[H_B]

drs, on 27 January 2012 - 13:15, said:

No he couldnt, he's bound by what the previous Labour govt that bankrupted the country put in place.

Uhhh... wrong!!

"There is nothing in the employment contract of Stephen Hester which binds the company or its remuneration committee to pay a mandatory bonus"

This post has been edited by H_B: 27 January 2012 - 21:47

[Reynard]

Gordon EF, on 27 January 2012 - 20:59, said:

I don't have a paticular problem with this, not knowing all the actual details. Something I worked out on the lLympics thread though. The cost of the London Olympics would cover the cost of his bonus, every year, for the next 14,000 years. It's pretty small fry in the grand scheme of government throwing money down the tiolet isn't it?

It is. The government has to borrow around 15billion a month just to keep the wheels of the state turning at the moment. Fucking ludicrous.

[Cammy35]

A real source of outrage for me recently was reading some economic think tank stating that we should not have the 50% top tax rate as we are losing some of our most talented people to other countries. Apparently hedge fund managers and the like were leaving in droves for tax havens like Switzerland. We should lower the top rate of tax to keep them here was their advice. IMO if it was them that got us into this mess they can either stay here and pay their tax or feck off and quite frankly good riddance. I am sure there are plenty of people around who could bring the economic system to its knees while on a massive salary and then run for the hills to avoid tax, does'nt sound that difficult really.

[Suspect Device]

So we're still all doomed then.

It's just as well that the world's going to end on 21st Dec this year becfause if it wasn't then ahen the world is goint o end because we all borrowed too much money.

I need a drink.

[H_B]

Cammy35, on 27 January 2012 - 21:08, said:

A real source of outrage for me recently was reading some economic think tank stating that we should not have the 50% top tax rate as we are losing some of our most talented people to other countries.

Yes, their agenda was not at all transparent

I was very amused by them too.

[Reynard]

Cammy35, on 27 January 2012 - 21:08, said:

A real source of outrage for me recently was reading some economic think tank stating that we should not have the 50% top tax rate as we are losing some of our most talented people to other countries. Apparently hedge fund managers and the like were leaving in droves for tax havens like Switzerland. We should lower the top rate of tax to keep them here was their advice. IMO if it was them that got us into this mess they can either stay here and pay their tax or feck off and quite frankly good riddance. I am sure there are plenty of people around who could bring the economic system to its knees while on a massive salary and then run for the hills to avoid tax, does'nt sound that difficult really.

It doesn't raise any money which is why is should be scrapped. The tax system doesn't raise anywhere close to the amount of money the state needs to carry on it's money spunk anyway. Which is fine as long as it can continue to borrow billions of poinds at low interest rates, but I don't see that continuing indefinitely.

[Suspect Device]

It always gets slightly uneasy when you start giving more to the government to spunk away than you get yourself. it's when you decide to get yourself a decent accountant and avoid paying tax.

For people saying that the rich should pay more, they do. That's how percentages work. 20% of £40k is more than 20% of £10k.

[wunfellaff]

Suspect Device, on 27 January 2012 - 21:30, said:

It always gets slightly uneasy when you start giving more to the government to spunk away than you get yourself. it's when you decide to get yourself a decent accountant and avoid paying tax.

For people saying that the rich should pay more, they do. That's how percentages work. 20% of £40k is more than 20% of £10k.

Not according to Warren Buffet..............Edit cos I am a fud and didn read yours correctly, but, hey, they are rich.

This post has been edited by wunfellaff: 27 January 2012 - 21:48

[Gnash]

Suspect Device, on 27 January 2012 - 20:15, said:

He's not getting given the £963k. He's being given 3.6m shares, yet the media goes on and on about it being money. Nothing is certain in this life and if the guy makes the shareholders (and the treasury) a heap of moeny, I'm morethan happy for him to get well rewarded for that.

The problem I have with banker's bonuses is when they seem to be rewarded for failure. Goodwin being the main media hate figure but there are many others. Funnily enough the main culprits arein America and got nice jobs from Obama to sort the mess that they themselves created. (Or helped create at least).

I actually feel sorry for Hester because he seems to be doing a decent job yet all the shit that should be thrown at others is getting aimed at him.

Good post, although I wouldn't go quite as far as to say I feel sorry for Hester - he knew what he was getting himself into.

