View Poll Results: How much do you think it is 'obscene' to earn an individual
£50,000
6
19.35%
£100,000
5
16.13%
£200,000
2
6.45%
£300,000
0
0%
£400,000
0
0%
£500,000
2
6.45%
£750,000
3
9.68%
£1,000,000
2
6.45%
£5,000,000
2
6.45%
£50,000,000
9
29.03%
Voters: 31. You may not vote on this poll
It's bonus time!! How much is obscene?
31 January 2012, 11:32 PM
#31
Sometimes it seems with the bankers like putting them in charge of wads of cash is like leavign Billy Bunter in charge of the tuck shop, they seemed to get massively rewarded for doing stuff that clever in isolation but was financial suicide when everyone got in on it, there are some very clever people in banking and actual talent should be rewarded but I think a lot are just in the right place at the right time, like Trading Places, anyone with half a brain could do some of it.
31 January 2012, 11:43 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being clever isn't enough; Darth Vader was clever. We really ought to question the type of people who have been gambling with the lives of billions of people. Narcissistic, Machiavellian, sociopaths seem to be particularly prominent.
31 January 2012, 11:48 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like John Lewis but you think realistically someone like Tesco could run like that and still sell so cheap to the great unwashed?
John Lewis have a kind of niche going on, but I am not sure they could survive in a hyper-competitive environment where price is everything.
Although I haven't though about it that much,
But the fate of the building societies might be worth thinking about. Once they were highly responsible lenders for their members but it didn't make much money compared to high street banking?
John Lewis have a kind of niche going on, but I am not sure they could survive in a hyper-competitive environment where price is everything.
Although I haven't though about it that much,
But the fate of the building societies might be worth thinking about. Once they were highly responsible lenders for their members but it didn't make much money compared to high street banking?
Last edited by tony de wonderful; 31 January 2012 at 11:50 PM.
31 January 2012, 11:50 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW I think the Investment Bankers creed is "Reward IS risk in the market".
Risk is the very lifeblood of investment banking - it is what they spend much of their time on assessing and quantifying so they can exploit it.
Risk is the very lifeblood of investment banking - it is what they spend much of their time on assessing and quantifying so they can exploit it.
31 January 2012, 11:56 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like John Lewis but you think realistically someone like Tesco could run like that and still sell so cheap to the great unwashed?
John Lewis have a kind of niche going on, but I am not sure they could survive in a hyper-competitive environment where price is everything.
Although I haven't though about it that much,
But the fate of the building societies might be worth thinking about. Once they were highly responsible lenders for their members but it didn't make much money compared to high street banking?
John Lewis have a kind of niche going on, but I am not sure they could survive in a hyper-competitive environment where price is everything.
Although I haven't though about it that much,
But the fate of the building societies might be worth thinking about. Once they were highly responsible lenders for their members but it didn't make much money compared to high street banking?
31 January 2012, 11:56 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problem is if a bank acts all ethical and 'nice', it will eventually get eaten up by a more aggressive predator bank right?
It's kill or be killed - very Aryan Rand.
Like the greengrocers that everyone 'loved' but is now closed when Tesco opened.
I'm not sure you have been reading all I write though.
I was blaming the state not Bankers per se.
31 January 2012, 11:58 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01 February 2012, 12:17 AM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not really, I was attacking Dave's 'ethical capitalism' before.
Problem is if a bank acts all ethical and 'nice', it will eventually get eaten up by a more aggressive predator bank right?
It's kill or be killed - very Aryan Rand.
Like the greengrocers that everyone 'loved' but is now closed when Tesco opened.
I'm not sure you have been reading all I write though.
I was blaming the state not Bankers per se.
Problem is if a bank acts all ethical and 'nice', it will eventually get eaten up by a more aggressive predator bank right?
It's kill or be killed - very Aryan Rand.
Like the greengrocers that everyone 'loved' but is now closed when Tesco opened.
I'm not sure you have been reading all I write though.
I was blaming the state not Bankers per se.
Last edited by JTaylor; 01 February 2012 at 12:18 AM.
01 February 2012, 12:33 AM
#43
SN Fairy Godmother
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Far Far Away
Posts: 35,246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would anyone personally make their company 500 Million ? it would be the combined effort of thousands of people to make that kind of money in most businesses, if a company is doing well then everybody down to the cleaner should get a share, it should be proportionate and transaparent, nothing against high pay and wealth but it had got right out of hand and if you f*ck things up so badly you have to be bailed out by the rest of the country then large bonuses are not the order of the day, the population can turn a blind eye to a certain extent when times are good but it does look a bit wrong in the current climate, especially if you havent paid your dues.
Sometimes it seems with the bankers like putting them in charge of wads of cash is like leavign Billy Bunter in charge of the tuck shop, they seemed to get massively rewarded for doing stuff that clever in isolation but was financial suicide when everyone got in on it, there are some very clever people in banking and actual talent should be rewarded but I think a lot are just in the right place at the right time, like Trading Places, anyone with half a brain could do some of it.
