Nat West

wmb194

Perksy5 said:

Complain about bonuses all you want but it is key for talent retention. It's industry wide, you don't love it because you don't benefit from it but the alternative is slashing it, talent goes elsewhere and the taxpayer investment you're bleating about burns and crashes. 
At least this way its paying a dividend, it might not ever amount to the £45bn originally bailed out if share price has fluctuated (I haven't looked) but its a profitable business based on these results. I'm happy the tax payer hasn't entirely wasted its money. If it was failing, then I'd join you in stomping my feet.

Don't forget all the taxes it pays and the jobs it directly and indirectly supports. There are lots of ways for the government to make its money back. It doesn't even need to own shares in RBS to make it back.

Albermarle

eskbanker said:

As bonuses should be largely conditional on business performance, bumping up the pot by about a quarter when profits have risen by over a third seems reasonable to me, even if tabloids like to spit out the words "banker's bonuses" as if it was pantomime season ("boooooooo")....

Although AIUI, part of the reason for the banks problems in 2008, were that bankers were paid bonuses to take big risks, but when it wrong we had to pick up the tab, and they rode off into the sunset with bulging wallets . For example Fred the Shred and his massive pension.
So it is not surprising that Bankers Bonuses still rankles people, even if it is a different situation today and to some extent they can not be avoided as it is part of that industry. 

eskbanker

Albermarle said:

eskbanker said:

As bonuses should be largely conditional on business performance, bumping up the pot by about a quarter when profits have risen by over a third seems reasonable to me, even if tabloids like to spit out the words "banker's bonuses" as if it was pantomime season ("boooooooo")....

Although AIUI, part of the reason for the banks problems in 2008, were that bankers were paid bonuses to take big risks, but when it wrong we had to pick up the tab, and they rode off into the sunset with bulging wallets . For example Fred the Shred and his massive pension.
So it is not surprising that Bankers Bonuses still rankles people, even if it is a different situation today and to some extent they can not be avoided as it is part of that industry. 

As you say, it's a different situation today, with a transformed regulatory landscape as a result of lessons learned from 2008, not least of which was the ring-fencing of retail banking away from investment arms, but that term lives on as a pejorative one 15 years later, even though performance-related bonuses are very much a standard aspect of remuneration in the vast majority of large commercial businesses.  I suspect that most would struggle to name the chief executives of leading banks nowadays, so they're not demonised personally as they were then, and the contemporary panto villains of choice are now energy companies!

Albermarle

• Money
• News Money

FLAMING CHEEK 

British Gas owner Centrica triples profits to £3.3billion amid a year of soaring energy prices

eskbanker

Since that's taken from the Sun, it surprises me that it doesn't squeeze in a few more cliched tropes about 'fat cat bosses ripping off hard-working families', etc, etc! 😴

jimmynoton

Perksy5 said:

Complain about bonuses all you want but it is key for talent retention. It's industry wide, you don't love it because you don't benefit from it but the alternative is slashing it, talent goes elsewhere and the taxpayer investment you're bleating about burns and crashes. 
At least this way its paying a dividend, it might not ever amount to the £45bn originally bailed out if share price has fluctuated (I haven't looked) but its a profitable business based on these results. I'm happy the tax payer hasn't entirely wasted its money. If it was failing, then I'd join you in stomping my feet.

Alison must be a tremendously talented woman. Thank Christ NatWest has been able to retain her.

Perksy5

jimmynoton said:

Perksy5 said:

Complain about bonuses all you want but it is key for talent retention. It's industry wide, you don't love it because you don't benefit from it but the alternative is slashing it, talent goes elsewhere and the taxpayer investment you're bleating about burns and crashes. 
At least this way its paying a dividend, it might not ever amount to the £45bn originally bailed out if share price has fluctuated (I haven't looked) but its a profitable business based on these results. I'm happy the tax payer hasn't entirely wasted its money. If it was failing, then I'd join you in stomping my feet.

Alison must be a tremendously talented woman. Thank Christ NatWest has been able to retain her.

I disagree with the size of CEO bonuses, but on other hand if you climb to the top that's part of the prize, no?
The funny thing about 'bankers bonuses' as has previously been mentioned is that there is a lot of overflowing rhetoric from 2008, bankers are almost a dirty word. Most forget that 'banker' terminology isn't investment bankers yet extends to those in telephony and branches who many on this site slate, regularly. They have feelings and families and things to save for too, and just like others in the industry and also other large businesses, have bonuses that can be paid (not always are and vary significantly).

Prism

Albermarle said:

• Money
• News Money

FLAMING CHEEK 

British Gas owner Centrica triples profits to £3.3billion amid a year of soaring energy prices

Not sure what your point is? Centrica have made money and need to pay lots of tax on it. Sounds like a positive.

Sisyphean_Task

They could be sat twiddling their thumbs while £6bn a year rolls in on their deposits at the BoE, paid for by taxpayers. Then we pay them bonuses for all that effort?

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-11294319/Government-target-10bn-deposits-held-Bank.html

If the base rate rises again, they make more money on their deposits, that we pay for, their profits go up and then we give them more bonuses for taking our money. Meanwhile we have cuts to services, tax rises/personal allowance freezes, pension age rise next? Mortgage rates up but saving rates not rising as much hence the 2.85% profit margin.

wmb194

Sisyphean_Task said:

They could be sat twiddling their thumbs while £6bn a year rolls in on their deposits at the BoE, paid for by taxpayers. Then we pay them bonuses for all that effort?

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-11294319/Government-target-10bn-deposits-held-Bank.html

If the base rate rises again, they make more money on their deposits, that we pay for, their profits go up and then we give them more bonuses for taking our money. Meanwhile we have cuts to services, tax rises/personal allowance freezes, pension age rise next? Mortgage rates up but saving rates not rising as much hence the 2.85% profit margin.

*Net interest margin (NIM). 

Apart from the 6% accounts, why are you keeping your savings with RBS/NatWest? Anyway, you're assuming that all things will remain equal when they probably won't. During the week Barclays announced a similar NIM but also said that it's already seeing a large outflow of deposits to other banks, particularly fintech/challenger banks, that are paying better rates so the likelihood is that going forward its NIM will be smaller.

Same thing with the Bank rate. At the moment the most important thing is to get on top of inflation but if it looks like growth needs to be stimulated instead the rate will be reduced. It's just the ebb and flow. Anyway, banks and building societies are taxed in all sorts of ways - including a tax on the size of their balance sheets - so as they make more money they'll pay more tax. Personally, I like to see companies doing well.