We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Killing the goose that lays the golden eggs...in London
Comments
-
shortchanged wrote: »Great, won't this further help reduce the unemployment figures because I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would step in to fill the void by those leaving.
They will take the jobs with them."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
International finance is inherently toxic. A whole industry of people finding ways to make the world worse each and every day, and largely succeeding.
What on earth is the point of changing the way they are allowed to reward themselves? The entire system needs pulling down. If they are so clever they should have been able to have found a way to fix the mess they made in 2007, but they couldnt, it all came down to taxpayers. People who actually create wealth rather than just stealing it.
We dont need them. Singapore doesnt need them, nor does Hong Kong or New York.0 -
vivatifosi wrote: »It will be back to the law of unintended consequences. The bonuses will then be made part of the salary, meaning that when people genuinely don't deserve it, it will be impossible to remove.
This is a mad move. It would be far more logical to build a long term element into bonuses so that they reflect something more accountable over a period of time.
If theya re good people then they should deserve the salary. If you employ a muppet who doesn't live up to their hype then show him/her the door.
The bonus culture is part of the problem. Short term targets rathere than long term startegic profiatability.
As you say some kind of long term link to suistained trended performance, even if the odd bad year hits. Salary by long dated redeemable shares or pensions perhaps."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Do the play better poker to? Their gain our loss?
To be fair, a lot (all?) of that culture has gone. I'm utterly amazed by how things are changing as an insider who has spent 15+ years bemused & appalled by what he sees around him.grizzly1911 wrote: »If theya re good people then they should deserve the salary. If you employ a muppet who doesn't live up to their hype then show him/her the door.
The bonus culture is part of the problem. Short term targets rathere than long term startegic profiatability.
As you say some kind of long term link to suistained trended performance, even if the odd bad year hits. Salary by long dated redeemable shares or pensions perhaps.
It's not really that simple. Lots of businesses get the strategy wrong: look at all those British motorbike companies who knew that the Japanese were making a huge strategic error producing tiny things with screaming engines. Hey, that was so bad there was no point in competing. Bonuses didn't cause that, just a simple mistake in predicting how the market would go.
Investment banks are real hire 'n' fire shops, more than any business I've seen other than catering.
The reality is, IMHO, very complex. Some of it is within the banks and some outside.
I'll give an example. Some parts of the asset management world are moving towards selling a new model. Instead of returns on investments being +20% for three years then down 50% for a year and up 10% the next year and so on they look to provide perhaps 8% a year, each and every year.
I can tell you now exactly what will happen in 1-10 years. The stock market, or a part of it, will have a huge boom and everyone will ask their asset managers why their fund is up 8% when the bloke next door made 50% in 6 months.
Businesses respond to their customers.0 -
I'll give an example. Some parts of the asset management world are moving towards selling a new model. Instead of returns on investments being +20% for three years then down 50% for a year and up 10% the next year and so on they look to provide perhaps 8% a year, each and every year.
I can tell you now exactly what will happen in 1-10 years. The stock market, or a part of it, will have a huge boom and everyone will ask their asset managers why their fund is up 8% when the bloke next door made 50% in 6 months.
I remember when we had with profits life policies which did a similar thing. They effectively locked in a percentage of the anual. "growth" in the good years giving a terminal bonus at the end whilst taking a slice for themselves. It had the benefit of smoothing the return but with a possible bonus at the end.
We then moved to the un it linked approach which redcuced costs/removed risks for the provider and transfered the risk to the investor good and bad."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Sir Philip Hampton was on 5live this morning, taking about RBS and also about this bonus cap.
He stated that this talk of bankers leaving is very much an overused excuse and one which he too is guilty of using.
As to the bonus issue itself, he just suggested that salaries would increase instead, though there would obviously be problems with this for part state owned banks.
It seemed he didn't think it would actually happen, which appears to be the thoughts of most.
On a secondary note, he came across really well this morning. He was going on to do a phone in with the public, which I wasn't able to catch, though will probably try to catch up with it later. It seemed he really was trying to talk to the people and understand the issues, which was very much welcomed.0 -
The sooner we leave the EU the better.0
-
The thing that I find a bit odd here is that so far folk seem quite relaxed about a central authority telling a private (or public for that matter) concern how it may and may not remunerate its own staff.
WR0 -
The thing is, they said the same thing at my old work place. They are now forecasting being down 30% in a few years time with forward estimates of outflow rates. Lead times for new trainees are 4-5 years so its not a simple case of retraining a load more either,Graham_Devon wrote: »Sir Philip Hampton was on 5live this morning, taking about RBS and also about this bonus cap.
He stated that this talk of bankers leaving is very much an overused excuse and one which he too is guilty of using.
As to the bonus issue itself, he just suggested that salaries would increase instead, though there would obviously be problems with this for part state owned banks.
It seemed he didn't think it would actually happen, which appears to be the thoughts of most.
On a secondary note, he came across really well this morning. He was going on to do a phone in with the public, which I wasn't able to catch, though will probably try to catch up with it later. It seemed he really was trying to talk to the people and understand the issues, which was very much welcomed.
The mistake hr make is highly trained and motivated individuals are flexible. Just because you quit as an investment banker doesn't mean that's what you have to do when you quit. There are loads of applications to what bankers do, just as I found out that there we're loads of applications (better paid too) compared to my old job.0 -
Wild_Rover wrote: »The thing that I find a bit odd here is that so far folk seem quite relaxed about a central authority telling a private (or public for that matter) concern how it may and may not remunerate its own staff.
WR
Where do you choose to draw the line? Presumably you're happy with a central authority telling people that they may not kill each other, or take each others property by force? Are you happy with a central authority telling companies they must reasonably ensure the safety of their employees? How about a central authority telling a company that they cannot renumerate based on gender or ethnic origin? Where do you choose to draw the line?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards