Crowd pleasing banking regulation...
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crowd pleasing banking regulation...
...Dodd-Frank which will impact most Global banks (e.g. Barclays, RBS, UBS, HSBC, etc) will require that Executive Compensation (Bonus to me and you) will be subject to clawback if performance targets are not achieved. And it will be retrospective as many bonuses are spread over three years.
So, bankers may be subject to paying some or all of their bonuses back!!! And a number of banks will have executives who fall into this category!!!
Of course this will create a new wealthy elite, employment lawyers from the Magic Circle will be having a field day!
So, bankers may be subject to paying some or all of their bonuses back!!! And a number of banks will have executives who fall into this category!!!
Of course this will create a new wealthy elite, employment lawyers from the Magic Circle will be having a field day!
#2
Scooby Regular
/shrugs
I think folk would be more forgiving if the banking sector wasn't so arrogant in the way it goes about its business and didn't behave in quite such a poor way to the common customer.
Most banks frankly are complete w*nkers when it comes to the common folk. If they were a little more willing to give something back rather than take take take, the feeling amongst the masses might be different.
If we now suppose to feel sympathy for the banking sector, where is the sympathy those that actually use the banks?
I think folk would be more forgiving if the banking sector wasn't so arrogant in the way it goes about its business and didn't behave in quite such a poor way to the common customer.
Most banks frankly are complete w*nkers when it comes to the common folk. If they were a little more willing to give something back rather than take take take, the feeling amongst the masses might be different.
If we now suppose to feel sympathy for the banking sector, where is the sympathy those that actually use the banks?
#4
...Dodd-Frank which will impact most Global banks (e.g. Barclays, RBS, UBS, HSBC, etc) will require that Executive Compensation (Bonus to me and you) will be subject to clawback if performance targets are not achieved. And it will be retrospective as many bonuses are spread over three years.
So, bankers may be subject to paying some or all of their bonuses back!!! And a number of banks will have executives who fall into this category!!!
Of course this will create a new wealthy elite, employment lawyers from the Magic Circle will be having a field day!
So, bankers may be subject to paying some or all of their bonuses back!!! And a number of banks will have executives who fall into this category!!!
Of course this will create a new wealthy elite, employment lawyers from the Magic Circle will be having a field day!
#5
Trending Topics
#9
Scooby Regular
What sort of system is this where people who miss targets are given bonuses, anyway? Any sort of bonus should be for good performance or pleasing shareholders or management.
The banking sector is a f*cking joke the way it's operating; although I agree, it's crowd pleasing and not getting to the route of the issue.
The banking sector is a f*cking joke the way it's operating; although I agree, it's crowd pleasing and not getting to the route of the issue.
Last edited by GlesgaKiss; 14 February 2012 at 03:44 PM.
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
/shrugs
I think folk would be more forgiving if the banking sector wasn't so arrogant in the way it goes about its business and didn't behave in quite such a poor way to the common customer.
Most banks frankly are complete w*nkers when it comes to the common folk. If they were a little more willing to give something back rather than take take take, the feeling amongst the masses might be different.
If we now suppose to feel sympathy for the banking sector, where is the sympathy those that actually use the banks?
I think folk would be more forgiving if the banking sector wasn't so arrogant in the way it goes about its business and didn't behave in quite such a poor way to the common customer.
Most banks frankly are complete w*nkers when it comes to the common folk. If they were a little more willing to give something back rather than take take take, the feeling amongst the masses might be different.
If we now suppose to feel sympathy for the banking sector, where is the sympathy those that actually use the banks?
dl
#11
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First thing - Barclays didn't take any government money.
Second, the bank made £6bn last year so his pay in those terms isn't a lot.
Third, anything that size will attract a number of complaints. The percentage of complaints to customers would be better. However the legislation opened up here is about profit performance, therefore wouldn't apply.
And as for not being forced to take government cash. Didn't the government force Lloyds to swallow HBOS?
5t.
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 3,229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not as easy as saying Barclays received 250,000 complaints.
You'd need to view what percentage of their cusotmer based complained to paint a true picture.
Also, how many of these complaints are from people trying to claw back PPI and see it as an easy way to grab a bit of cash?
You'd need to view what percentage of their cusotmer based complained to paint a true picture.
Also, how many of these complaints are from people trying to claw back PPI and see it as an easy way to grab a bit of cash?
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Way to present a one sided arguement.
First thing - Barclays didn't take any government money.
Second, the bank made £6bn last year so his pay in those terms isn't a lot.
Third, anything that size will attract a number of complaints. The percentage of complaints to customers would be better. However the legislation opened up here is about profit performance, therefore wouldn't apply.
And as for not being forced to take government cash. Didn't the government force Lloyds to swallow HBOS?
5t.
First thing - Barclays didn't take any government money.
Second, the bank made £6bn last year so his pay in those terms isn't a lot.
Third, anything that size will attract a number of complaints. The percentage of complaints to customers would be better. However the legislation opened up here is about profit performance, therefore wouldn't apply.
