RBS chief to get £900,000 bonus

Thrugelmir

wotsthat wrote: »

The only thing I'm slightly sniffy about is a CEO getting a bonus when the share price has decreased over 12 months.

What matters is turning RBS around into a profitable operation again.

Share price has no relevance to the day to day operation of the business.

Graham_Devon

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What matters is turning RBS around into a profitable operation again.

Surely other things, such as lending to small business under the project merlin agreement also matters?

As I say, I really don't know how to feel about this one. On the one hand, it's kind of their cash to deal with it how they like. On the other, the taxpayer has an 83% share. It seems to me, again, it's a case of "well he's worked hard".

My problem is that nurses and firemen have worked bloody hard every day too. Yet we seem to want them to take a pay cut and take a pension cut too.

I know the two are poles apart. Just I find it difficult to digest. On the one hand, we own most of the shares. On the other, they appear not to take agreements seriously, and appear to be making life pretty difficult for many of us.

We've just had probably one of the biggest compensation packages in history due to miss selling from these banks, PPI, alongside so many other "scandals", yet every year, it's another lavish bonus for "performance", when again, for most of us, that performance has cost us.

vax2002

Its is going to take more than a ballot box to root this lot of money pigging parasites from our backs.

plumface

Why is it that those who think they are above anyone else,are the brains of the organisation and are THE reason the company is even still trading deserve to be paid extra for doing what they are already being paid to do.
If anything goes wrong it is down to a 'junior' employee,if it goes right its down to 'me'.
I will only ever agree to bonus sytems if EVERYONE employed by that company can get a bonus,not just those who shout 'jump' and if anything goes wrong Everyone takes the hit.

Graham_Devon

Think I relate to this, in some ways, though see it as a bit sensationalist.

Foreign Office minister Mr Browne told the BBC's Question Time: "I think there's a question of honour. Even if there's a contractual opportunity for him to have a bonus it doesn't mean he has to accept it."

Mr Browne said Mr Hester was paid more in three days than a soldier serving in Afghanistan received in a year.

"I think he should reflect on that. He is effectively a public servant in a bank which is almost completely owned by us the taxpayers," he said.

"I think he needs to think like a public servant who has a duty to his country, not just his own wealth."

Asked if he should turn down the bonus, the minister said: "No-one's forcing him to take this money. He could struggle on with £1.2m."

One thing's for sure. It's going to get very political, and labour are already onto it, saying it should not be awarded and David Cameron has gone back on his promise.

Labour Party leader Ed Miliband has retorted that, "if responsibility means anything", Mr Hester should not get a payout.

Graham_Devon

And Robert Peston is now on it...and there seems there is more to it...

"I am reliably told that they feared Mr Hester and much of the board would have quit, if the payment had been vetoed by the government as the majority shareholder," said our business editor.

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

And on question time now, so see ya

plumface

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And Robert Peston is now on it...and there seems there is more to it...

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

And on question time now, so see ya

Well let them go then!

wotsthat

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What matters is turning RBS around into a profitable operation again.

Share price has no relevance to the day to day operation of the business.

I agree with both statements but only to a certain extent.

It does matter that the bank is turned round and this does seem to be in progress. However no value has been added for shareholders either in terms of dividend return or share price increase. What's been the point of risking my capital for the last 12 months?

Who's arguing that share price is relevant to the day to day operation? I'm not. However, it doesn't seem too crazy to consider shareholder return when an annual bonus is being assessed.

Graham_Devon

Well all four of the panel on QT have so far agreed (which is unusual) that this payout should not be happening. If it's contractual, which turned into a political ping pong match, then Heston could, if he has any morals, turn it down.

Been described as disgusting, immoral and outrageous so far.

Also going along the lines that all those who have lost out due to RBS failings, through pensions and the like haven't and won't be compensated, yet someone on a basic salary of 1.2m should get 900k extra.

Now all 5 of the panel agree. QT first?!

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well all four of the panel on QT have so far agreed (which is unusual) that this payout should not be happening. If it's contractual, which turned into a political ping pong match, then Heston could, if he has any morals, turn it down.

Been described as disgusting, immoral and outrageous so far.

Also going along the lines that all those who have lost out due to RBS failings, through pensions and the like haven't and won't be compensated, yet someone on a basic salary of 1.2m should get 900k extra.

Now all 5 of the panel agree. QT first?!

when everyone agrees then bound to be wrong ?