Bank bonuses

[Ruprect]

What does the panel think then? Should banks be allowed to pay bonuses after having been bailed out by the taxpayer?

[ratewhore]

Not with taxpayers money, no.

[Mich the Tester]

Yes. A Mars bar for every employee who keeps his shoes polished every day for a year.

[Ruprect]

Not with taxpayers money, no.

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.

[Rookie]

Yes. A Mars bar for every employee who keeps his shoes polished every day for a year.

Only if it's fun size.

[Mich the Tester]

The argument some people are giving is that if they don’t pay bonusses then the most talented people will leave. Which begs the question; where will they go? If nobody’s hiring, there’s no need to fear people leaving.

So no. No bonuses until the taxpayer has been repaid. At that stage, those who have contributed most can be rewarded handsomely, especially software testers.

[robbie274]

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.

But if the 'good' staff leave, where are they going to go? Another bank that owes money to the government? Or sit on the bench with the rest of us?

I think its OK to give a bonus to the lower-end of the staff group, but higher managerment, etc, a big no, but maybe offer a bonus based on ther performance to get them out of the hole they are in.

If you give someone a bonus for doing a crap job, then what do you give them for doing a good job?

[robbie274]

The argument some people are giving is that if they don’t pay bonusses then the most talented people will leave. Which begs the question; where will they go? If nobody’s hiring, there’s no need to fear people leaving.

So no. No bonuses until the taxpayer has been repaid. At that stage, those who have contributed most can be rewarded handsomely, especially software testers.

developers

[snaw]

The argument some people are giving is that if they don’t pay bonusses then the most talented people will leave. Which begs the question; where will they go? If nobody’s hiring, there’s no need to fear people leaving.

So no. No bonuses until the taxpayer has been repaid. At that stage, those who have contributed most can be rewarded handsomely, especially software testers.

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.

[gingerjedi]

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.

Where are the good staff going to go? Not exactly a booming sector is it.

They're just bluffing, time to call and let them squirm.