RBS executives set for record £4bn bonus bonanza

 

Bonuses and salaries totalling nearly £4bn are to be handed out to employees of the state-owned Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) this year, it emerged last night.

 

The average worker in RBS's investment banking arm is on course to take home an average of £240,000, with the top 20 set to receive bonuses of between £1m-£5m.

 

The lavish awards for 2009 outstrip even those given in 2007 before the recession, and make a mockery of ministers' promises to clamp down on bankers' bonuses.

 

Last night, Gordon Brown, in his regular Downing Street broadcast, reiterated his call for banks to show restraint. He called for an end to "reckless banking practices" that contributed to global financial collapse last year.

 

The move means RBS is likely to clash with UK Financial Investments which oversees state-owned investments in banks. The taxpayer has a 70 per cent stake in RBS after the £20bn rescue of the bank, headed at the time by Sir Fred Goodwin.

 

Mr Brown said in his "fireside chat" podcast: "Banks must put lending to businesses and homeowners before making huge payouts to their staff." Mr Brown also promised homeowners better protection from lenders ahead of the publication tomorrow of a major report into mortgages by the Financial Services Authority.

 

Source: The Indepent

 

Surely this is not right, talk about a slap in the face to all taxpayers, this is amost a nationalised bank for crying out loud.

 

What you don't get Brian is that bonuses are not just handed out for fun

 

The investment arm of RBS would have made an incredible level of profit for bonuses of this level to be paid out so it is simply sharing some of that profit with the workers that created that profit

 

 

What you don't get Brian is that bonuses are not just handed out for fun

 

The investment arm of RBS would have made an incredible level of profit for bonuses of this level to be paid out so it is simply sharing some of that profit with the workers that created that profit

 

And what you don't get is the opposite should happen as well. If they lost huge amounts they should get deducted a share of those losses. That might make them take less risks in future. But as it stands they get rewarded with massive bonuses if they make profits, and nothing happens if they make huge losses, cause the taxpayer bails them out. They cannot have it both ways.

And what you don't get is the opposite should happen as well. If they lost huge amounts they should get deducted a share of those losses. That might make them take less risks in future. But as it stands they get rewarded with massive bonuses if they make profits, and nothing happens if they make huge losses, cause the taxpayer bails them out. They cannot have it both ways.

 

Exactly... They should have had a pretty large pay CUT..... It should be a case of "well, if you lose the country all this money, we're gonna SKIN you when it comes to taxes, so, you better watch it....". The Finance sector AS A WHOLE is responsible for this huge debt we are now in.... So, it's time to pay the piper, IMO.... Why should I pay more in taxes, etc, because of mistakes THEY made.....? <_<

 

The investment arm of RBS would have made an incredible level of profit for bonuses of this level to be paid out so it is simply sharing some of that profit with the workers that created that profit

 

RBS is 70% owned by the Taxpayer...... <_< If anyone should be getting "bonuses", it should be US seeing as how we had to bail these c/unts out....... I'd give these b'astards absolutely FUKK ALL until the burden that the taxpayer has had to face is completely wiped out....

 

RBS is 70% owned by the Taxpayer...... <_< If anyone should be getting "bonuses", it should be US seeing as how we had to bail these c/unts out....... I'd give these b'astards absolutely FUKK ALL until the burden that the taxpayer has had to face is completely wiped out....

 

completely agree!

The country IS back on its feet...some areas like manufacturing are lagging behind but the recession/credit crunch is over

Actually, it isn't :heehee: GDP down 0.4% in the last quarter...granted that it is just figures which don't realistically reflect the breakdown of which sectors have recovered and which haven't, but you can't expect this move to go down well when we're still officially in a recession.

Actually, it isn't :heehee: GDP down 0.4% in the last quarter...granted that it is just figures which don't realistically reflect the breakdown of which sectors have recovered and which haven't, but you can't expect this move to go down well when we're still officially in a recession.

 

Precisely.... And considering how much the Financial Industry as a WHOLE still owes us all (the record levels of borrowing were as a direct result of the Credit Crunch/Fat Cat greed), their bloody "bonuses" should be getting paid directly into the Exchequer until it's ALL paid back.... No matter how long that takes...

 

For someone who works in investment banking and my day to day work is with the traders it is a difficult call. This needs a global approach on banks, no one country (especially London or New York) are going to sacrifice their position and start to majorly tax the profits further or try to disadvantage these institutions because they will just move abroad. Long term bonus payments make sense, a higher tier 1 capital ratio also make sense as the more you have as a buffer the better. Also there where big issues around CDS (Credit Default Swaps) which where bought to insure against the collapse of an institution. There is going to be a central clearing house for these by year end... Gearing ratios should also be reduced (ratio between the assets you have on your book and the liabilities you have with the street).