And as for not being forced to take government cash. Didn't the government force Lloyds to swallow HBOS?
5t.
First thing. I am aware of that but they worked pretty safe in the knowledge that government money would be there if they ran into trouble
Second thing. Clearly business size is relevant but I still think basic should be more than enough.
Third. Of course I don't have a knowledge of the complaint details but the overall scale of dissatisfaction is huge. It really does seem to be an uncaring group which is fine in pure "lets make money" terms but not much else. In a very broad comparison the NHS received 114,000 complaints in 2009/10. I wonder how many Tesco got which is a more relevant comparison.
dl
#14
You are being willfully obtuse. The banks were never forced to accept the tax payers money that came their way via the various bail-outs. The banks are not forced to have the BofE/state act as the guaranteer on deposits too.
The banks asked for the state to help them to be blunt.
If they could have chosen not to, and would now have legitimate moral case for telling the government to stay out of their bonus culture.
The banks asked for the state to help them to be blunt.
If they could have chosen not to, and would now have legitimate moral case for telling the government to stay out of their bonus culture.
#15
Scooby Regular
...Dodd-Frank which will impact most Global banks (e.g. Barclays, RBS, UBS, HSBC, etc) will require that Executive Compensation (Bonus to me and you) will be subject to clawback if performance targets are not achieved. And it will be retrospective as many bonuses are spread over three years.
So, bankers may be subject to paying some or all of their bonuses back!!! And a number of banks will have executives who fall into this category!!!
Of course this will create a new wealthy elite, employment lawyers from the Magic Circle will be having a field day!
So, bankers may be subject to paying some or all of their bonuses back!!! And a number of banks will have executives who fall into this category!!!
Of course this will create a new wealthy elite, employment lawyers from the Magic Circle will be having a field day!
I don't get this Trout. If bonuses can be clawed back if targets aren't met that implies the bonuses are given out prior to targets being met. Is this what happens in the banking sector?
My wife who works in media and publishing only gets a bonus if and when she hits a target and therefore paid retrospectively.
#16
Hypothetically, if we wind back to 2008-9 and RBS, LLoyds TSB , HBOS, and Northern Rock went bust. Go across to America, AIG, BoA, Citibank, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, etc received no bailout, what would be the state of the global economy?
With huge unemployment as a result of the businesses going under due to lake of capital because banks going bankrupt, people's debt spiralling out of control and losing their homes, up risings in Middle East, the failing/failed Euro, how would the high street look today? What would the Government have done with the ensuing depression that would most likely have taken hold? What would have happened to everyone's pensions, life savings, investments, businesses etc. Whilst long term the economy may be better, but I would guess that the short term pain would have been too great for everyone to bear.
If given the option to vote whether to bail out or not I think I would have voted for the bailout.
With huge unemployment as a result of the businesses going under due to lake of capital because banks going bankrupt, people's debt spiralling out of control and losing their homes, up risings in Middle East, the failing/failed Euro, how would the high street look today? What would the Government have done with the ensuing depression that would most likely have taken hold? What would have happened to everyone's pensions, life savings, investments, businesses etc. Whilst long term the economy may be better, but I would guess that the short term pain would have been too great for everyone to bear.
If given the option to vote whether to bail out or not I think I would have voted for the bailout.
#17
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Second thing. Clearly business size is relevant but I still think basic should be more than enough.
As has been shown, you need the best people to run it properly. To do that you need to pay them the right money. Mr Diamond has generated a huge sum of income for the UK. His bank has lent money to a vast number of businesses (That's where they really make the money) which has allowed the wider economy to keep going.
Pay him the cash or potentially rescue his bank. One has cost the taxpayer nothing, one would be expensive.
To say otherwise just smacks of jealousy to be honest. Good luck to the chap.
Third. Of course I don't have a knowledge of the complaint details
but the overall scale of dissatisfaction is huge. It really does seem to be an uncaring group which is fine in pure "lets make money" terms but not much else. In a very broad comparison the NHS received 114,000 complaints in 2009/10. I wonder how many Tesco got which is a more relevant comparison.
dl
dl
5t.
#18
First thing. I am aware of that but they worked pretty safe in the knowledge that government money would be there if they ran into trouble
Second thing. Clearly business size is relevant but I still think basic should be more than enough.
Third. Of course I don't have a knowledge of the complaint details but the overall scale of dissatisfaction is huge. It really does seem to be an uncaring group which is fine in pure "lets make money" terms but not much else. In a very broad comparison the NHS received 114,000 complaints in 2009/10. I wonder how many Tesco got which is a more relevant comparison.
dl
Second thing. Clearly business size is relevant but I still think basic should be more than enough.
Third. Of course I don't have a knowledge of the complaint details but the overall scale of dissatisfaction is huge. It really does seem to be an uncaring group which is fine in pure "lets make money" terms but not much else. In a very broad comparison the NHS received 114,000 complaints in 2009/10. I wonder how many Tesco got which is a more relevant comparison.
dl
#19
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are being willfully obtuse. The banks were never forced to accept the tax payers money that came their way via the various bail-outs. The banks are not forced to have the BofE/state act as the guaranteer on deposits too.
