Rbs

[TimberWolf]

Why do dogs lick their balls?

Because they canine.

 

[Bright Spark]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8534694.stm

Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) has announced losses for 2009 of £3.6bn ($5.5bn), after struggling with billions of pounds of bad loans.

Despite the losses, the bank is set to announce it will pay bonuses of £1.3bn to its staff.



Can anyone please explain the logic of bailing out a bank with taxpayers money, it then makes a huge loss and then pays it's staff £1.3bn in bonuses?

Perhaps I'm missing the point somewhere?

The losses stem from defaults on loans issued a while back by previous
management, the new team is trying to fix things which it has done to some
extent by reducing losses from 20.4bn to 3.6bn.

So I guess the logic is we need to keep paying the bonuses to maintain
the talent with the hope that talent will eventually refund all the taxpayer bailout money.

 

[AtW]

RBS Global Banking made a 5.7 billion profit

How they made this profit? Maybe by buying gilts from Govt in auctions and then reselling them to BoE for newly printed GBP?

 

[AtW]

The losses stem from defaults on loans issued a while back by previous
management, the new team is trying to fix things which it has done to some
extent by reducing losses from 20.4bn to 3.6bn.

They did not reduce losses FFS, they just did not make NEW LOSSES as big ones as before!!!

 

[Sockpuppet]

Made me laugh. He claimed that if they'd paid bonuses last year they'd have increased profit by a £1 Billion as they'd have retained better staff.

So they want to pay £1.3 Billion in bonuses.

Am I the only one that sees if they have to pay £1.3 Billion to gain an extra £1 Billion in profit then they really are as thick as they look.

 

[BlasterBates]

...and in the past if instead of employing bankers that needed to be paid huge bonuses to retain them, they'd employed some youngsters on YOP scheme to stamp cheques, they'd be about 100 billion better off, and there would be less unemployment.

 

[Jog On]

So I guess the logic is we need to keep paying the bonuses to maintain
the talent with the hope that talent will eventually refund all the taxpayer bailout money.

That's what the Barclays chap on the news on the radio pretty much said this morning.

"If the taxpayers want their money back then the bank has to become consistently profitable year after year. In order to do that they have to keep hold of their talent"

 

[OwlHoot]

... Can anyone please explain the logic of bailing out a bank with taxpayers money, it then makes a huge loss and then pays it's staff £1.3bn in bonuses?

Perhaps I'm missing the point somewhere?

Yes you are. If they don't pay the top guys obscenely large bonuses, they'll hoof it to somewhere their talents are better rewarded.

Then RBOS will be left with a bunch of muppets, and end up with management like the old GPO, and the taxpayer will need to fork out even more.

HTH

 

[AtW]

I am just curious whether any "talent" was involved in creating this subprime AAA grade securitisation tulip?

 

[Xenophon]

I am just curious whether any "talent" was involved in creating this subprime AAA grade securitisation tulip?

WHS