RBS Fines

2 Feb 2013

The taxpayer owns 85% of RBS. The Government want US Libor fines to come from bonuses and back bonus payments. The RBS bonus pot this year is £250,000,000 and bonus payments are now below industry standards.
What is the right course of action?
1) fuck them and make them pay. Meanwhile top RBS talent has already moved on to more lucrative employment and this will no doubt create a bigger exodus and a tax payer owned bank becoming worth less and less on a day to day basis.
2) bank (ie taxpayers) pay the fines and get RBS salaries and bonuses back up to industry standards to attract talent and get the bank performing so that it can be sold on at a profit for the benefit of the taxpayer.

2 Feb 2013

Quote by Too Hot
The taxpayer owns 85% of RBS. The Government want US Libor fines to come from bonuses and back bonus payments. The RBS bonus pot this year is £250,000,000 and bonus payments are now below industry standards.
What is the right course of action?
1) fuck them and make them pay. Meanwhile top RBS talent has already moved on to more lucrative employment and this will no doubt create a bigger exodus and a tax payer owned bank becoming worth less and less on a day to day basis.
2) bank (ie taxpayers) pay the fines and get RBS salaries and bonuses back up to industry standards to attract talent and get the bank performing so that it can be sold on at a profit for the benefit of the taxpayer.

Is this the same talent that steered RBS to attract fines and below standard bonus payments in the first place ?

2 Feb 2013

No idea. Do you want a taxpayer owned liability or a profitable company staffed by top people.
A bit of a conundrum really.

2 Feb 2013

These so called talented high fliers have not moved on....they have been moved on !!! These are the people that gambled and lost our invested money, and could have left RBS bankrupt. You can find plenty of those sort down the bookies on a saturday, and I am sure they would come and work for a lot less.
Having said that, I am all for rewarding profit and the people that generate I do think profit sharing should also include those at the bottom as well as the top. The girls and boys at the front end, on the front desks are just as important. Lets reward good, hard work, wherever it is. Lets train and promote from within. I think you find that those that rise through the ranks, know how important every little cog in the business wheel is.

2 Feb 2013

Quote by flower411
No idea. Do you want a taxpayer owned liability or a profitable company staffed by top people.
A bit of a conundrum really.

The conundrum is whether we want to staff the bank with self serving gamblers, on the off chance that the gambles will pay off this time (history tells us they won`t)or do we want to put the bank in safe hands possibly making smaller profits but having a sound base the next time the "top talent" fucks up.
As a capitalist society it does seem strange that taxpayers bail out failed companies and then reemploy the people who took the companies to failure and not only pay them obscene amounts of money, but also refer to them as "top talent".
According to the news RBS salaries and bonuses are less than their competitors. If you had the chance to move to a different company to do the same job and get a higher salary - you would do it as long as you were good enough that the other bank actually wanted you. The end result is that the best staff move to higher rewarding jobs with competitors.
AFAIK the bonuses paid in the financial services sector percolate down through all levels. My wife works in that arena and she gets a small bonus every Feb and I understand that this is pretty normal. Hence the grand figure of 250 million being paid out by RBS will probably be the entire bonus budget for ALL staff.
Taxpayers don't bail out all failing companies. The labour government of the time took the decision to bail out certain institutions because the knock on effect of them actually failing could have sent the UK back into the Third World. In the fullness of time I don't think any Politician would suggest that it was a bad thing to do bearing in mind the alternative of doing nothing and let the UK banking system fail. That would have been catastrophic.

2 Feb 2013

Quote by Too Hot
No idea. Do you want a taxpayer owned liability or a profitable company staffed by top people.
A bit of a conundrum really.

