Bank bonuses

[Mich the Tester]

developers

people who post on CUK

[Zippy]

If the person getting the bonus has generated good profits for the bank, yes.

If the person has apparently been responsible for pi55ing away billions of pounds, no.

And - while we are on the subject - paying bonuses to retain the 'top talent' at these establishments makes me laugh. If the buggers were any good the bank wouldn't be in a mess. Let 'em walk, I say.

[Mich the Tester]

They don't necessarily have to leave. Some of the people we're talking about work absolutely insane hours, with the expectation they'll be rewarded with a decent (Dunno if anyone is expecting big this year - was out with a couple of guys I know in IB last night, and they reckon 60% of what they got last year would be better good).

If you don't reward them for the hours put in, they won't put them in with the obvious consequences for the bank in question.

sit in meetings

[robbie274]

people who post on CUK

agreed.

[Solidec]

Zero bonuses all around.

There simply are not alternative job options for most of the bankers to threaten leaving. Not in this climate.

Robert Peston believes RBS could pay out close to £1billion in bonuses.

I would rather save the £1b, let the greedy bankers that cry foul leave, and then go about rebuilding the banks balance sheets with people who WANT to be there and are not PURELY driven by money.

Argument of talent retention is a crock, complete bollox

[ratewhore]

So the main argument for the bonuses is that they will retain the good staff, work the banks out of the hole they are in and then HMG can sell the shares later for a profit. If they don't then the good staff leave, the bank goes down the tubes and the taxpayer loses all that bailout money. Seems a little too simplistic to me.

Ignore me, I'm suffering from Pruffocks disease today...

[Mich the Tester]

If the person getting the bonus has generated good profits for the bank, yes.

If the person has apparently been responsible for pi55ing away billions of pounds, no.

And - while we are on the subject - paying bonuses to retain the 'top talent' at these establishments makes me laugh. If the buggers were any good the bank wouldn't be in a mess. Let 'em walk, I say.

Trouble is, the people who traded all those toxic creditty crunchie derivativey thingummyjigs were generating a profit for the bank and were rewarded for doing so. Who's to say that somebody who's generating a profit now isn't digging the next big hole that'll bankrupt the bank?

[Rookie]

The trouble is when you have 2 conflicting factors:
1. Making money for the bank
2. Inadvertently screwing up the econmony

Bonuses are rewarded for (1) and penalties are not applied for (2).

(having trouble typing today)

[zara_backdog]

If the person getting the bonus has generated good profits for the bank, yes.

If the person has apparently been responsible for pi55ing away billions of pounds, no.

And - while we are on the subject - paying bonuses to retain the 'top talent' at these establishments makes me laugh. If the buggers were any good the bank wouldn't be in a mess. Let 'em walk, I say.

WHS

[BrilloPad]

If the person getting the bonus has generated good profits for the bank, yes.

If the person has apparently been responsible for pi55ing away billions of pounds, no.

And - while we are on the subject - paying bonuses to retain the 'top talent' at these establishments makes me laugh. If the buggers were any good the bank wouldn't be in a mess. Let 'em walk, I say.

So all those people who "made" billions with their dodgy schemes deserved their bonus did they?

They should all have been paid in bank stock : deferred for 5 years in case their "profits" were found to be bogus.