 years has been pretty poor. They do not pay their 75,000 staff as well as John Lewis. Their head guy earned £4.4 million last year.
trousers Posted 27 January, 2012 Posted 27 January, 2012 Most people seem to respect and trust John Lewis, they pay their 76,000 staff well above industry norms and the company has doubled in size in 10 years to the stage where it now turns over £8.2bn pa. Their head guy earns £500,000pa. Marks & Spencer is very similar in size to John Lewis. Their performance over past 10 years has been pretty poor. They do not pay their 75,000 staff as well as John Lewis. Their head guy earned £4.4 million last year. More fool M&S shareholders then
dune Posted 27 January, 2012 Posted 27 January, 2012 I'm fairly convinced you could get a pretty decent CEO for a largely nationalised bank on a reasonable wage. Maybe, but if controls are brought in it would have to be accross the board and that would be detrimental to our economy. Can we really afford to discourage large corporations from the UK?
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 27 January, 2012 Posted 27 January, 2012 That it's obscene, BUT if you don't offer these incentives here then these incentives will be offered in ****hai or Bombay etc. In the scheme of things a 1,000,000 bonus is less than peanuts. A nationalised bank should not be able to give out these bonuses, simple. In a privately owned bank there isn't much that can be done, but in a bank that is 81% owned by us it is simply perverse!
dune Posted 27 January, 2012 Posted 27 January, 2012 A nationalised bank should not be able to give out these bonuses, simple. In a privately owned bank there isn't much that can be done, but in a bank that is 81% owned by us it is simply perverse! He's doing a good job though, but thanks to DC and GO the bonus is half of what it could have been.
trousers Posted 27 January, 2012 Posted 27 January, 2012 A nationalised bank should not be able to give out these bonuses, simple. In a privately owned bank there isn't much that can be done, but in a bank that is 81% owned by us it is simply perverse! But what if this chap is really good and as a result gets the best return for tax payers in the long run? What does potentially cutting off our noses to spite our face actually achieve? I look at these things logically rather than ideologically. If this guy can get the best deal (net of his bonus) for us, the taxpayer, then so be it. By the same token, if he isn't all he's cracked up to be then don't reward him for failure. Simple.
dune Posted 27 January, 2012 Posted 27 January, 2012 As this is a football forum what is everyones view of Cortese being paid a basic salary of £600k BEFORE bonus' and benefits for finishing mid-table in League 1 with a turnover in the region of £11 mil ? To put this into perspective the most Lowe was ever paid wa £350k AFTER bonus and benefits for winning the FA Cup and Saints getting in to Europe with a turnover in the region of £50 mil.
ooh it's a corner Posted 27 January, 2012 Posted 27 January, 2012 As this is a football forum what is everyones view of Cortese being paid a basic salary of £600k BEFORE bonus' and benefits for finishing mid-table in League 1 with a turnover in the region of £11 mil ? To put this into perspective the most Lowe was ever paid wa £350k AFTER bonus and benefits for winning the FA Cup and Saints getting in to Europe with a turnover in the region of £50 mil. He's a former banker, he probably expects it :-)
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 27 January, 2012 Posted 27 January, 2012 But what if this chap is really good and as a result gets the best return for tax payers in the long run? What does potentially cutting off our noses to spite our face actually achieve? I look at these things logically rather than ideologically. If this guy can get the best deal (net of his bonus) for us, the taxpayer, then so be it. By the same token, if he isn't all he's cracked up to be then don't reward him for failure. Simple. Trousers, we are NEVER going to agree but I will just leave it at this: for every positive that Hester has brought to RBS there is a negative and therefore IMO it is wrong that he is paid any bonus when he hasn't brought ONLY 'positives' - especially when you consider that one of the negative aspects of RBS is the fact that he has had to back track on his original forecast of five years for bringing RBS 'back to normal'.
dune Posted 27 January, 2012 Posted 27 January, 2012 He's a former banker' date=' he probably expects it :-)[/quote'] I have no objection, was just wondering what the more left wing leaning types think.
AussieDog Posted 27 January, 2012 Posted 27 January, 2012 As this is a football forum what is everyones view of Cortese being paid a basic salary of £600k BEFORE bonus' and benefits for finishing mid-table in League 1 with a turnover in the region of £11 mil ? To put this into perspective the most Lowe was ever paid wa £350k AFTER bonus and benefits for winning the FA Cup and Saints getting in to Europe with a turnover in the region of £50 mil. Did I miss something? Have we won the FA Cup twice now then? As far as I can recall he joined us 20 years after we won the FA Cup
Lord Duckhunter Posted 28 January, 2012 Posted 28 January, 2012 the time for clamping down and regulating this banks bonus' was when they were in 10 downing street telling darling that they had run out of money and would go bank without gov help . Surely part of the bail out should have included future bonus payments for its ceo . Yet bother example of labour cocking things up , they gave away our money and should have got a cap on bonus in return for it
View From The Top Posted 28 January, 2012 Posted 28 January, 2012 the time for clamping down and regulating this banks bonus' was when they were in 10 downing street telling darling that they had run out of money and would go bank without gov help . Surely part of the bail out should have included future bonus payments for its ceo . Yet bother example of labour cocking things up , they gave away our money and should have got a cap on bonus in return for it But that cap, that you are blaming the last government for not doing, could only have been imposed on the very few banks that required a bailout otherwise it would have been government imposing their will on business, which you are opposed to and flies contrary to the right wing view that it would have led to them all leaving for Bombay or Shanghi. Reading your post I actually wonder if you understand why they bailed them out in the 1st place, whether they should or shouldn't have is a moot point.
Petersfield Saint Posted 28 January, 2012 Posted 28 January, 2012 the time for clamping down and regulating this banks bonus' was when they were in 10 downing street telling darling that they had run out of money and would go bank without gov help . Surely part of the bail out should have included future bonus payments for its ceo . Yet bother example of labour cocking things up , they gave away our money and should have got a cap on bonus in return for it This!! And I'm a bleeding heart liberal!
Fuengirola Saint Posted 28 January, 2012 Author Posted 28 January, 2012 the time for clamping down and regulating this banks bonus' was when they were in 10 downing street telling darling that they had run out of money and would go bank without gov help . Surely part of the bail out should have included future bonus payments for its ceo . Yet bother example of labour cocking things up , they gave away our money and should have got a cap on bonus in return for it The original post was about whether Osborne is a slimy,lying Sh**bag or not, not about Labour did this and Labour did that, covering up the fact that the party you support are part of the most inept and spiteful government ever. I'll ask again do yo think Osborne is a liar? As it happens I think the New Labour project was one of the worst ever political experiments only put in place to facilitate the enrichment of a few career politicians.
Chin Strain Posted 28 January, 2012 Posted 28 January, 2012 But what if this chap is really good and as a result gets the best return for tax payers in the long run? What does potentially cutting off our noses to spite our face actually achieve? I look at these things logically rather than ideologically. If this guy can get the best deal (net of his bonus) for us, the taxpayer, then so be it. By the same token, if he isn't all he's cracked up to be then don't reward him for failure. Simple. Agreed.
bridge too far Posted 28 January, 2012 Posted 28 January, 2012 I don't understand this bonus malarky. When I used to work for a living, I always did my job to the best of my ability and often worked beyond what was expected. But I didn't get a bonus for that. However, I didn't think to myself 'Ooh if I work a bit harder I'll get a bonus but since in reality I won't, I'll just do enough to get by'.
dune Posted 28 January, 2012 Posted 28 January, 2012 I don't understand this bonus malarky. When I used to work for a living, I always did my job to the best of my ability and often worked beyond what was expected. But I didn't get a bonus for that. However, I didn't think to myself 'Ooh if I work a bit harder I'll get a bonus but since in reality I won't, I'll just do enough to get by'. I think it's to fair to say you were an exception to the rule in the public sector.
