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.

 

Not really quite sure you can compare the two things tbh...... An organisation has a thing called "The Bottom Line", which takes into account ALL of the organisations financial doings, not just what's going on in one particular department, and puts it together in a Balance Sheet.... If the actual "Bottom Line" basically screams - "WE ARE IN DEEP, DEEP SH!T OVERALL" then they've no business talking about bonuses..... The only reason RBS survived as an organisation is because the Govt bought 70% of the shares and basically underwrote all the bank's toxic debts.... Say what you like, the "Bottom Line" here is not good for RBS, and people should stop trying to pretend that it's "business as usual" within the org.....

 

Alan Sugars words are about as unpolitical as you can get, government wants to stick up for SME not have the business "tzar" saying most of them are just whining and should be wound up! In a recession everyone looks for a scapegoat and as investment banking is so far removed from many businesses people just blame all invesmtent banks and bankers which is completely wrong.

 

Bonuses are paid to people who make money, a bit like commision. Their global banking and markets division made (profit) £1.1 billion in Q2 this year and £375 million in Q3 (markets where less volatile in Q3 so most banks earned less), thats a lot of money. If you have star people earning huge amounts of cash for your business you HAVE to compensate as a shareholder (government) or as the CEO. If you dont they leave and guess what, next quarter you dont make the money anymore... RBS have another issue as well, noone really wants to work for a goverment owned institution as they can see red tape being introduced in the droves. So RBS have to pay a big premium when they hire anyone to bridge the gap. You might see figures where head count has been slashed but wage bills are still huge...

 

So to your point they have to pay bonuses but there should be a law introduced so every bank needs to spread them over a number of years and they can be clawed back if the bank underperforms during that period. Read a bit about Fred Goodwin and you will learn a bit more about why RBS got itself in so much mess.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Goodwin

Alan Sugars words are about as unpolitical as you can get, government wants to stick up for SME not have the business "tzar" saying most of them are just whining and should be wound up! In a recession everyone looks for a scapegoat and as investment banking is so far removed from many businesses people just blame all invesmtent banks and bankers which is completely wrong.

 

Bonuses are paid to people who make money, a bit like commision. Their global banking and markets division made (profit) £1.1 billion in Q2 this year and £375 million in Q3 (markets where less volatile in Q3 so most banks earned less), thats a lot of money. If you have star people earning huge amounts of cash for your business you HAVE to compensate as a shareholder (government) or as the CEO. If you dont they leave and guess what, next quarter you dont make the money anymore... RBS have another issue as well, noone really wants to work for a goverment owned institution as they can see red tape being introduced in the droves. So RBS have to pay a big premium when they hire anyone to bridge the gap. You might see figures where head count has been slashed but wage bills are still huge...

 

So to your point they have to pay bonuses but there should be a law introduced so every bank needs to spread them over a number of years and they can be clawed back if the bank underperforms during that period. Read a bit about Fred Goodwin and you will learn a bit more about why RBS got itself in so much mess.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Goodwin

 

Right, so investment banking had nothing at all to do with the Credit Crunch... Is that seriously what you're suggesting here....? So, who IS responsible for it then Phil...? Are you seriously going to suggest that it ALL the fault of the Americans...? Even though the likes of Northern Rock and RBS were quite blatantly offering easy credit and Sub-Prime mortgages also....

 

The biggest irony here is, that you lot had to rely on Socialist methods such as Govt bail-outs and Nationalisation to save your entire industry.... Frankly, I think your defence of the "Bonus Culture" is rather lame.... It's the mindless pursuit of greed which caused people to act aggressively, cut corners and, as a result, completely mess things up.... Nick Leeson got put in jail for his stupidity, Fred Goodwin gets a gold-plated pension courtesy of the British taxpayer.... And you wonder why people are so completely p!ssed off.... Leeson did considerably less damage to the Worlds Markets than the architects of the Credit Crunch... BCCI had no kind of presence at all in the high street, it wasn't a High St bank at all, it was purely a Business bank, so, essentially, it was never going to affect ordinary folks to any great degree.. High Street banks, on the other hand, had no business playing the markets to the degree that they have been, because they're responsible for peoples' life savings, mortgages, etc...

 

I think really the time has come to go back to an old-fashioned style of High St banking, let the boys in the City do whatever they like, the established names where ordinary people do their banking should really be a bit more careful... Those in the City, Wall St, etc, and those involved in business, etc, all know the risks and accept them, the common man and woman does not and has not accepted such risks....

 

i think my points have been fair in the above. In essence im saying that it is not ALL investment bankers in ALL investment banks. Im in no way saying that some people in investment banking dont have to take responsibility for this, BUT there are other reasons. Bonus payments need to be changed and spread out over more years so institutions can claw back the money if the bank underperforms on the back of bad decisions. But if a trader year in year out makes £100 million for you then of course you need to pay them for this. If not they setup their own hedge fund or go to another bank.

But if a trader year in year out makes £100 million for you then of course you need to pay them for this. If not they setup their own hedge fund or go to another bank.

 

Then let them, like I say, I simply do not believe that the High St banks should be taking these sorts of risks, simple as, they're NOT like the pure Investement Banks or places like BCCI whose actions would only affect them and business investors who all know and accept the risks of playing in the World's markets.... I know there's a saying that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys... But it's pretty obvious to me, all things considered, that we still got quite a lot of monkeys out there regardless, even though they were being paid hugely inflated salaries..... And you needed MY hard earned to sort out the mess the proverbial chimps tea party left behind....