Should bankers receive bonuses?

johnycoldears

No, the !!!!!!!s messed up our economy and should count themselves glad they have a job at all.

Generali wrote: »

Fair enough. My humour rarely comes across in writing either.

It bothers me that people wish ill on almost anyone who works for a bank regardless of their role. Generally people who think like this don't really understand what happened and why IME.

Actually primarily I blame Gordon Brown for a) his light touch regulation on banking and b) getting the BOE to target CPI rather than RPI, which meant interest rates were not set to prevent the house price bubble.
Secondly I blame the banks, and thirdly some of the stupid and greedy public who became so indebted

In fact I personally know a guy who deliberately built up £250k in debt and declared bankruptcy. In his early thirties, no house or family, basically lived it up for three years (examples include long weekends in Vegas at £20k a time) and then went pop. Now lives with his Girlfriend in a house in her name and has no regrets. - Tell me he doesn't deserve shooting !

dealsearcher

No, the !!!!!!!s messed up our economy and should count themselves glad they have a job at all.

Primarily I blame the regulators. The bankers tried it on and, much to their delight, were not found out. If you want to see some regulators squirm take a look at this:

http://www.cspan.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15082

It's long but the 12 minutes after 3 hours and 30 minutes with Mr. Ackerman is the best. If you are badly effected it's therapeutic to watch.

Of course the government appoint and are in charge of the regulators.

Andy_L

johnycoldears wrote: »

getting the BOE to target CPI rather than RPI, which meant interest rates were not set to prevent the house price bubble.

I don't think RPI vs CPI would have made any difference to house prices. The BoE used to use RPIx which ignores mortgage payments and, looking back, RPIx has stayed within the old (higher) limits anyway so the same interest rate decisions would have been made

chris_spackman

Yes, but in shares only.

Bonus -1 A sum of money added to wages for good performance

2 An unexpected extra benefit

I don't think that 1 above can in any shape or form relate to what the banks have done.

The payment is not unexpected and the payment is not made for a good performance. If the banks think that after all that has gone on it can be called a bonus they need to look at calling it something else like.............................?

Those who work in your local branch who smile and are polite to customers, going that extra mile to help could get one as this would be 'good performance'

It is a scam that the public provide banks with billions of pounds as they cocked up yet they still find money to pay a 'bonus'

!!!!ing our money up the wall is not and like many job roles if you !!!! up you get a good talking to or if it is that bad......bye bye.

Most of the finance sector in this country is run by greed and a huge lack in moral, ethical and business sense.

So what if the 'talent' go and work elsewhere, it is the so called 'talent' that has got us all in this mess and the Gov are just as much to blame.

One very big issue that should be looked at is the 'brokers' who offer loans at very very high rates, these are the ones that do not help the public, putting Mr Jones with a firm such as welcome finance, getting his intro payment then moving on to his next victim. These 'brokers' and loan sharks should have heavy regulation on them so as not to take advantage of peoples circumstances

chambta

Alan_M wrote: »

If I were a stockbroker employed by a big bank, lets pick RBS for the hell of it....and in the last 12 months I'd predicted my positions correctly and made my employer millions of pounds in trading.....I'd be a bit peeved if I didn't receive my contractual bonus based specifically on my performance.

However, non performance related bonuses...there isn't anyone that's going to find it easy to justify the payment of bonuses in that situation....

The wholesale shouting of "No one should get a bonus" is reactionary, albeit understandable, but a little blinkered.

I agree with what you say there.

Kenny4315

No, the !!!!!!!s messed up our economy and should count themselves glad they have a job at all.

These useless bar stewards should be strung up by the testicL£s, if they are male. And forced to do favours for Mr Clown & Hs Darling if they are female.

IveSeenTheLight

Yes, but only paid retrospectively, once long-term gains are realised.

I'm all for anyone in any profession getting bonuses for good work, however I find it hard to understand how bonuses can be paid in institutions that are in financial difficulties and especially at such high rates.

When you add in a pinch of info such as RBS and Barclays posting multi Billion Pound profits and you wonder why there is a credit crunch.

piggeh

No, the !!!!!!!s messed up our economy and should count themselves glad they have a job at all.

Alan_M wrote: »

If I were a stockbroker employed by a big bank, lets pick RBS for the hell of it....and in the last 12 months I'd predicted my positions correctly and made my employer millions of pounds in trading.....I'd be a bit peeved if I didn't receive my contractual bonus based specifically on my performance.

Contractually, I would imagine it states "bonus as allocated from the company's profit dividends' or suchlike, ie it is intrinsically linked to the performance of the company. If it is not, ie if it is linked to departmental performance and that department has performed well, then contractually they would be entitled to it and fair enough, we don't want government owned businesses breaking contract law.

Thing is, if it states that the bonus is to come out of the Company's profit, then you cannot expect a bonus to be paid if the company is performing badly and is loss-making. If people depend on these bonuses to live as well, then it's stupid financial management on their part. No one should treat a bonus (if it's dependent on your employer making money) as a guaranteed form of income. That goes for every business whether it's nationalised or not.

chopperharris

Yes, but in shares only.

I am pmsl.The poll shows 50 percent of voters blame the banks for the economic woes , just whom took the mortgages in the first place...it wasnt banks forcing credit on you.....and its credit that got us here.

I agree to a point that bonuses should be stopped , to an extent , and if paid again then in 2 year arrears.

Banks are a diverse organism , they have many different parts and as such a good part should not have to suffer at the part of a bad one.

Shares should be the only option for bonuses ,and not new issues.The banks should have to have a percentage of buybacks of at least double that of those paid in bonuses and share save schemes.

louiser123

No, the !!!!!!!s messed up our economy and should count themselves glad they have a job at all.

chopperharris wrote: »

I am pmsl.The poll shows 50 percent of voters blame the banks for the economic woes , just whom took the mortgages in the first place...it wasnt banks forcing credit on you.....and its credit that got us here.

I agree to a point that bonuses should be stopped , to an extent , and if paid again then in 2 year arrears.

Banks are a diverse organism , they have many different parts and as such a good part should not have to suffer at the part of a bad one.

Shares should be the only option for bonuses ,and not new issues.The banks should have to have a percentage of buybacks of at least double that of those paid in bonuses and share save schemes.

the financial crisis has not been caused by simply lending for mortgages.
it is far more indepth than that.

and yes i do blame the banks!! thay are quite simply a criminal underground institution, backed by the government!!