The conundrum is whether we want to staff the bank with self serving gamblers, on the off chance that the gambles will pay off this time (history tells us they won`t)or do we want to put the bank in safe hands possibly making smaller profits but having a sound base the next time the "top talent" fucks up.
As a capitalist society it does seem strange that taxpayers bail out failed companies and then reemploy the people who took the companies to failure and not only pay them obscene amounts of money, but also refer to them as "top talent".
According to the news RBS salaries and bonuses are less than their competitors. If you had the chance to move to a different company to do the same job and get a higher salary - you would do it as long as you were good enough that the other bank actually wanted you. The end result is that the best staff move to higher rewarding jobs with competitors.
AFAIK the bonuses paid in the financial services sector percolate down through all levels. My wife works in that arena and she gets a small bonus every Feb and I understand that this is pretty normal. Hence the grand figure of 250 million being paid out by RBS will probably be the entire bonus budget for ALL staff.
Taxpayers don't bail out all failing companies. The labour government of the time took the decision to bail out certain institutions because the knock on effect of them actually failing could have sent the UK back into the Third World. In the fullness of time I don't think any Politician would suggest that it was a bad thing to do bearing in mind the alternative of doing nothing and let the UK banking system fail. That would have been catastrophic.
i think what flower is getting at history shows it doesn`t matter if your successful or not you still get rewarded in the banking industry
i for one would prefer it in safer hands with slowly growing profit than in high risk hands of some over payed toff with a gambling habit
the alternative is not letting the UK banking industry die its preventing another disaster,like the one that caused the banking melt down high risk investment for quick profit........no thanks lets return it to a medium healthy profit with a steady experienced CO and team
as with all banking in the UK it should now be heavily regulated to make sure such risks with others money should never happen again
just wondering how many shares you have in RBS

2 Feb 2013

The idea that the ordinary banking arm be separated from the more risky business is a good one provided that the ordinary banking arm (the bit that joe public has access to) is ring fenced from the high risk gambling stuff.
But, on the other hand, joe public might have to accept that banks may start charging for their everyday ordinary banking services - including the simple 'ownership' of an account with monthly/annual charges.

2 Feb 2013

Quote by Lizaleanrob
No idea. Do you want a taxpayer owned liability or a profitable company staffed by top people.
A bit of a conundrum really.

The conundrum is whether we want to staff the bank with self serving gamblers, on the off chance that the gambles will pay off this time (history tells us they won`t)or do we want to put the bank in safe hands possibly making smaller profits but having a sound base the next time the "top talent" fucks up.
As a capitalist society it does seem strange that taxpayers bail out failed companies and then reemploy the people who took the companies to failure and not only pay them obscene amounts of money, but also refer to them as "top talent".
According to the news RBS salaries and bonuses are less than their competitors. If you had the chance to move to a different company to do the same job and get a higher salary - you would do it as long as you were good enough that the other bank actually wanted you. The end result is that the best staff move to higher rewarding jobs with competitors.
AFAIK the bonuses paid in the financial services sector percolate down through all levels. My wife works in that arena and she gets a small bonus every Feb and I understand that this is pretty normal. Hence the grand figure of 250 million being paid out by RBlS will probably be the entire bonus budget for ALL staff.
Taxpayers don't bail out all failing companies. The labour government of the time took the decision to bail out certain institutions because the knock on effect of them actually failing could have sent the UK back into the Third World. In the fullness of time I don't think any Politician would suggest that it was a bad thing to do bearing in mind the alternative of doing nothing and let the UK banking system fail. That would have been catastrophic.
i think what flower is getting at history shows it doesn`t matter if your successful or not you still get rewarded in the banking industry
i for one would prefer it in safer hands with slowly growing profit than in high risk hands of some over payed toff with a gambling habit
the alternative is not letting the UK banking industry die its preventing another disaster,like the one that caused the banking melt down high risk investment for quick profit........no thanks lets return it to a medium healthy profit with a steady experienced CO and team
as with all banking in the UK it should now be heavily regulated to make sure such risks with others money should never happen again
just wondering how many shares you have in RBS
None. Just viewing this government meddling in a taxpayer owned business as proof that Nationised businesses are doomed from the outset. RBS will end up with public sector salaried staff and it will be a lead weight round our necks for years and years until one day someone buys it and is released from the moral obligation of paying low salaries and low bonuses. Then it will become competitive again.
The Governments (our) ownership of RBS is completely irrelevant in the overall concept of reforming the banking sector. Separating retail and investment banking is a good thing but people in Britain will have to start getting used to quite hefty charges just for having a current account. How else can retail banking operate as a business?

