Show the bonus Bankers with our feet/money

stutakesphotos

Those pointing to Sainsburys et al awarding staff bonus forget that we haven't had to bail out such companies. The vitriol comes from companies that we had to bail out because of their own wrong doings are now spending on themselves.

Perhaps the aim should be to just move on from the companies that received the largest bail outs and yet have given big bonuses.

ses6jwg

stutakesphotos wrote: »

Those pointing to Sainsburys et al awarding staff bonus forget that we haven't had to bail out such companies. The vitriol comes from companies that we had to bail out because of their own wrong doings are now spending on themselves.

Perhaps the aim should be to just move on from the companies that received the largest bail outs and yet have given big bonuses.

Only RBS, Bradford and Bingley, and Northern Rock directly recieved taxpayer funding, and then Lloyds/ HBOS after the otherwise strong Lloyds TSB was strongarmed into buying a dog by the government.

Yes the other banks benefited from the Special Liquidity Scheme, however many other businesses have benefited from the cutting of the base rate.

Where do you draw the line? Direct taxpayer intervention?

And then do you pay no bonuses at all? How is Joe Public going to get his money back from a bank which can't attract any decent staff because it is not allowed to pay any bonuses?

I_luv_cats

I really don't understand how investment bankers make their money.

If I were a salesman in a shop or business I would have a commodity to negotiate a sale with, make ££ for my employer in turn earn some commission for myself.

NFH

stutakesphotos wrote: »

The vitriol comes from companies that we had to bail out because of their own wrong doings are now spending on themselves.

Clearly you don't understand how this works. The banks are not spending money on themselves, but spending it on staff who make profits for the banks that are many more times their bonus. If the banks didn't pay these bonuses to get top traders to generate profits for them, then the taxpayer wouldn't get a big enough return its investment in the affected banks. Your comment appears to be motivated more by jealousy rather than by any understanding of the economics of this.

NFH

I_luv_cats wrote: »

I really don't understand how investment bankers make their money.

If I were a salesman in a shop or business I would have a commodity to negotiate a sale with, make ££ for my employer in turn earn some commission for myself.

Yes, that's exactly the same in investment banks. If a trader makes a £10 million profit for his employer, then he may get a bonus of £1 million. If the bank doesn't pay him the bonus, he'll leave and go to a bank that does next year.

I_luv_cats

NFH wrote: »

Yes, that's exactly the same in investment banks. If a trader makes a £10 million profit for his employer, then he may get a bonus of £1 million. If the bank doesn't pay him the bonus, he'll leave and go to a bank that does next year.

What are these bankers doing to make £10m profit??

stutakesphotos

NFH wrote: »

Clearly you don't understand how this works. The banks are not spending money on themselves, but spending it on staff who make profits for the banks that are many more times their bonus. If the banks didn't pay these bonuses to get top traders to generate profits for them, then the taxpayer wouldn't get a big enough return its investment in the affected banks. Your comment appears to be motivated more by jealousy rather than by any understanding of the economics of this.

Thanks for the comment about jealousy. However, I'd be interested to know where such traders would go if such banks did not pay such big bonuses? Also, if these traders are so good, why did they get into such trouble to begin with?

CLAPTON

NFH wrote: »

No, not insufficient capital, but insufficient incentive or reason to do so for someone with the capital.

They do. It's called proprietary trading, and there's often a desk dedicated to it in each asset class. But the investment banks' primary purpose is to service their customers rather than proprietary trading.

so the bank would happily make smaller profits because the banks 'primary purpose is to service their customers' rather than proprietary trading


so yes of course

ses6jwg

stutakesphotos wrote: »

Thanks for the comment about jealousy. However, I'd be interested to know where such traders would go if such banks did not pay such big bonuses? Also, if these traders are so good, why did they get into such trouble to begin with?

1. Not all banks got into trouble.

2. They would go to Zurich, or Hong Kong, or somewhere similar. And work Standard Chartered or similar.

NFH

CLAPTON wrote: »

so the bank would happily make smaller profits because the banks 'primary purpose is to service their customers' rather than proprietary trading

If the banks didn't have customers, they wouldn't have the capital to trade on a proprietary basis. Where do you think banks' money comes from? Customers. Prop trading is always secondary.