Calis Beach and Fethiye Turkey Discussion Forum
General Topics => All things that have nothing to do with Turkey => Topic started by: pookie on January 31, 2012, 09:02:41 AM
-
have handed back a £1m bonus that you were contractually entitled to ?
-
Certainly not !!!!!. As I said elsewhere....
Contributor (fireman whose wife is a banker) on Radio Five Live debate on the subject of bonuses:
If you work in a butcher you take home some sausages,
If you work in a bakery you take home some cakes and
If you work in a bank you take home some money.:D
-
I think he should have kept it but for the sake of his career and reputation (unfairly) he really ended up with little choice. As a life long Labour supporter I must say Miliband is making me want to throw up - how does this show the Prime Minister hasn't got a grip on the bonus culture in the banking system? If I was Miliband I'd be keeping my head down and gob shut on this one.
In these difficult times I thought members should know I am not taking my usual £1.2m bonus for running CBF this year.
-
This guy was not responsible for the mess the Bank got into. He was brought in to save the Bank and was given his terms, conditions and wage package with expected bonuses when he accepted the job.
He has done really well and the Bank is making good strides up the ladder again. So he worked hard and is fulfilling his remit, which is helping the people who own 80% of the Bank (us) However, because everyone is cross that this Bank did so badly and we had to bale it out, he was decried for getting a bonus. These sort of bonuses are very common in the Banking world he moves around in. So, he really did nothing wrong initially in accepting a bonus for the work he had done.
I see why he did not accept it and in the current economic climate I think he was right to turn it down. However, he is not the demon that some of the press make him out to be.
I agree with Scunner about Miliband he will jump on any bandwagon now to try to get brownie points and be popular with the British public.
-
It's admirable of him but what a position to be in. Think I'd have taken it if I am honest!
:D
-
I think I would have taken it too.....it was an agreement written to motivate me to work hard and turn the bank around, which I did. And as for my reputation......with my salary and my bonus, I won't need to work again, so do I really care.....?!
-
Problem is now that if he leaves(which he probably will) then they will have a momentous task trying to find a qualified person to take the role. Why would anyone (of that qualidfied caliber) take a job that gives you certain job related bonuses that you end up not being able to take due to political pressure He did his job and if he was legally contracted to receive it, then he should have kept it.The old addage is if you do a good job your reap the benefits!
The person/ party making me MAD is Milleband/Labour, as they were the government that set up the formula that gave him his bonus and now listen to him/them baying for his blood and critising Cameron.....how short are peoples memories.
-
I can't wait for the thread on tube drivers and the Olympics to compare the levels of sympathy.
-
He should have taken it and then donated it to Cancer Research, his local hospital or some other good cause. Same result (he doesn't get it) but at least there would have been some 'real' benefit from it rather than it just going back in the coffers of the bank (all be it our bank.
-
quote:
Originally posted by thebillet
I can't wait for the thread on tube drivers and the Olympics to compare the levels of sympathy.
I don't know what the tube drivers story might be but for some reason or other I can't think of a group of workers I could find less sympathy for, whatever it is.
-
I could fully understand if he had "done his job" but if making 34.000 plus employees redundent since taking the helm with another 3,500 due to go anytime now from the west country area[?] also closing the only part of the bank that is making a profit (trading dept) share price down from around 54p to 26p ish is "doing his job" then lets all have a go, I would love to see the contract that gets you nearly a million pounds worth of shares as a bonus for that performance:-\ :o
-
What has happened in the UK over the last 30 years, under all governments, is that the gap between rich and poor has widened. It is now greater than that experienced in the rest of Europe and greater than in Victorian Britain. This is signally clear at the highest levels where astonishingly large payments to bankers, footballers, entertainment stars, and even "celebrities" (people who are well-known for nothing else than being well-known)run into many millions.
All of this means that denying one banker his "normal" bonus is seen by some as unfair to him, whereas others say "Why should he be given a million when RSB share values have halved?". I am not particulary worried about what Mr Hester is, or is not, paid. I am more concerned about how, over 30 years, we have sleep-walked our way into a world in which such gross inequalities - bigger than in Britain's past and bigger than in the rest of EU Europe - is treated as "normal". We follow the USA in this and it was exactly this aspect of Anglo-American capitalism that catapulted us into the financial meltdown in the first place.
-
...... everyone seems to have gone very political, which I guess is inevitable, but my original question was, what would you have done ? I'd be looking for a new boat to anchor in Fethiye marina by now.....:D:D
-
I think Steve J's solution was bang on. Almost a win win scenario. Good for the charity concerned and no harm to the possibility of a knighthood !
-
But how would it help 'our' bank?
-
quote:
Originally posted by pookie
...... everyone seems to have gone very political, which I guess is inevitable, but my original question was, what would you have done ? I'd be looking for a new boat to anchor in Fethiye marina by now.....:D:D
Breaking news that Sir Fred Goodwin is to be stripped of his knighthood. So which would you choose - a million quid or the Queen investing you with an honour .... eh, Dame Pookie?
-
Cheaper than today's share loss !
-
Following on from pookie's question, should all employees of the RBS who are entitled to a bonus refuse to take it and should Miliband be demanding that they do.
-
I'm sure Fred couldn't care less about losing his knighthood - it won't make him any more or less infamous or ridiculed, and he still has the massive financial rewards of failure to make it all feel a bit better.
-
I disagree with you there Keith. Public humiliation is a bitter pill to swallow.
I agree with Colwyn's post that the disparity between rich and poor should never have been allowed to happen.
As to the original question, the man is sufficiently well off to make this gesture and,if I were as well off, I would have chosen to accept and then given the money to charity.
-
But taking a million pounds of the bank's money and giving it away is not going to help with turning round RBS is it - the job he is there to do. As for public humiliation, I think he's created enough of that with his track record and 'achievements' with RBS - can he be any more publicly humiliated through this? I think it's like attacking a drowning man with a watering can.
-
IMHO - saving RBS £1m by not taking the bonus is not going to make the bank's recovery happen 1 second sooner. But giving £1m to a local hospice, a children's home, Help the Heroes, etc. could make a lot difference to a whole lot of people. I realise that he's not allowed to sell the shares for several years (5 I think) but he could make the donation now and then take his £1m back when he's saved the bank and the share prices have recovered. If he doesn't save the bank then his shares are next to worthless and he will have lost his £1m - at least that's some incentive to perform well. Do the same next year and the guy becomes a hero.
-
Ah, I understand now - giving the £1m to charity is not going to make any difference whatsoever to the recovery (or not) of RBS. So why are we talking about this irrelevant little sum of money at all then?
-
Personally I think I'd have taken the money, as that is what is in his contract, and given it to charity. However, as BM06 and Colwyn are quite rightly pointing out the issue over executive remuneration - not just the bank executives either - has got out of hand in the UK. A bonus should be paid for a extra ordinary performance, and not as has become the norm where executives are being paid fantastic basic salary packages with benefits, but also ridiculous bonuses for what has been at best an acceptable personal and/or company performance, and in many cases a below acceptable performance. All to do with the cash driven non-exec. director merry-go round, particularly for those members of a company's remuneration committee. This and the fact that most shareholdings are held by indirect entities, such as pension funds, who rarely become actively involved in how a company is run, particularly where it impacts on those on the top, who regularly wine and dine them!!:-\
-
Remember, we are all in this together ! : :)
-
Which is related to my question "should all employees of the RBS who are entitled to a bonus refuse to take it and should Miliband be demanding that they do".
-
quote:
Originally posted by Colwyn
quote:
Originally posted by pookie
...... everyone seems to have gone very political, which I guess is inevitable, but my original question was, what would you have done ? I'd be looking for a new boat to anchor in Fethiye marina by now.....:D:D
Breaking news that Sir Fred Goodwin is to be stripped of his knighthood. So which would you choose - a million quid or the Queen investing you with an honour .... eh, Dame Pookie?
In answer to your question, a million quid. I would have the greatest pleasure dividing this between a couple of charities that are very close to my heart (plus a new pair of shoes for me !)....as for the honour, no thanks, never been into that sort of stuff anyway. If I was ever to be offered one (highly unlikely !) I would have refused it !!
-
Arise Sir Pookie :D:D.... nah yer absolutely right, I'd also turn it down in the very very unlikely event that I'm offered something. All so medieval and should have no place in a modern society, and anyway it's only really there to re-enforce the divisive British class system. Now I must get off, as I'm off for a measurement of the old ermine edged coat ...Lord Tickets of Stockwell Garage ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by usedbustickets
Arise Sir Pookie :D[:D
ouch ! Lady Pookie if you don't mind !
-
Whether it is right or wrong, he was contractually obligated to it, it would have been part of the reason he took on such a public visible role. He would have had it in shares if I am correct which would have hopefully gone some way to him improving the companies fortunes and in turn his shares. Sure, he could have sold them and paid the (50%?) tax on them but he wouldnt have done that as the markets/media would have been aware and what would that have said about his faith in the companies prospects if he was selling his shares.
I do think we are in danger of creating a self fulfilling prophecy.
-
quote:
Originally posted by pookie
quote:
Originally posted by usedbustickets
Arise Sir Pookie :D[:D
ouch ! Lady Pookie if you don't mind !
Ohhps apologies .. stand clear of my own self inflicted car crash :-\ :-\
-
A Radio 5 listener has suggested thst Fred Goodwin should be stripped of his name. He should be known as Badloss instead.
-
At the start of this thread I noted that we lived in a country where the extremes between rich and poor had increased over the last 30 years with almost no-one noticing how much our economy had changed. So I was sursprised to find support for this proposition from an unlikely source. Josef Ackerman, Chief Executive of Deutsche Bank (one of Germany's largest) and head of the the Institute of International Finance" (an organization representing world banks)
"We have a social responsibility, because if this inequality increases in income distribution or wealth distribution we may have a social time bomb ticking and no-one wants to have that."
He says - along with some CBFers, but not me - that the bankers have a social responsibility to be philanthropic with their bonuses.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16857265
I hardly think this justifies the Guardian headline "Global Business Elite Go Marxist at Davos!" but the view of growing income inequality as a problem was echoed there.
"Strange as it may seem, debates on the dangers of rising income inequality are now de rigueur at the annual gathering of the global business elite at this snowbound Swiss mountain resort[Davos] ... The message: inequality is no longer just a social or ethical issue but an economic blight that will stymie recovery. 'The superrich spend little of their incremental income, so we have a problem of aggregate demand, and that hurts the economy,' Roubini explained at a debate evocatively titled "The Seeds of Dystopia." More than half the 1,200 investors, analysts and traders consulted in a Bloomberg poll published on the eve of the summit agreed that inequality damages economic growth. "Marx was right; capitalism creates obstacles to its own advancement," said Roubini."
Quite.