 

But a lot of banks are just doing their job. My last bank was the most successful in the credit crunch and my current bank has also done exceptionally well so we are talking about a select few. Also there are a number of other reasons we are in this mess; there has been a huge rise in reliance on debt by consumers who have also relied on their house through remortgages as a steady income! With the recession rates have increased on credit cards and house prices have reduced leading to a double squeeze on people.

 

A footballer is in fact a very good example of how society thinks in todays age, why do they command such very high wages even when the profits of a club do not justify it? I have seen companies go into administration but still people stick up for their footballers regardless of their wage. They stick up for them regardless of their criminal record or their recent run ins with law enforcement... Many people have no idea how banks caused the credit crunch so they blame all banks and also do not take into account when they perhaps overstretched themselves on their mortgage of credit card payments. There is a reason to have a focussed debate about some banks but its not as clear cut as many people make out.

We hear today that RBS & Lloyds are to get yet another £33.5b & £5.7b respectively, the day after RBS announces another 3700 redundancies from their High street branch network. Now blow me down with a feather, but there was me thinking these are not the people that screwed up big time, it was those halfwits (who think they are so damned clever <_<) in the Investment division who lost all the money. Don't see them losing their jobs, nope they are the ones expecting a large bonus.

 

You couldn't make it up even if you tried.

You couldn't make it up even if you tried.

Richard Littlejohn fan? ;) :P

Richard Littlejohn fan? ;) :P

who :unsure:

We hear today that RBS & Lloyds are to get yet another £33.5b & £5.7b respectively, the day after RBS announces another 3700 redundancies from their High street branch network. Now blow me down with a feather, but there was me thinking these are not the people that screwed up big time, it was those halfwits (who think they are so damned clever <_<) in the Investment division who lost all the money. Don't see them losing their jobs, nope they are the ones expecting a large bonus.

 

You couldn't make it up even if you tried.

 

Spot on Brian... Yet again, it's the hard-working, totally blameless counter staff who are expected to take the fall for the incompetence and bad decisions made by people at the top, who STILL expect to be paid large bonuses... At the end of the day we OWN RBS, just why the Govt is just sitting back and letting them do this is beyond me tbh....

For someone who works in investment banking and my day to day work is with the traders it is a difficult call. This needs a global approach on banks, no one country (especially London or New York) are going to sacrifice their position and start to majorly tax the profits further or try to disadvantage these institutions because they will just move abroad. Long term bonus payments make sense, a higher tier 1 capital ratio also make sense as the more you have as a buffer the better. Also there where big issues around CDS (Credit Default Swaps) which where bought to insure against the collapse of an institution. There is going to be a central clearing house for these by year end... Gearing ratios should also be reduced (ratio between the assets you have on your book and the liabilities you have with the street).

 

But a lot of banks are just doing their job. My last bank was the most successful in the credit crunch and my current bank has also done exceptionally well so we are talking about a select few. Also there are a number of other reasons we are in this mess; there has been a huge rise in reliance on debt by consumers who have also relied on their house through remortgages as a steady income! With the recession rates have increased on credit cards and house prices have reduced leading to a double squeeze on people.

 

A footballer is in fact a very good example of how society thinks in todays age, why do they command such very high wages even when the profits of a club do not justify it? I have seen companies go into administration but still people stick up for their footballers regardless of their wage. They stick up for them regardless of their criminal record or their recent run ins with law enforcement... Many people have no idea how banks caused the credit crunch so they blame all banks and also do not take into account when they perhaps overstretched themselves on their mortgage of credit card payments. There is a reason to have a focussed debate about some banks but its not as clear cut as many people make out.

 

Oh come on Phil, that's really just a crock.... For absolute YEARS, the banks and credit card companies were very blatantly ENCOURAGING people to pretty much live on credit, I remember getting absolute MOUNTAINS of junk mail delivered to me by credit card companies encouraging me to take up their offers... This Credit Culture was unheard of in the UK up until the the 1980s... In France for example, you just try to get a 100% mortgage, let alone a second or third mortgage, out of a bank or a credit card if you're not in a position to actually afford it...

 

The banks encouraged irresponsible behaviour and irresponsible spending because it SUITED THEM... They made billions off of sub-prime mortgages and CDOs and Toxic Debt... Until it all came crashing down about their ears.... Now banks seem utterly incapable of lending to the people who actually NEED it (ie, small businesses), and yet take their profits and give it to a bunch of greedy little piggies in the City who caused all the problems to begin with.... And you wonder why people generally dont really like the banks very much....

but as I said the banks are not blameless but there is a bigger picture in all this. In a free market noone forces anyone to take up any product or service and it is up to the consumer to make a decision, look at the catalogue companies who ruin many a life. Having said that a LOT of people where sacked in investment banking, huge droves at the turn of this year so they got hit extremely badly. Bonuses where slashed and pretty much everyone I spoke to had a pay freeze this year.

