RBS chief to get £900,000 bonus

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

Hesters role is to deleverage RBS, and shrink its balance sheet to a size which is manageable.

Not micro manage small business lending.

Rather like asking the CEO of Honda to directly run the Swindon factory. Not what he's employed to do.

wotsthat

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.

It sounds like they've been climbing over themselves to claim that moral high ground and the all important QT applause (usually for a point well made rather than a good point).

Who decides whether a bonus is moral or not? I know I certainly didn't search my soul when I got a Christmas bonus last year. Did anyone here?

Somebody else's bonus though that's a different matter.

yertiz_2

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

'Feared..' ! Is this blackmail?

Fella

As usual massive hypocrisy from Union Leaders on this.

Bob Crow: "To give someone £1m and then to give them a massive bonus on top, while public sector workers get a pay freeze and their pension contributions go up, I have got to say that is a complete disgrace."

Let's recap about Bob Crow. He is paid £145k a year. He also lives in a taxpayer-subsidised house.



Not that I have the slightest amount of time for Stephen Hestor. Anyone who enjoys fox hunting deserves to be taken down a back alley & given a good kicking in my opinion. But that's another issue.



If Hestor had any sense he would leap on this opportunity to say that he'll donate his entire bonus to charity so long as Bob Crow & the other Union leaders clamouring about this follow suit & donate their ludicousely high salaries to charity as well.

misskool

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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".

If we didn't own 83% of RBS, there would be no RBS.

The government choose not to let a bank fail.

The media enjoys hyping up these bonuses because RBS are a publicly owned bank, forgetting to mention other bankers are on as much and the reason they have to pay so much is because they wanted to save RBS in the first place.

It's a perpetual witch hunt.
Why not campaign against football players and their vacuous entourage who make £300,000 a week? Oh, sorry, that's the free market price.

Why pick on a banker who makes less than John Terry/Rooney? You're saying a footballer works harder than a banker and is more deserving of the money?

IronWolf

I hate to agree with Hamish, but he's hit the nail on the head. £1m bonus for a bank is a pitance when you compare it to the rest of the banks. There is no loyalty in these places, its all about money. Noone in their right mind enjoys banking, I know plenty and they are very stressful jobs, most describe it as "being paid to be miserable". One says she doesnt even have time to drink and eat properly all day.

Its also a very complex job, not everyone can do it. Combine these facts and you get very high wages.

There are plenty of people who get paid a lot more for doing a lot less.

Going4TheDream

misskool wrote: »

If we didn't own 83% of RBS, there would be no RBS.

The government choose not to let a bank fail.

The media enjoys hyping up these bonuses because RBS are a publicly owned bank, forgetting to mention other bankers are on as much and the reason they have to pay so much is because they wanted to save RBS in the first place.

It's a perpetual witch hunt.
Why not campaign against football players and their vacuous entourage who make £300,000 a week? Oh, sorry, that's the free market price.

Why pick on a banker who makes less than John Terry/Rooney? You're saying a footballer works harder than a banker and is more deserving of the money?

Footballers are paid for their skill and their market value will be dependant upon their performance. This is about the indignation that someone paid by the taxpayers, who essentially who has failed to meet targets etc and is paid a handsome salary to do so is then paid a bonus of nearly as much as his salary, when many ordinary taxpayers people are losing their jobs.

It doesn't really sweeten it much that he has agreed only £900000 instead of £1.5m.

dunstonh

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.

As you say, Labour are already saying it should not be awarded. However, which party was in power and agreed his pay package?

Would it not be two faced for the same party now in opposition to criticise the contract that they gave him when they were in power knowing full well that he is legally entitled to take it (and a higher amount) thanks to that contract they arranged?

kabayiri

dunstonh wrote: »

As you say, Labour are already saying it should not be awarded. However, which party was in power and agreed his pay package?

Would it not be two faced for the same party now in opposition to criticise the contract that they gave him when they were in power knowing full well that he is legally entitled to take it (and a higher amount) thanks to that contract they arranged?

Labour messed up many things, and this is just one of them.

The cost of this £900K bonus is more in political terms than economic terms. It sends out a bad message at a time when there is a sense of 'collective suffering'.

It would have been better had Mr Hester's package been £1.8m basic and a circa 10% bonus - adding up to similar to what he gets now.

People would not argue with a 10% bonus, even if they disliked the size of the underlying salary.

RenovationMan

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.

Oh course, you work for free because you think the NHS is a brilliant institution and it's stuggling financially because of the cutbacks.