Since he took over, RBS has specific targets on a range of metrics aimed at "de-risking" the company and ultimately paying the taxpayer back at least break-even. The company is meeting or exceeding most of these targets. The fact that the share price has gone down in the last year is mainly due to the poor situation in the Eurozone, and also the requirement to ring fence the investment banking arm. These are out with Hester's control. Overall he has done a pretty good job so far, and I've no problem at all with his modest (by large company CEO standards) bonus.

I don't at all accept the argument that because RBS is part owned by taxpayer, the guys at the top should get no bonuses or be low paid. Quite apart from the argument that people doing a important job well deserve to be paid a lot of money, it's in the interests of the country for RBS to do as well as possible, and that means talented people need to be running it. Talented people have a choice about where they work and if they leave RBS to get paid more elsewhere that's bad for the UK taxpayer. The billions extra that the taxpayer could get back massively outweighs a few million extra paid in bonuses.

[H_B]

Gnash, on 27 January 2012 - 21:51, said:

I don't at all accept the argument that because RBS is part owned by taxpayer, the guys at the top should get no bonuses or be low paid. Quite apart from the argument that people doing a important job well deserve to be paid a lot of money, it's in the interests of the country for RBS to do as well as possible, and that means talented people need to be running it. Talented people have a choice about where they work and if they leave RBS to get paid more elsewhere that's bad for the UK taxpayer. The billions extra that the taxpayer could get back massively outweighs a few million extra paid in bonuses.

Yes, well that's not exactly true. He's failing on a number of key metrics and has admitted his original "5 year plan" claim is utter bollocks.

Also, the entire banking system is being underwritten by the government, with quantitive easing pumping more and more money into the system. It would actually be close to impossible for any RBS Chief exec not to have made substantial improvements, given the massive government stimulus package.

RBS is now worth half what UKFI paid for it. It's still in a disgraceful position.

Let Hester walk away. RBS would be innundated with applications for a £1.2 million per year position as Chief Executive.

This post has been edited by H_B: 27 January 2012 - 22:01

[H_B]

In fact, Hester himself received a 50% (yes 50%) pay rise to move from British Land to RBS.

I don't think replacing him would be a problem

Note also that he has 400K a year paid in pension contributions, so his remuneration package, without bonus, is already massive.

And he has specific bonuses built into his contract, based on the share price reaching certain levels, which it most certainly isn't.

This post has been edited by H_B: 27 January 2012 - 22:21

[Reynard]

Suspect Device, on 27 January 2012 - 21:30, said:

It always gets slightly uneasy when you start giving more to the government to spunk away than you get yourself. it's when you decide to get yourself a decent accountant and avoid paying tax.

For people saying that the rich should pay more, they do. That's how percentages work. 20% of £40k is more than 20% of £10k.

Yeah.

Tax freedom day in the UK came on May 30th last year. Every penny generated up until that point went to fund the state. Everyone in work had to work for 149 days for the state last year. Not quite halfway, but getting there.

[Gnash]

H_B, on 27 January 2012 - 22:00, said:

Yes, well that's not exactly true. He's failing on a number of key metrics and has admitted his original "5 year plan" claim is utter bollocks.

Wrong.

H_B, on 27 January 2012 - 22:04, said:

In fact, Hester himself received a 50% (yes 50%) pay rise to move from British Land to RBS.

I don't think replacing him would be a problem

Note also that he has 400K a year paid in pension contributions, so his remuneration package, without bonus, is already massive.

And he has specific bonuses built into his contract, based on the share price reaching certain levels, which it most certainly isn't.

What's his pay differential between his last job and this one got to do with anything?

[H_B]

Gnash, on 27 January 2012 - 22:36, said:

Wrong.

Pishflaps.

For example :-

In 2011, the bank's return on equity fell from 14% to 12% and the cost-to-income ratio rose to 59% from 56%. (The 2013 targets for those two measures are 15% and less than 50%, respectively, from which RBS seems far away.)

And :- "Mr Hester has conceded that it will take longer than the promised five years for RBS to revive the bank - which is effectively breaking one of his key promises since taking control of the bank."

Quote

What's his pay differential between his last job and this one got to do with anything?

Eh, quite a lot. He increased his package massively by taking the RBS job. We certainly didn't need to incentivise him any further.

It was a promotion for him. He was very much a surprise choice for the job. And received a massive pay increase and a massive bonus package, based on the share price.