2 Feb 2013

I thought Virgin Money were going to buy it dunno

2 Feb 2013

Quote by GnV
I thought Virgin Money were going to buy it

They bought the remnants of Northern Rock

2 Feb 2013

Quote by Too Hot
None. Just viewing this government meddling in a taxpayer owned business as proof that Nationalised businesses are doomed from the outset. RBS will end up with public sector salaried staff and it will be a lead weight round our necks for years and years until one day someone buys it and is released from the moral obligation of paying low salaries and low bonuses. Then it will become competitive again.
The Governments (our) ownership of RBS is completely irrelevant in the overall concept of reforming the banking sector. Separating retail and investment banking is a good thing but people in Britain will have to start getting used to quite hefty charges just for having a current account. How else can retail banking operate as a business?

and the alternative to higher bank charges is bailing out the banks and i believe that has cost us a whole lot more rolleyes

there is a considerable amount of safe investments out there with considerable less risk, and I'm sure those banks that wasn't making silly investments where sure laughing when the whole thing went belly up
given a hefty amount of European banks are trading insolvent at the moment gives your argument very little clout for paying large amounts in bonus

2 Feb 2013

Quote by Too Hot
What is the right course of action?

Hmmm, red or black? red or black? red or black? I'll gamble with red.

3 Feb 2013

Quote by flower411
No matter what anybody says, we have no idea what would have happened if the banks had been allowed to fail.
Communications and technology are so far advanced from the last time the financial dinosaurs were allowed to plunge the whole of society into recession that we have no idea what inovations would have emerged.
Bailing out the failed banks and then insisting that the best people to run them were the people who destroyed them in the first place and that they should run them using the same outdated and proven to fail systems as before is beyond belief.

Whatever the financial solvency, or otherwise, of people on this forum a failure of just one high street bank in England would have created a loss of confidence in the entire UK financial services sector and the country would have gone back to hoarding cash and gold, hidden in the home. There are millions of people with cash on deposit and those deposits would have been universally withdrawn with some alacrity resulting in the failure of other banks and knock on collapses ad failures in the city of London. Linked insurance companies would have failed leaving people, homes and possessions uninsured and the country would have fallen into anarchy. That is not an exaggeration - just think through the consequences and how everything we take for granted is linked to our banks.
Banks failed because of international deregulation and a need to answer to shareholders in banks who were in competition with each other. To be far the speculation that was going on had been going on for years and we saw it with Barings some years earlier but no meaningful international action was implemented because seemingly, the need for profit and dividends was more important than the survival of any one individual bank.
To say that Banks are being run now in the same way as before is naive. They are not. Banking reform is on-going and the intention is the separate investment and retail banking and to increase margins between cash on deposit and lending ability.
Regrettably, both of these measures will make Banking more expensive and as a consequence make Banks even more hated by the great unwashed - even though this is the way to achieve what the great unwashed actually want - a safe, secure and stable banking system.

3 Feb 2013

While I agree with your prediction TH I must also agree with flowers fact. We can predict what may have happened, but we do not know for sure.
I'm not really into hanging bankers for being evil. They were doing a job and it was a job that we all benefited from when things went right. However, luck as a concept always fails at some time. The risk management appears to have been too slack.
I'll be the first to admit I am no financial wizkid, but even I know that mortgages over a 100 year term are a risky business, because not many people make it to 118.

3 Feb 2013

Quote by Too Hot
The taxpayer owns 85% of RBS. The Government want US Libor fines to come from bonuses and back bonus payments. The RBS bonus pot this year is £250,000,000 and bonus payments are now below industry standards.
What is the right course of action?
1) fuck them and make them pay. Meanwhile top RBS talent has already moved on to more lucrative employment and this will no doubt create a bigger exodus and a tax payer owned bank becoming worth less and less on a day to day basis.
2) bank (ie taxpayers) pay the fines and get RBS salaries and bonuses back up to industry standards to attract talent and get the bank performing so that it can be sold on at a profit for the benefit of the taxpayer.

