Should bankers receive bonuses?

Generali

Yes, but in shares only.

Out of interest, who out of the 60 that voted for 'bankers' being given no bonuses would happily accept a material change to their work contract without complaint?

Radiantsoul

Clearly paying the high powered executives who are responsible for losses is a mistake. But many people in banks are not especially highly paid and bonuses are a part of what they expect. In the industry 10% bonuses are common and it is pretty harsh to have your bonus removed if you have done a good or outstanding job.

Cannon_Fodder

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

Plenty of firms have got their staff doing short-time working, cutting overtime, all sorts of "contractual" financial losses - with or without their agreement - then gone on to make redundancies, anyway.

Would it be impossible for Banks to offer an option;

- take your bonus, and go to the top of this months redundancy list
or - forego your bonus, and risk redundancy later in the year

Similar to other industries...?

mustrum_ridcully

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

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Simple answer is yes. The employees that have worked to achieve their targets should be paid their contractual entitlements.

In the longer term the "high flyers" should be rewarded with shares that cannot be traded for a period of time.

Personally I find this whipped storm just another diversionary tactic from the Government to deflect away from other issues.

Why should they? If it wasn't for the tax payer bailing out their bankrupt bank they might not even have a job.

People say "it's not just the managers" well who else would get a bonus? Tellers, if so why, they have a job description - serve people.

Maybe tellers get a bonus based on selling people other financial services "Hello Mr Ridcully would you be interested in out new super duper load? No? What about a credit card? No? What about a moving your mortgage? No? What about...". That's the crud I used to get everytime I used the counter service at gnatwest.

dunstonh

Depends on who you class as bankers. The ones in the board room or those staff at the branches and around the country.

The media frenzy to have a dig at everything bank is really pathetic. The poor bank staff at the branches must be taking a lot of stick for things which they had no control over.

chambta

innovate wrote: »

Why should a teller get a bonus at all? Tellers should all be working to certain standards and get a decent salary for what they do. But surely there is nothing a teller can substantially do to improve the overall profitability, and the worth to the customer, of the bank?

I could potentially support a bonus system where

1. the potential recipients risk a certain amount of their salary (e.g. only get a guaranteed 60% of their salary, the rest needs to be earned based on the bank's overall performance [not the performance of the individual]. For tkaing the risk on 40% of their salary, they should be entitled to rewards above 100%, but with a cap at, say, 140%)
2. overall performance should not only be assessed based on financial performance of the bank but should also include the results of regular customer satisfaction surveys. If minimum satisfaction ratings are not met, the proportion of the bonus relating to customer satisfaction should be scrapped. For banks in which taxpayers own more than 50%, the customer satisfaction survey should be carried out by an independent body, not the bank themselves.
3. any bonus awards should be made in share options rather than cash, and there should be a cap on the maximum value of the share options awarded (value on the day of award)

Such a scheme would encourage a long-term view, take into account what customers think, and ensure that no massive payouts are being made when the share prices of the banks are in the doldrums.

I do realise that some bank employees currently have contracts that entitle them to bonus payments. These contracts should urgently be reviewed and modified, at least for taxpayer-owned banks. These people would be unemployed now if it had not been for taxpayer bailout, and therefore it is totally obscene that bonus payments are being made. Especially at a time when savers get the most miserable interest rates ever.

As to whether we would lose "talent" if bonus payments were stopped now:

• looking back at who got the bonuses in the past, I don't think it would be an awfully big loss if they all exited tomorrow, The sooner they go, the better
• the UK isn't the only country where there is public outrage over the bonus payments. The US and France have already put positive actions in place to limit the bonuses, other countries are following suit. So there isn't really anywhere for the bonus rats to hide
• it isn't actually so damned difficult to learn how to become a responsible banker

You think the £12-15k average is good for the amount of garbage they have to put up with is good compared to, for example, your average town hall civil servant?

Nixxx

Yes, but capped a la the US/France.

Generali wrote: »

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.

Well said!

A lot of people here seem to be jumping on the band wagon regarding bankers bonuses. I agree that bankers are well paid but only a small minority get £1M+ bonuses. Alot of bankers do very long hours and usually their bonus payments just equals their "overtime". I think you'll find that most bankers are happy just to have a job and don't expect a bonus payout if the company is not profitable. Not everyone who works for a bank is a decision maker and responsible for the current economic climate.

kunekune

It depends on what you mean by "bankers". There are a lot of people working for banks who are low paid and whose salary package is based on a mix of salary (not huge), shares (hahaha) and an annual bonus. These are not people who can be blamed for this mess, further punishment is just demonisation.

chambta

kunekune wrote: »

It depends on what you mean by "bankers". There are a lot of people working for banks who are low paid and whose salary package is based on a mix of salary (not huge), shares (hahaha) and an annual bonus. These are not people who can be blamed for this mess, further punishment is just demonisation.

I can say with some certainty that a good proportion of the staff in my branch are on a basic salary of £12-14k.

Their after tax bonus of £800 or so was the one thing that took them through to the next year.

I'm not trying to justify continued payment of bonuses; merely trying to put things into perspective.

kunekune

I have a friend who is on 18K after 30 years with the same bank. And that is a lower management position. Her shares, of course, are completely worthless. I am embarrassed to tell her what I earn; ok, I have qualifications she doesn't have, but she has worked her guts out for 30 years, it really doesn't seem very fair. The difference in what we do and how many hours we work might explain some of the pay differences, but I cannot believe she is worth only two-fifths of me! Tell me that she should pay the price for stupidity at 'the top' (or wherever it really was) and I will hit you!