• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Reply to: Rbs

Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Rbs"

Collapse

  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
    So it's a bit like criminals demanding huge salaries in exchange for not robbing us?
    No, no no - nothing like it.

    It's more like criminal stealing money, wasting them down the drain and then expecting a hefty bonus every year so that he could potentially return those lost money.

    The situation is that those profits from banks will never make up (adjusted for inflation) for losses, so the question really is to ensure that such losses never happen again, the way things go there is no such assurance whatsoever.

    Leave a comment:


  • DimPrawn
    replied
    Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post
    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
    So it's a bit like criminals demanding huge salaries in exchange for not robbing us?

    Leave a comment:


  • Xenophon
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    I am just curious whether any "talent" was involved in creating this subprime AAA grade securitisation tulip?
    WHS

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • OwlHoot
    replied
    Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
    ... 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

    Leave a comment:


  • Jog On
    replied
    Originally posted by Bright Spark View Post
    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"

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    ...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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sockpuppet
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by Bright Spark View Post
    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!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by NetwkSupport View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bright Spark
    replied
    Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • TimberWolf
    replied
    Originally posted by Scary View Post
    Why do dogs lick their balls?
    Because they canine.

    Leave a comment:


  • scooterscot
    replied
    Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
    its a good question that.
    I think that when you have spent the morning licking another dogs bum-hole, you have to do something to get rid of the taste





    Gosh sounds like the hierarchy in my last permie job...

    Leave a comment:


  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    Originally posted by Scary View Post
    Why do dogs lick their balls?
    its a good question that.
    I think that when you have spent the morning licking another dogs bum-hole, you have to do something to get rid of the taste




    Leave a comment:


  • Scary
    replied
    Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
    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?
    Why do dogs lick their balls?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X