If all the banks in the world had been allowed to fail and those who headed those banks been held to account, then the world would now be in recovery. As it stands we are still in the sh** and will be until failure is seen as just that. We have so much un-corrupt talent, why not give them a chance to shine.
Some of these bankers get more in bonus in one year than most people earn in a life time. ffs people work it out!

3 Feb 2013

Quote by Too Hot
Whatever the financial solvency, or otherwise, of people on this forum a failure of just one high street bank in England would have created a loss of confidence in the entire UK financial services sector and the country would have gone back to hoarding cash and gold, hidden in the home. snip

that's laughable considering one US bank now own over 60% of the worlds gold reserves and as banks are hording cash with very little of that going back into business investment, sort of sums the result up and with so many banks currently insolvent cash and gold hidden in the house does`nt seem that bad an idea
I'm with flower on this one
in edit: i think the banks CO should be given a yearly contract renewable based on profit and loss and a profit related bonus and pay

3 Feb 2013

Quote by flower411
No matter what anybody says, we have no idea what would have happened if the banks had been allowed to fail.
Communications and technology are so far advanced from the last time the financial dinosaurs were allowed to plunge the whole of society into recession that we have no idea what inovations would have emerged.
Bailing out the failed banks and then insisting that the best people to run them were the people who destroyed them in the first place and that they should run them using the same outdated and proven to fail systems as before is beyond belief.

Whatever the financial solvency, or otherwise, of people on this forum a failure of just one high street bank in England would have created a loss of confidence in the entire UK financial services sector and the country would have gone back to hoarding cash and gold, hidden in the home. There are millions of people with cash on deposit and those deposits would have been universally withdrawn with some alacrity resulting in the failure of other banks and knock on collapses ad failures in the city of London. Linked insurance companies would have failed leaving people, homes and possessions uninsured and the country would have fallen into anarchy. That is not an exaggeration - just think through the consequences and how everything we take for granted is linked to our banks.
Banks failed because of international deregulation and a need to answer to shareholders in banks who were in competition with each other. To be far the speculation that was going on had been going on for years and we saw it with Barings some years earlier but no meaningful international action was implemented because seemingly, the need for profit and dividends was more important than the survival of any one individual bank.
To say that Banks are being run now in the same way as before is naive. They are not. Banking reform is on-going and the intention is the separate investment and retail banking and to increase margins between cash on deposit and lending ability.
Regrettably, both of these measures will make Banking more expensive and as a consequence make Banks even more hated by the great unwashed - even though this is the way to achieve what the great unwashed actually want - a safe, secure and stable banking system.
The banks are being run by the same people for the same reasons, to make profit for the banks and their shareholders. Moving the goalposts slightly isn`t going to change the nature of the game.
Once upon a time banks were a profit making service but they have become a money manufacturing machine that reluctantly deals with customers while handing over vast sums to employees and shareholders.
The biggest con perpetrated in the last century is that these institutions are to big to fail and that the only possible way to recover is to keep paying the people, who failed the first time, vast sums of money to come up with new ways to make vast sums of money for themselves.
Whatever, so called, safeguards or regulations are put in place, there will be another catastrophic financial crash within the next thirty years, hopefully next time society will have grown up enough to realise that we don`t need these outdated institutions.
My wife comes from a country where in her lifetime she experienced two financial crisis. Unlike the crisis we had here - these were of the type that you suggest should be allowed to happen - ie banks went bust.
1) She sold her flat and within a week the money she had could not buy a bag of sugar.
2) During her adult life in that country she and everyone she knew hoarded $USD notes and had them hidden at home.
There are millions of people in this country who have cash on deposit and pension annuities also utilise cash on deposit.
If those institutions were to fail - what do you think would happen to society? The UK economy would be reversed by 100 years.
We are drifting the thread somewhat to banking generally.
I was asking specifically about one bank - RBS.
Barclays and RBS are High Street competitors. Barclays is privately owned and RBS is taxpayer owned. I am specifically asking if it is "good" for the taxpayer that the government is squeezing away perceived employee benefits for RBS whilst the rest of the banking world moves on?
As taxpayers do we not really want RBS to be successful and profitable so that the RBS shares currently owned by the taxpayer can be sold on for a profit? The alternative is that because RBS is taxpayer owned, the RBS brand is treated as a whipping boy for all the ills of banking. It will slowly bexcome less and less attractive as a brand and will simply become a burden to the Govt until one day it is simply disposed of at a great loss. "Our" loss will then become an opportunity for whoever buys the whipped RBS and we will have been shafted by simply wanting to punish RBS whilst in fact shooting ourselves in the foot in doing so.
There is absolutely no ulterior motive here just wondering if our obsession with bank bashing needs to come to an end so that "our" investment in RBS is not compromised by the law of unintended consequences.
The comment about some "bankers bonuses" being more than most people earn as a salary is completely irrelevant. All jobs in all industries have employee benefit packages unique and appropriate to that industry.