Sometimes it seems with the bankers like putting them in charge of wads of cash is like leavign Billy Bunter in charge of the tuck shop, they seemed to get massively rewarded for doing stuff that clever in isolation but was financial suicide when everyone got in on it, there are some very clever people in banking and actual talent should be rewarded but I think a lot are just in the right place at the right time, like Trading Places, anyone with half a brain could do some of it.
01 February 2012, 07:57 AM
#44
Well we were talking about bankers actually not traders, but consider traders can all make money during a bull market when a bubble is being created, if when that bubble should collapse the state re-inflates it with tax money/sovereign debt, then traders are also milking the taxpayer too.
My point about footballers is that poor performance/failure is ruthlessly punished. In banking this appears to not be so...or is not always so...indeed it has been rewarded.
My point about footballers is that poor performance/failure is ruthlessly punished. In banking this appears to not be so...or is not always so...indeed it has been rewarded.
01 February 2012, 08:07 AM
#45
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01 February 2012, 08:09 AM
#46
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes it seems with the bankers like putting them in charge of wads of cash is like leavign Billy Bunter in charge of the tuck shop, they seemed to get massively rewarded for doing stuff that clever in isolation but was financial suicide when everyone got in on it, there are some very clever people in banking and actual talent should be rewarded but I think a lot are just in the right place at the right time, like Trading Places, anyone with half a brain could do some of it.
A tiny example in the scheme of things - last week at an Investment Bank I lurk around - a business critical project they were doing was a day late. Project manager was immediately fired.
And this is normal.
01 February 2012, 09:35 AM
#47
Scooby Regular
01 February 2012, 09:43 AM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every company has their not-so-bright people, yes, but their mistakes will never lose the company much money as their limits will be tight through known performance. I'll wager the people who lose the big money are brighter, on paper, than all of us
** I'll take this back and apologise profusely if you can tell me your face to face experiences that support your argument.
Last edited by ChefDude; 01 February 2012 at 09:44 AM.
01 February 2012, 09:52 AM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think anyone is saying the system is not competitive internally from the POV of individual actors, but the spoils they fight over are thanks in part to the appropriation of tax payers money. So viewed if you like systematically or as a whole, it is uncompetitive or at least systematic failure is not punished properly and is somewhat rewarded. The result is an overallocation of capital and labor into the financial and banking sectors.
01 February 2012, 01:34 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Shell petrol station
Posts: 4,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all relative and dependent on the employment circumstance. I know people who are PAYE for £24k pa but their bonuses can be 10-20 times that amount. I know people who are on £100k and would be delighted to receive 10% of their salary as a bonus....
In answer to the poll, there is no sum that is 'obscene' for an individual to earn. The key word being to earn
In answer to the poll, there is no sum that is 'obscene' for an individual to earn. The key word being to earn
01 February 2012, 01:47 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's how it is earned though Alloy. I think I know what you mean by 'earn' but there are a lot of assumptions being what it means morally.
A medieval baron 'earns' gold by taking so much grain from his peasants they suffer malnutrition?
A bank robber 'earns' money by holding up his local HSBC?
A medieval baron 'earns' gold by taking so much grain from his peasants they suffer malnutrition?
A bank robber 'earns' money by holding up his local HSBC?
01 February 2012, 01:55 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a question that cannot have a general answer Trout, as I suspect you know very well anyway.
Top salaries and bonuses these days are grossly in excess of what they should be in comparison to those who are grafting away at the lower end of the payscale.
People in top positions are using their power to pay themselves the sort of sums which can only be said to be driven by sheer greed and are taking advantage of others to make those sorts of profits which they will say justifies what they get paid.
Les
Top salaries and bonuses these days are grossly in excess of what they should be in comparison to those who are grafting away at the lower end of the payscale.
People in top positions are using their power to pay themselves the sort of sums which can only be said to be driven by sheer greed and are taking advantage of others to make those sorts of profits which they will say justifies what they get paid.
Les
01 February 2012, 02:02 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How is it that people at the top 'pay themselves'?
Maybe true of small businesses (I decide how much to pay myself). But not in the corporate world. A CEO doesn't decide how much he is paid.
01 February 2012, 02:14 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01 February 2012, 02:23 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a chummy world of remuneration committees...a back scratching culture. Also they figure out average pay and add a bit...this ratchets up pay each time as a self-perpetuating mechanism.
01 February 2012, 03:13 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The objectives are clearly laid out - usually a combination of revenue, growth, margin and share price. They cannot be obsfucated and certainly in financial services, as these things are reported in a regulated form, cannot be fudged.
I fail to see what the tabloid media likes to perpetuate.
I do agree with Tony that remuneration committees lack transparency and are too intertwined - and that should be dealt with.
01 February 2012, 03:32 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
the Financial crises was a massive failure of corporate governance
if corporate governance allowed RBS to buy ANB, in a multi billion dollar buyout, on the strength of a 15 page A4 ringbinder of information (and that was not just a one off failure)
then I am sure such weighty matters of CEO pay where pretty much rubber stamped