Bonuses Back As Big Banks Make Billions

luvpump

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Barclays-Bank-And-HSBC-Make-3bn-As-Bankers-Prepare-For-The-Return-Of-Bumper-Bonuses/Article/200908115352448?lpos=Business_Carousel_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15352448_Barclays_Bank_And_HSBC_Make_%3F3bn_As_Bankers_Prepare_For_The_Return_Of_Bumper_Bonuses

:rolleyes:

treecity

I don't think bonuses ever went away...

dunstonh

Problem with many of these things is that the bonuses are written in to the contracts. You cant just stop paying them overnight because some of the public think they are wrong. That would be breach of contract and no different to your employer turning round and saying they are going to lower your pay by 20% because they think you are paid too much.

Changes to remuneration will take longer.

sabretoothtigger

bonus with shares held for 10 years would be more ok, giving out profits in one year on 25yr investments doesnt fit
even goldman can revise back bonuses later in the year I think, just needs that thinking extended

ChiefGrasscutter

dunstonh wrote: »

Problem with many of these things is that the bonuses are written in to the contracts. You cant just stop paying them overnight because some of the public think they are wrong. That would be breach of contract and no different to your employer turning round and saying they are going to lower your pay by 20% because they think you are paid too much.
.

Obviously Banking works differently......from when I worked in Engineering I can recall in the past being given 3 months notice that a certain paragraph in my contract was being changed (to my detriment). As I remember if I didn't like it I could find another employer.

I can't be sure but I suppose there must have been a clause in the contract giving the employer the right to change contracts.

Salary was never mentioned in contracts (other than the frequency of payments) so yes it would have been quite OK legally for the company to lower pay by 20% with immediate effect. Any bonusus on top of pay of course were totally discretionary and did not form part of any contract.............

simon_templar_2

Seeing as neither bank took any govt bail out i dont see the problem. They are a business and in it to make money. If they make profit they should be applauded not derided. Many companies make big profits not just banks.

Masomnia

simon_templar wrote: »

Seeing as neither bank took any govt bail out i dont see the problem. They are a business and in it to make money. If they make profit they should be applauded not derided. Many companies make big profits not just banks.

Definitely! I was really annoyed at how ITV covered this today. Not a single mention about how this means more stability in the banking system, more confidence; a stronger recovery?

They seemed to say that banks making a profit was a bad thing. What's the alternative? Either 1. less lending, economy worse off; or 2. more equity raised, which would undoubtedly be underwritten by the tax payer. Again, no discussion of this.

I couldn't give two figs about how much in bonuses they pay themselves, as long as the economy is looking stronger. If we're not happy about how a bank conducts itself, we can vote with our feet and choose a different bank, same with any company. The financial sector in London is the centre of the financial world, we have little industry left, so we should be happy that an area in which Britain is a world leader is doing well!

simon_templar_2

"The Barclays figures came amid reports some executives have amassed £250,000 bonuses for six months work."

Says the article. Some Premiership footballers get more than that for TWO weeks work.

mr_fishbulb

luvpump wrote: »

Bonuses Back As Big Banks Make Billions

A great alliteration triumph for newspapers and website alike.