3 Feb 2013

The comment about some "bankers bonuses" being more than most people earn as a salary is completely irrelevant. All jobs in all industries have employee benefit packages unique and appropriate to that industry.
That maybe the case to you, but paying for failure is the problem that needs to be dealt with.

3 Feb 2013

I think naive is the belief somehow the public will benefit in some way from returning the bank to profit and selling it on
as a taxpayer i will see absolutely no financial benefit what so ever
any monies will go back into the massive black hole the banks created in the first place

3 Feb 2013

Quote by flower411
OK ....I`ve been thinking some more about this one and seein as I`ve already been called naive......
Why can`t banking go back to basics?
Didn`t banks used to take money from people with money and lend it to people with assets ? The people who borrowed the money paid it back over a period of time with interest and the bank paid interest to the people who had deposited their money.
More interest was charged to the borrower than was paid to the depositer and the bank manager dealt with the difference, paying himself and his staff and any other overheads.
If the borrower defaulted, the bank manager took the assets and sold them to recoup the debt.

I know that you know that the banking crisis is not unique to the UK. It is not a worldwide banking problem but it does encompass the USA and Europe and the real issue is that of scale.
Banking moved on from a bank manager in a branch making all the decisions for a number of reasons. One man making all the decisions in a branch is limiting in scope and would be inconsistent from branch to branch. Whether we like it or not, modern society has changed - people and businesses take long term and short term loans for all sorts of reasons and the concept of going into town to sit down with the bank manager is just a thing of the past.
The idea of cash to loan ratio is at the heart of banking reform and this is the reason why, at the moment, interest rates are so low but borrowing levels are also so low. Banks and lending institutions are being required to increase their own cash deposits to reduce the leverage effects of extensive lending whilst holding so little on deposit. All the European and US institutions are trying to increase cash on deposit at the moment.

3 Feb 2013

Quote by Paul80
The comment about some "bankers bonuses" being more than most people earn as a salary is completely irrelevant. All jobs in all industries have employee benefit packages unique and appropriate to that industry.

That maybe the case to you, but paying for failure is the problem that needs to be dealt with.
I don't disagree with that at all. You should live and die through the decisions that you make. If a bank is being turned back into profit - why should the people doing that not receive bonuses commensurate with what industry competitors offer?
The banking crash was 6 years ago - we need to get over that now and move on. We live in the here and now, not six years ago (or up to 12 years if you include the build up). Banks generally need to be profitable because the UK financial services industry is a big earner for the treasury.
We seem to have a habit in this country of looking back in anger instead of looking forward with optimism.

3 Feb 2013

Quote by Too Hot
We are drifting the thread somewhat to banking generally.
I was asking specifically about one bank - RBS.
Barclays and RBS are High Street competitors. Barclays is privately owned and RBS is taxpayer owned. I am specifically asking if it is "good" for the taxpayer that the government is squeezing away perceived employee benefits for RBS whilst the rest of the banking world moves on?
As taxpayers do we not really want RBS to be successful and profitable so that the RBS shares currently owned by the taxpayer can be sold on for a profit? The alternative is that because RBS is taxpayer owned, the RBS brand is treated as a whipping boy for all the ills of banking. It will slowly bexcome less and less attractive as a brand and will simply become a burden to the Govt until one day it is simply disposed of at a great loss. "Our" loss will then become an opportunity for whoever buys the whipped RBS and we will have been shafted by simply wanting to punish RBS whilst in fact shooting ourselves in the foot in doing so.

