Stephen Hestor renders to the lynch mob

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Labour are pretty stupid. But I don't think they are stupid enough to start voting in a motion against a contractual obligation written into a contract.

Contractual or not when he took the job there would have been an expectation that he was going to get a bonus. As a (real) shareholder I'm a bit narked that shareholder value has reduced during his tenure. On the other hand I can see that some good work has been done.

However, what he's done (or hasn't) is by the by as the politics of envy have taken over and, as usual, when envy and moral platitudes enter the fray debate stops.

Some must find it difficult to reconcile the fact that it was Labour that effectively blocked this bonus.;)

Masomnia

Just threw this together on my Halifax Sharedealing account, comparison of RBS in that nice teal/turquoise colour, Lloyds the dark blue and the banking sector generally in pink.

Looks like he's doing well against the benchmark and the other nationalized bank to me. Maybe I should've bought RBS rather than Lloyds

IronWolf

Wookster wrote: »

Listening to Chuka Umuna this morning on the radio it is clear the man doesn't have a clue.

He said that Hestor did not deserve the bonus because the share price has plummeted and because RBS was laying off loads of people.

First off all financial stocks have declined hugely in value with the Eurozone crisis and impeding banking regulation. This is not something Hestor has any real control over. Worth noting that RBS has performed better than Lloyds!

Secondly, with the general shrinking of investment banking, staff resourcing will need to be realigned with business requirements, furthermore shrinking the investment banking arm was done on the explicit instructions of the Chancellor. Surprised that Labour's 'bright new star' wasn't picked up on this.

If I was Hestor, I'd be looking at other options now. £1m is small beef compared to how much the investment in RBS overall is worth to the tax payer.

Oh, markets gave their judgement as well: -3% off the share price.

I am similarly far from impressed with Chuka Umuna. As far as I can tell he has little experience and unable to give strong arguments even when he is (accidentally) right about things.

One thing that the Coalition cabinet have going for them is their age and experience (for the most part). Vince Cable being head of Dept for Business is invaluable imo as he's one of the few MPs with a wide range of real life experience, not just a career politician like most of the shadow cabinet.

Wookster

IronWolf wrote: »

I am similarly far from impressed with Chuka Umuna. As far as I can tell he has little experience and unable to give strong arguments even when he is (accidentally) right about things.

One thing that the Coalition cabinet have going for them is their age and experience (for the most part). Vince Cable being head of Dept for Business is invaluable imo as he's one of the few MPs with a wide range of real life experience, not just a career politician like most of the shadow cabinet.

Agreed. He is low on experience, despite having professed to having drafted employment agreements of exactly the sort governing Hestor's.

He also thinks that the rate that governments borrow from the markets is set by the central bank. Perhaps someone should explain to him what a bond market is.

No wander Labour have no economic credibility.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Contractual or not when he took the job there would have been an expectation that he was going to get a bonus.

This is the problem. Expectations of a bonus.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is the problem. Expectations of a bonus.

Why is it a problem?

I expect a bonus too. If I didn't get one I'd be pretty peeved unless I was taken to one side and it was explained to me why I'd under-performed or why the finances were not available.

I'd be more peeved if I thought I'd done a good job, was told I was getting a bonus, and then being forced to decline it in case I didn't go to heaven.

Jimmy_31

wotsthat wrote: »

Why is it a problem?

I expect a bonus too. If I didn't get one I'd be pretty peeved unless I was taken to one side and it was explained to me why I'd under-performed or why the finances were not available.

I'd be more peeved if I thought I'd done a good job, was told I was getting a bonus, and then being forced to decline it in case I didn't go to heaven.

I think its because the vast majority of people who work in this country will never ever see a bonus in their lives, no matter how good a job they do.

wotsthat

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

I think its because the vast majority of people who work in this country will never ever see a bonus in their lives, no matter how good a job they do.

Someone else not getting a bonus does not make you any richer - you just feel a bit better.

I'd rather put more effort into improving my own circumstances than moaning about how well others are doing.

FTBFun

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

I think its because the vast majority of people who work in this country will never ever see a bonus in their lives, no matter how good a job they do.

So what?

Should have studied harder at school then.

ReadingTim

The problem is that the performance targets for these bonuses are set with the expectation of being met, so that the bonus isn't really an additional reward for exceptional performance, exceeding targets etc; but more like an additional salary for merely performing the job as expected.

Most people find that if they fail to perform they get the sack, not a salary, and bonuses for simply meeting targets / deadlines etc somewhat thin on the ground.