dune Posted 28 January, 2012 Posted 28 January, 2012 It's nice to see he supports country pursuits. I wonder if he rides with the Heythrop?
um pahars Posted 28 January, 2012 Posted 28 January, 2012 I'm a bit confused with what George Osborne said today re the bonus for RBS chief Stephen Hester's bonus. George Osborne says that he can't just change the bonus contract signed by the last government, If that's the case how come he was able to change the contracts signed under the last government of millions of public sector workers last year. does anybody think he's lying? ;-) An interesting point and considering RBS is effectively a Public Sector body, you would have thought the Government could have applied the same approach. It gets even more confusing when you look at the contradictory viewpoints expressed by the Conservatives. Boris seems in line with public opinion when he calls it "absolutely bewildering" and suggests the Government could and should do something about it with his claim they "should step in and sort it out". Fallon on Newsnight was stating that the Government and it's investment arm had intervened to get the bonus reduced, suggesting they are able to modify the amount. Osborne didn't deny they could intervene, instead he was arguing from a position that it was the best deal given the circumstances and the alternatives. From all those I read that the Government could certainly do something, just that they didn't feel it appropriate, which is a totally different argument and one which is hard to swallow when "we're all in this together!".
Verbal Posted 28 January, 2012 Posted 28 January, 2012 I think it's to fair to say you were an exception to the rule in the public sector. Well Hester certainly isn't. He's a public sector worker who's singularly failed to deliver. Share price down 40% in a year, 3,500 staff laid off, etc, etc. He's cost the taxpayer billions and has been awarded another million presumably just to rub it in that no matter how useless he is, bankers ALWAYS get their loot, come rain or shine, and especially when someone else is left holding the tab. Interesting comparison with Cortese: both have five-year plans. Cortese is clearly on target; Hester isn't even close, and maybe never will be. So it's weird that you defend the failing public sector worker and denounce the successful private sector operator.
Lord Duckhunter Posted 28 January, 2012 Posted 28 January, 2012 But that cap, that you are blaming the last government for not doing, could only have been imposed on the very few banks that required a bailout otherwise it would have been government imposing their will on business, which you are opposed to and flies contrary to the right wing view that it would have led to them all leaving for Bombay or Shanghi. Reading your post I actually wonder if you understand why they bailed them out in the 1st place, whether they should or shouldn't have is a moot point. But RBS did need bailing out, therefore the last Govt could have imposed terms, it also got Hester onboard, so surely they could have imposed terms on his bonus then. Whether they should have been bailed out or not, is open to questionin my opinion. For Capitalism to work, failure must mean going bust. It is not Capitalism to bail out a failed Company, that leads to risks being taken and rewards privatised with losess nationalised. This is way behind my comprehension, but we should of found a way to protect ordinary people's savings & pensions , whilst letting the banks go bang.When RBS went bust, anyone with savings should have been compensated by Govt, anyone with a mortgage or loan should have had it written off. It would have cost a lot less. It was not a failure of Capitalism that cuased the problems it was the regulation of Capitalism, allowing the banks to hold the country to ransom, by becoming too big.
Jonnyboy Posted 28 January, 2012 Posted 28 January, 2012 It's nice to see he supports country pursuits. I wonder if he rides with the Heythrop? Now there's a f*ckin surprise.
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 28 January, 2012 Posted 28 January, 2012 Now there's a f*ckin surprise. Dune in "look at me" shocker.
Jonnyboy Posted 28 January, 2012 Posted 28 January, 2012 Dune in "look at me" shocker. I was thinking more along the lines of George Osborne is probably on the horse next to him.