As I see it the government will sell the RBS as soon as it is practicable and profit making. It is already a millstone around the governments neck, and a drain on government resources. The sooner it is disposed of the better. Perhaps we could palm it off onto the Scottish Parliament to fund?

3 Feb 2013

Quote by Lizaleanrob
I think naive is the belief somehow the public will benefit in some way from returning the bank to profit and selling it on
as a taxpayer i will see absolutely no financial benefit what so ever
any monies will go back into the massive black hole the banks created in the first place

Of course individual taxpayers won't benefit
But considering the debates that go on about how taxpayer money is wasted on so called scroungers, or on defence, or tax not collected from tax dodgers - clearly there is an interest in how tax is spent/wasted/invested.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect that custodians of tax revenue act judisiously and do not waste what they control. Control of RBS and the massive taxpayer investment is just one example.
If everyone would be happy to just write off our investment into RBS and let a private entity pick up the shares for next to nothing and then profit from "our" loss - so be it. But I can absolutely be confident that if RBS was sold off cheap because of Govt interference and consequential mismanagement and someone else made a quick killing - there would be uproar.

3 Feb 2013

Quote by Too Hot
I think naive is the belief somehow the public will benefit in some way from returning the bank to profit and selling it on
as a taxpayer i will see absolutely no financial benefit what so ever
any monies will go back into the massive black hole the banks created in the first place

Of course individual taxpayers won't benefit
But considering the debates that go on about how taxpayer money is wasted on so called scroungers, or on defence, or tax not collected from tax dodgers - clearly there is an interest in how tax is spent/wasted/invested.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect that custodians of tax revenue act judisiously and do not waste what they control. Control of RBS and the massive taxpayer investment is just one example.
If everyone would be happy to just write off our investment into RBS and let a private entity pick up the shares for next to nothing and then profit from "our" loss - so be it. But I can absolutely be confident that if RBS was sold off cheap because of Govt interference and consequential mismanagement and someone else made a quick killing - there would be uproar.
and you make that statement as a self proclaimed businessman??
that's how the business world works
as for throwing money at the people in charge win or lose is not a recipe for success and never has been, the best person for the job is not always the man that's paid the most money, sometimes it better to get someone with ambition and determination

3 Feb 2013

To hot......what I think most of us want is responsible banking. We know sometimes you have to speculate to accumulate but honestly would you put the value of your house on a red and black roulette spin !! No, what banks must do, is rationalise the risk. Banks can and do work in responsible manner, and without charging its customers. I am with the CO-OP bank. They offer me all facilities of any of the high street banks, and they promise their investment they make with my money, is ethical and responsible. They regularly send me details of the countries they are investing in, and ones they refuse to !! Perhaps they don't make the massive profits some of the others do, but equally they are not open to the massive losses either. It certainly didn't go un-noticed by me that the CO-OP bank was not one that was bailed out or one that asked for assistance, in the recent crash.

3 Feb 2013

Quote by Too Hot

The comment about some "bankers bonuses" being more than most people earn as a salary is completely irrelevant. All jobs in all industries have employee benefit packages unique and appropriate to that industry.
That maybe the case to you, but paying for failure is the problem that needs to be dealt with.
I don't disagree with that at all. You should live and die through the decisions that you make. If a bank is being turned back into profit - why should the people doing that not receive bonuses commensurate with what industry competitors offer?
The banking crash was 6 years ago - we need to get over that now and move on. We live in the here and now, not six years ago (or up to 12 years if you include the build up). Banks generally need to be profitable because the UK financial services industry is a big earner for the treasury.
We seem to have a habit in this country of looking back in anger instead of looking forward with optimism.
Yes Too Hot it was over 6 years ago, try telling the government that, and lets stop all this austerity, think you are forgetting we are still paying for all the fuck ups made by the government and banks.
" we live in the here and now" believe it or not 'reverse' has a real meaning to it and happens. The east germans would agree. When the euro fails or some country pulls out they will go back to their own currency, So Too Hot I'm just going to say I don't agree with you.

