RBS chief to get £900,000 bonus

Graham_Devon

Which will be paid in shares.

Dunno what to think on this one really. Seems a bit of a kick in the teeth really when we still own 83% of the bank.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16751691

lvader

Only £900K?, things must be really bad!

Derivative

I still don't really understand why we play this game of "refusing bonuses".

The average person on the street is going to think £10m is too much, and that £1m is too much, and that £100k is too much. You can't win.

Unless of course, you expect the chairs of multinational banks, who probably revolve their lives around their firms, to earn as much as a cashier.

If I were in a position to do so, I'd just shoot for the top. He'd be bashed if he refused his bonus anyway, he'd still be on a relatively high base salary and have enough in the bank to live on median wage hundreds of times over.

misskool

which is worse, paying a banker a bonus so he doesn't run off to his next job and leave the bank he is running in dire straits

or letting a bank fail by not bailing it out so that "we" own it?

Graham_Devon

misskool wrote: »

which is worse, paying a banker a bonus so he doesn't run off to his next job and leave the bank he is running in dire straits

or letting a bank fail by not bailing it out so that "we" own it?

Hang on a minute.

Are you suggesting he would simply down tools and run if he didn't get a bonus?

And that we should keep him and pay him bonuses to stay?

Which suggests he's only in it for all he can possibly get, with no loyalty towards the very bank he is boss of?

These "they will leave!!!!" excuses are very tired. If he doesn't care enough about the job he has and will have a paddy if he doesn't get £1m on top of his 400k salary, then let him run. I'm sure there are others that could do the job on a paltry £8000 a week.

Worth noting that RBS actually failed in it's mandate under his reign regarding small business loans.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Hang on a minute.

Are you suggesting he would simply down tools and run if he didn't get a bonus?

And that we should keep him and pay him bonuses to stay?

Which suggests he's only in it for all he can possibly get, with no loyalty towards the very bank he is boss of?

These "they will leave!!!!" excuses are very tired. If he doesn't care enough about the job he has and will have a paddy if he doesn't get £1m on top of his 400k salary, then let him run. Hopefully we'd get someone with some loyalty that actually wants to do their job.

Graham, what you completely and repeatedly fail to understand is that "bonuses" are not some nice little optional Xmas present you get because the boss is feeling generous.

Bonuses at this level are no such thing.... they're performance related pay and almost always contractually drawn up as part of the hiring process.

You can choose to pay these guys, for example, 2 million as a flat salary, or 1 million salary and a million bonus if they hit their targets.

I know which one represents better value for the taxpayer, and it ain't a flat salary.

wymondham

Bankers are like hairdressers - they expect a bonus/tip!

misskool

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Hang on a minute.

Are you suggesting he would simply down tools and run if he didn't get a bonus?

And that we should keep him and pay him bonuses to stay?

Which suggests he's only in it for all he can possibly get, with no loyalty towards the very bank he is boss of?

These "they will leave!!!!" excuses are very tired. If he doesn't care enough about the job he has and will have a paddy if he doesn't get £1m on top of his 400k salary, then let him run. I'm sure there are others that could do the job on a paltry £8000 a week.

Worth noting that RBS actually failed in it's mandate under his reign regarding small business loans.

Why not? CEO's of businesses move and run a different business based on their compensation package.

And recruitment of the right kind of person for a top-level jobs is not the same as selecting mr smith from the street. they need to have the right level of skills for management and the right persona.

For example, at a place where I work, there are 2 heads of dept. One was not recruited so well, he's a bit of a weak link and only ever makes decisions for his old boys network and his dept is the lowest ranking, to the extent that staff are demoralised.

The other head of dept is organised, well known and makes decisions for the good of the dept (no nepotism) and has a personality with the right management skills. His dept pulls in the most income and staff work hard.

So, much as you resent someone being paid lots of money for a job you think you could do, it's probably money well spent.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

The word "bonus" should be banned and replaced with "performance related pay".

Because clearly some people are still too stupid to realise the difference.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Graham, what you completely and repeatedly fail to understand is that "bonuses" are not some nice little optional Xmas present you get because the boss is feeling generous.

Bonuses at this level are no such thing.... they're performance related pay and almost always contractually drawn up as part of the hiring process.

This wasn't contractual at all. If it was, this wouldn't be happening...

The sum remains subject to the outcome of consultation with UK Financial Investments, the body which manages taxpayers' 82% stake in RBS.

Graham_Devon

misskool wrote: »

So, much as you resent someone being paid lots of money for a job you think you could do, it's probably money well spent.

Who on earth stated I think I could do it?

I said there are others that can do it. Which there obviously are.