Weston Super Saint Posted 28 January, 2012 Posted 28 January, 2012 You seem to be forgetting.... Bonus = £1m - to be paid by tax payer Tax @ 50% = £500k - to be taken by HMRC NI @ 10% = £100k - to be taken by HMRC Therefore net cost to taxpayer = £400k, puts a bit of perspective on things
Verbal Posted 28 January, 2012 Posted 28 January, 2012 You seem to be forgetting.... Bonus = £1m - to be paid by tax payer Tax @ 50% = £500k - to be taken by HMRC NI @ 10% = £100k - to be taken by HMRC Therefore net cost to taxpayer = £400k, puts a bit of perspective on things Yep, we pay the jackass £400,000 ON TOP of his overblown salary as a reward for presiding over a share price dive of 40%, firing 3,500 staff (at a cost of god knows what in terms of lost tax revenue but certainly a LOT higher than 400k) - all because 'that's how it's done' among British bankers.
Pugwash Posted 29 January, 2012 Posted 29 January, 2012 The Government CAN override the decision - if they really want to... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-is-caught-misleading-voters-over-bonuses-6294100.html?origin=internalSearch More pressure on Hester and the Government: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rbs-chairman-declines-14m-bonus-6296025.html
Verbal Posted 29 January, 2012 Posted 29 January, 2012 Saintsweb pressure pays off! Hester has 'turned down' the bonus. How good of him.
saintbletch Posted 30 January, 2012 Posted 30 January, 2012 You seem to be forgetting.... Bonus = £1m - to be paid by tax payer Tax @ 50% = £500k - to be taken by HMRC NI @ 10% = £100k - to be taken by HMRC Therefore net cost to taxpayer = £400k, puts a bit of perspective on things Smilies aside, I'm not sure this is true Weston Super Saint. It sounds like Hester's bonus was to be in shares. And I think I read that it would vest over a number of years. So I don't think HMRC would get anything back until he exercised and disposed of his shares. And I'm sure he and his accountant will ensure his tax obligation is minimised. Oddly though, as it was share-only you could argue that his additional incentive to improve the RBS share price has now been removed. Either way, surely he has simply been taken to one side and asked if he wants £1M bonus now or a Knighthood in 5-6 years when this has all blown over?
Dog Posted 30 January, 2012 Posted 30 January, 2012 Hester deserves his bonus. He left the Abbey National as a top boy to go and rescue the sh;t that the RBS were in, and apparently he has saved them millions!! Say what you want about him, he is a nice man, with a nice house & a new ex-wife, which would maybe be good for him to not receive the bonus? He is in the Warwickshire hunt, not the Heythrop.
Whitey Grandad Posted 30 January, 2012 Posted 30 January, 2012 Hester deserves his bonus. He left the Abbey National as a top boy to go and rescue the sh;t that the RBS were in, and apparently he has saved them millions!! Say what you want about him, he is a nice man, with a nice house & a new ex-wife, which would maybe be good for him to not receive the bonus? He is in the Warwickshire hunt, not the Heythrop. Is that rhyming slang?
Whitey Grandad Posted 30 January, 2012 Posted 30 January, 2012 A bonus should be for success, not just because in that sector they are the norm. Spot on.
thefunkygibbons Posted 30 January, 2012 Posted 30 January, 2012 Short term headlines, but long term damage The government should not meddle
Lord Duckhunter Posted 30 January, 2012 Posted 30 January, 2012 Short term headlines, but long term damage The government should not meddle Spot on, Governments of both colours would struggle to run a **** up in a brewary let alone a bank.Alister Darling set the terms of running the bank and they were very specific, it was not to be run with the interference of ministers and was not to be run like a nationlised industry. If we want our money back, we are going to need banks to get back to profitability ASAP. This witchhunt will put the best people off working in the banks that we own. Now what about the obscence salary's that other publically owned companies pay. What about Clakson's salary, or David Dimble's. What about Chris Evan's or Graham Norton. Milliband's a bit quiet on those ones. It's very easy to pick on this guy, who was headhunted by the last Government .
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now