3 Feb 2013

When most in the UK talk about UK Banks they don't really differentiate between the name on the High Street (provided they still have an outlet there, as loathe to call many of them branches given they have very little autonomy or no local managers) and the investment banking side of these multi-billion companies.
For many years the core business was the so called Retail Banking side, servicing personal and business customers, which overall is reasonably profitable for them, however the de-regulation started in the 80's led to the rise within the Investment Banking side, with the focus paid on the high profit and associated high bonus parts of this side of the Bank's business since them.
The 'banking crash' came about basically due to failings associated with the Investment Banking side of things, which in the main was the downfall of RBS leading to it's 'nationalisation', however whilst the sums involved may be vast that is not to say that their influence in creating 'financial products' (sic ) to be sold by the Retail Bank can't be underplayed and we are all seeing vast amounts becoming liable to pay out due to Payment Protection mis-selling and also Interest Rate Swap issues as well. As for LIBOR, whilst it's the London 'rate (s)' and many would expect it to have stayed within the traditional Retail Banking side of the business that's far from it and it's almost exclusively the Investment Banking side that operated this given it's links to so many other 'products' and 'deals'.
As for bonuses, a chalk and cheese policy existed and still does with Retail staff generally possibly getting bonuses within the couple of hundred £ (if lucky) whereas many within the Investment side had high figure bonuses as part of their contract and package. With the culture associated with that, the 90's and 00's saw the rise of the casino banking culture, with the opening credits/cartoon of Have I Got News For You summing it up very suctinctly.
So what to do about the 'Bank's and also what to do about the 'nationalised Banks' ?
For the former much tighter regulation and accountability is the theme, though partially openly reisted by them whilst more privately staunchly resisted and lobbied against. We shall see whether HMG will actually do anything meaningful about this, particularly as they seem opposed to many of the ideas that other nations are considering.
Regarding the latter, here's the rub. Yes they are being seen to be paying back the money 'loaned' to them as part of the bail-out and yes Northern Rock was 'off-loaded' to Virgin at a discounted rate......however look in the background and you'll see that a lot of the bad debt and associated costs/liabilities that were associated with the 'bail-out' have been transferred off their balance sheets and are now 'owned' by the Taxpayers.
The call is to get RBS, Lloyds, etc. off the public books and repay their direct loans. So yes they are profitable and if some people are doing a very good job then they might expect a bonus of some kind for doing that.
However at the end of the day, when do we 'let them go' as a business and what arrangements should be put inplace so that they continue to 'pay back' the Taxpayer on the 'toxic' side taken off their balance sheets, but added to our's as a country ?
Personally given the number of Banking industry secondees to various Government Depts etc. I've no real confidence that we'll ever see the true amount paid back either under the current coalition or whichever individual part (or 'arrangement') exists after the next General Election.

3 Feb 2013

Quote by flower411
Next question then
If it is a bad thing for individuals to hoard gold why does America own 60% of the worlds gold.
We can only assume that Gordon sold our gold to the Americans at a knock down price because he was of the opinion that it was worthless, but why did the Americans buy it and why are they hoarding it?

the gold never moves its just used as securities brown actually sold ours to prop up the UK after the bail outs and its probably owned by someone like Goldman Sachs or even china
the price of gold was always going to rocket as its becoming increasingly rare to find iirc there is only 165,000 tons world wide as far a bullion is concerned

5 Feb 2013

fortunately for bankers there is absolutely no understanding of banking, credit creation or downright fraud whatsoever in these preceding threads, as if there were, there would be a revolution by morning.

6 Feb 2013

I'v never trusted Banks..... I keep my at home where it's safe!