 

Now it really is only a select few who caused this by packaging up synthetic CDS and reselling to other people (who then took a hit as it devalued). For example I work nowhere near this area but although I wasnt sacked people around me where, they did nothing to cause this but worked under the "investment bank" umbrella.

 

The goverment needs to force banks to lend to businesses at a competitive rate but this is an issue as the banks are hording cash in case more of their portfolio needs propping up if the market drops further. Alan Sugar had an interesting point saying that only a small % of the businesses really need the cash, the others are not fit for purpose and should go into liquidation.

Spot on Brian... Yet again, it's the hard-working, totally blameless counter staff who are expected to take the fall for the incompetence and bad decisions made by people at the top, who STILL expect to be paid large bonuses... At the end of the day we OWN RBS, just why the Govt is just sitting back and letting them do this is beyond me tbh....

 

i was under the impression that bonuses were only paid when and if they actually made money....

but as I said the banks are not blameless but there is a bigger picture in all this. In a free market noone forces anyone to take up any product or service and it is up to the consumer to make a decision, look at the catalogue companies who ruin many a life. Having said that a LOT of people where sacked in investment banking, huge droves at the turn of this year so they got hit extremely badly. Bonuses where slashed and pretty much everyone I spoke to had a pay freeze this year.

 

Now it really is only a select few who caused this by packaging up synthetic CDS and reselling to other people (who then took a hit as it devalued). For example I work nowhere near this area but although I wasnt sacked people around me where, they did nothing to cause this but worked under the "investment bank" umbrella.

 

The goverment needs to force banks to lend to businesses at a competitive rate but this is an issue as the banks are hording cash in case more of their portfolio needs propping up if the market drops further. Alan Sugar had an interesting point saying that only a small % of the businesses really need the cash, the others are not fit for purpose and should go into liquidation.

 

Alan Sugar has a bit of a cheek tbh... I'm betting he certainly benefitted from a bank loan or two when he was starting out... It sounds to me like he's kind of trotting out some Govt line.... I think he's lost all credibility since he became spokesman for the Govt....

 

And it's all very well to say "no one forces anyone...." blah, blah... But come on, you know as well as I do that this sort of blanket advertising DOES have a cumulative subconscious and psychological effect upon the recipient.. If it didn't, well companies wouldn't be investing billions into it every year would they, it PAYS OFF eventually when you do it enough times.....

 

Another thing you fail to take into account - students these days basically given Hobson's Choice when it comes to taking out loans, because there are no maintenance grants available....

 

 

 

i was under the impression that bonuses were only paid when and if they actually made money....

 

Rob, seriously dude, look up what's going on... RBS is sacking over 3000 staff, and the "big boys" are still being paid their bonuses this year.... Something very, VERY wrong with that one surely....... <_<

Rob, seriously dude, look up what's going on... RBS is sacking over 3000 staff, and the "big boys" are still being paid their bonuses this year.... Something very, VERY wrong with that one surely....... <_<

 

yeah m8, but i have a feeling that the situation isnt quite as black and white as that...

yeah m8, but i have a feeling that the situation isnt quite as black and white as that...

 

Well, you tell me then... How do you justify it...? I mean, clearly, if you're sacking THAT MANY workers then how can the organisation overall be doing well....? One part of it might be making money, but you cant look at it like that, an organisation has to be taken as a whole....

 

And the fact remains, the taxpayer still OWNS the RBS, we are the majority shareholder.... It's a Nationalised insitution in all but name.... The reason why it was Nationalised is because it was in serious sh!t..... If it's NOT in serious sh!t anymore, then it can stand on its own two feet, yes....? If not, then we still own it.... These people have no right to expect bonuses when their colleagues are losing their jobs, it's just a little bit like playing the fiddle while Rome burns, dont you think....?

 

Well, you tell me then... How do you justify it...? I mean, clearly, if you're sacking THAT MANY workers then how can the organisation overall be doing well....? One part of it might be making money, but you cant look at it like that, an organisation has to be taken as a whole....

 

And the fact remains, the taxpayer still OWNS the RBS, we are the majority shareholder.... It's a Nationalised insitution in all but name.... The reason why it was Nationalised is because it was in serious sh!t..... If it's NOT in serious sh!t anymore, then it can stand on its own two feet, yes....? If not, then we still own it.... These people have no right to expect bonuses when their colleagues are losing their jobs, it's just a little bit like playing the fiddle while Rome burns, dont you think....?

 

i dont know the facts, i have no idea how investment banking works, and i probably never will, im saying that on the face of it, its completely wrong..... but im uncertain what the full picture is... abit like saying... yes the woman killed her husband, murderer... but when the deeper issues are explored you find that she was treated to years of physical abuse, she snapped, manslaughter/diminished responsibility.