The banks asked for the state to help them to be blunt.
If they could have chosen not to, and would now have legitimate moral case for telling the government to stay out of their bonus culture.
The banks asked for the state to help them to be blunt.
If they could have chosen not to, and would now have legitimate moral case for telling the government to stay out of their bonus culture.
What I don't understand is how that relates to the original post
#20
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What sort of system is this where people who miss targets are given bonuses, anyway? Any sort of bonus should be for good performance or pleasing shareholders or management.
The banking sector is a f*cking joke the way it's operating; although I agree, it's crowd pleasing and not getting to the route of the issue.
The banking sector is a f*cking joke the way it's operating; although I agree, it's crowd pleasing and not getting to the route of the issue.
I don't get this Trout. If bonuses can be clawed back if targets aren't met that implies the bonuses are given out prior to targets being met. Is this what happens in the banking sector?
My wife who works in media and publishing only gets a bonus if and when she hits a target and therefore paid retrospectively.
My wife who works in media and publishing only gets a bonus if and when she hits a target and therefore paid retrospectively.
The point of the legislation is to bring a degree of longer term thinking (just like Hester's bonus that did not mature for three years )
Banker A gets a £100k bonus for 2011 for meeting certain targets.
But completely misses these targets in 2012, then there may be some clawback of his original bonus.
Complex and crowd pleasing.
#21
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you just make this up as you type
Bob Diamond's base salary in 2011 was £1.35m
His bonus is around £3m, which if he does not take for three years will rise to around £9m, based on a constant share price.
#22
SN Fairy Godmother
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Far Far Away
Posts: 35,246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trout, you are wasting your time and energy. No one likes Bankers or Banks at the mo'
They appear to serve no one but themselves. So no matter how you try, I doubt you will change anyones mind for some considerable time
They appear to serve no one but themselves. So no matter how you try, I doubt you will change anyones mind for some considerable time
#23
Scooby Regular
The point of the legislation is to bring a degree of longer term thinking (just like Hester's bonus that did not mature for three years )
Banker A gets a £100k bonus for 2011 for meeting certain targets.
But completely misses these targets in 2012, then there may be some clawback of his original bonus.
Complex and crowd pleasing.
Banker A gets a £100k bonus for 2011 for meeting certain targets.
But completely misses these targets in 2012, then there may be some clawback of his original bonus.
Complex and crowd pleasing.
Yes, does sound very complex. I have never worked in a bonus based job but my wife does. I can only base my knowledge on my wife's set up where having bonus clawed back because she didn't manage to do in 2012 what she did in 2011 would be unacceptable.
It would also be very difficult to administer and monitor imho
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#26
Yes, does sound very complex. I have never worked in a bonus based job but my wife does. I can only base my knowledge on my wife's set up where having bonus clawed back because she didn't manage to do in 2012 what she did in 2011 would be unacceptable.
It would also be very difficult to administer and monitor imho
It would also be very difficult to administer and monitor imho
PS I work for a bank that hasn't had any state support either.
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: RIP Tam.
Posts: 5,108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People soon forget the problems that would have come about hsould the banking system been allowed to collapse like it was going to without the help.
LBG as they are now have turned what was a very shoddy operation in Halifac and BOS into a reasonable company.
As far as complaints go I think LBG have allot less than banks like Santander who are quite shocking.
#28
Some traders/bankers have their bonus held back a year so their bonus can reflect 2 years performance not just one. The flaw with this is that to really be accurate and award what is fair you would need to judge over a full cycle from boom to bust and then see their net gains. This means that IMO bonus's should be held back for minimum ten years as any idiot can match a growing market, its those that consistently beat the market through a long period that deserve the big money. The banking industry just rewards its people on far too short term thinking and 3 years is still far too short.
#29
Some traders/bankers have their bonus held back a year so their bonus can reflect 2 years performance not just one. The flaw with this is that to really be accurate and award what is fair you would need to judge over a full cycle from boom to bust and then see their net gains. This means that IMO bonus's should be held back for minimum ten years as any idiot can match a growing market, its those that consistently beat the market through a long period that deserve the big money. The banking industry just rewards its people on far too short term thinking and 3 years is still far too short.
#30
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unfortunatley in this world the people that do others the most help, are rewarded with minimal reward, entertainers are wildy over paid, but again probably generate the most income
its a reflection on society, and where peoples values lie, and also where they choose to spend some time educatig themasleves outwith paper publications.
huge income genration = rewards. good honest work helping others/services = not a lot
so so so many over paid sectors, along wiht so so many underpaid sectors also, and some in the middle, getting what they deserve, along with those doing zero and getting in a % return, massive overpayments
its a reflection on society, and where peoples values lie, and also where they choose to spend some time educatig themasleves outwith paper publications.
huge income genration = rewards. good honest work helping others/services = not a lot
so so so many over paid sectors, along wiht so so many underpaid sectors also, and some in the middle, getting what they deserve, along with those doing zero and getting in a % return, massive overpayments