Which, lo and behold, has dropped like a stone. Also, this bonus is not 1 million pounds. It's 1 million pounds worth of shares, at their present value, which is through the floor.

I would much rather have £1 million worth of RBS shares than £1 million.

This post has been edited by H_B: 27 January 2012 - 22:58

[Supras]

monkfish, on 27 January 2012 - 18:40, said:

Why?

Why are rich people arrogant?

Why do you think?

I seen on Question TIme yesterday they were suggesting he should voluntarily give it back. Oh dear.

[H_B]

I'm not suggesting by the way that Hester is doing a bad job. It's actually an easy job though. He inherited what was a good company, with some very obvious problems, and very obvious solutions.

The majority of RBS always made profits, year on year. It is completely cushioned by the taxpayer, and answerable to the very easiest of institutional shareholders. Us.

[H_B]

Supras, on 27 January 2012 - 23:07, said:

I seen on Question TIme yesterday they were suggesting he should voluntarily give it back. Oh dear.

That was just bizarre. I assume it's the Lib Dems way of avoiding conflict.

Embarrassing.

[lanky_ffc]

Supras, on 27 January 2012 - 23:07, said:

I seen on Question TIme yesterday they were suggesting he should voluntarily give it back. Oh dear.

Was there any reference to Horta-Osorio? If so, that would be a ludicrous parallel to draw between the two.

I think I'll have to side with H_B on this one. He doesn't seem to have pulled off anything particularly difficult. The offloading of the aviation business had 4 serious bidders so a sizeable offer was never really in doubt. It will be interesting to see what happens with the Hoare Govett deal but I'd imagine a sizeable offer is likely.

He has also cut thousands of jobs. Is that really something the government (taxpayer) should be thanking him for?

[doulikefish]

If he was a pipefitter he could have earned double that

[Supras]

lanky_ffc, on 28 January 2012 - 00:35, said:

Was there any reference to Horta-Osorio? If so, that would be a ludicrous parallel to draw between the two.

I think I'll have to side with H_B on this one. He doesn't seem to have pulled off anything particularly difficult. The offloading of the aviation business had 4 serious bidders so a sizeable offer was never really in doubt. It will be interesting to see what happens with the Hoare Govett deal but I'd imagine a sizeable offer is likely.

He has also cut thousands of jobs. Is that really something the government (taxpayer) should be thanking him for?

I don't think so,

And really? I don't pretend to understand the role of the head of a major bank, or how to assess them, how do you do it?

He presumably cut thousands of jobs because he had to.

[monkfish]

Supras, on 27 January 2012 - 23:07, said:

Why are rich people arrogant?

Why do you think?

I seen on Question TIme yesterday they were suggesting he should voluntarily give it back. Oh dear.

I don't know - you said it. I think it's stupid to say that all rich people are arrogant, it's just not true. Unless you are using a very narrow definition of arrogant?

[Supras]

monkfish, on 28 January 2012 - 09:56, said:

I don't know - you said it. I think it's stupid to say that all rich people are arrogant, it's just not true. Unless you are using a very narrow definition of arrogant?

Mibbee because they are richer than everyone else?

You're entitled to your opinion, there is certainly no way I can prove this so I won't even try.

[H_B]

Supras, on 28 January 2012 - 10:07, said:

Mibbee because they are richer than everyone else?

Why would being rich make you arrogant?

Scumbags who have £1 in their pocket can become rich overnight.

[Supras]

H_B, on 28 January 2012 - 10:09, said:

Why would being rich make you arrogant?

Scumbags who have £1 in their pocket can become rich overnight.

Yeah, and I imagine they get a lot more arrogant when they do it.

Whenever or not they are actually arrogant, or however you perceive arrogance to be, they will always be viewed as such by people who aren't as rich as them. Bankers are arrogant - they think they provide an invaluable service (which they actually do).

Professional footballers are arrogant, they have been millionaires since they were 18 - how dare they be arrogant!?

People think David Cameron is arrogant, what is surprising at that? He has been incredibly successful in his life.

[lanky_ffc]

Supras, on 28 January 2012 - 09:54, said:

I don't think so,

And really? I don't pretend to understand the role of the head of a major bank, or how to assess them, how do you do it?

He presumably cut thousands of jobs because he had to.

I'm not saying anyone could do it. But I imagine there to be a fair amount of people who could. The impression the government are giving is that we had to keep them as there was nobody else who could step in.