RBS chief to get £900,000 bonus

CLAPTON

ILW wrote: »

What has Hester actually achieved to get the bonus?

what does his contract say?

FTBFun

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You know what, I'm really tiring of these "change the context" arguments.

ILW

CLAPTON wrote: »

what does his contract say?

Surely something that the shareholders should be able to find out. Nobody seems to know.

hallmark

CLAPTON wrote: »

There were bankers in the recent honours list (OK so they contribute to the Conservative party so that makes it OK)

How does that work then, is it anything like when union leaders are on the honours list?

Wookster

ILW wrote: »

What has Hester actually achieved to get the bonus?

Personally I think his bonus is not unwarranted (note the difference between saying it is warranted and not unwarranted!)

Judged against the benchmarks he has control of e.g. risk management, lending, profitability it appears that he has made good progress.

Judged against the one criteria he has very little control over (share price) it is clear the RBS has not done well, just like every single other financial institution out there.

Turning around a bohemmouth like RBS will take several years, and the bonus he has received is in equity of the company (which apparently he cannot touch yet) therefore incentivising him to contribute to the long term success of the company.

The only argument that would seem to hold any water would be that banking shares are at an all time low due to the Euro crisis and therefore he's getting a disproportionately large bonus, but that then scuppers the argument above about the RBS share price.

yertiz_2

DUKE wrote: »

Pity they don't cap his wage to £26,000. Or minimum wage all round, see how they like it!

He could teach economics to a class of 30 teenagers for...

TEACHERS’ PAY FROM SEPTEMBER 2011

Scale pointAnnual salary England and Wales excluding London
(band D)Annual salary inner London area
(band A)Annual salary outer London area
(band B)Annual salary Fringe area
(band C) ££££121,58827,00025,11722,626223,29528,40826,67424,331325,16829,88928,32526,203427,10431,44630,08028,146529,24033,86532,63030,278631,55236,38735,11632,588Source: School Teachers’ Review Body

On the other hand, maybe not.

Oops try this
https://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6000186 - 178k

homelessskilledworker

Emy1501 wrote: »

As already said Labour Employed him and the current government could let him walk if they are not happy with his bonus package. Once he walks they could employ some people at 100-200k and see how they get on. Of course its a 40b+ gamble but it will keep the public happy.

Personally i don't see why he shouldn't take his bonus as he was head hunted from another job where he was doing pretty well and I suspect he will get another job paying more than he's on if he left. He is not in a goodwill industry so why should he do any job for less than he's worth?

It's not so much the size of the bonus, it purely makes the point that these people are money driven, and more often than not they think short term.
Just because this blokes skill is dealing in money is no reason why he should have a big wod of it himself, the man is on a SALARY.
What about the people who deal in saving lives and are very good at at, what about those that are fighting for our country, what type of bonus should they get.

If these bankers use their own money to form banks and make a good living out of it by providing a good service to us the public then they deserve every penny they get.

Second point I would love to see someone outside the box without the dogmatic and greed driven ideals that these present bankers have, what we need is sometimg differenet and not more of the same.

marleyboy

I am all for the benefits cap, so long as these subsidised bankers bonus's get capped. We are supposed to all be in this together after all.

System

£500k of it will be tax paid back anyway. I really don't see the problem with any of this, he's entitled to it from his contract, well done to him.

vivatifosi

kabayiri wrote: »

Besides, it takes an awful lot of Florida trips to make up for a mistake like buying ABN Amro.

I'm not so concerned about the current board, but I'm still frustrated that the previous board got away with buying ABN Amro without doing proper due diligence and still leave having fooked the company, its employees and shareholders with their benefits largely intact.

One point I've never had an answer to when I've asked before is where the timeline fell with regard to the ABN purchase and the introduction of the new Companies Act. Under the Companies Act directors cannot be seen as acting in their own interest and against the interest of the shareholder (my understanding), so if the timeline was in place - my sense is it may have been a fraction before - could the former directors be open to an action by previous shareholders for negligence leading to losses? Would the cost of such a case be such that the personal wealth compared to the size of the company is relatively small therefore not worth going after? I can't believe they weren't negligent in not doing due diligence. It's M&A for Dummies for goodness sakes!