What RBS pays its top people

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-1277814

Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) has given details of the amount that it paid its top people in 2010.
The bank announced that it paid a total of £375m to 323 people designated as "code" or key staff.
RBS, 83%-owned by the taxpayer after a government bail-out in 2008, made a £1.67bn loss in 2010, after losses of £3.6bn in 2009 and £35bn in 2008.

And Robert Peston's take on the matter here

Frankly if I wasn't a lady I'd spit..

[Osem]

I don't have a major issue with people who're successful earning good money and if these guys have done a good job in a division of RBS which has been highly profitable so be it - they're still earning far less than Wayne Rooney and all manner of footballers after all. If they're being rewarded despite their performance or are only being successful directly/indirectly because of HMG's bail out of the banks I'm far less comfortable about it all.

Like it or not, we need RBS to be profitable if the poor old taxpayer is to see a return on his/her sizeable investment. The last thing we want is to drive away any real talent from RBS to say Barclays or HSBC for example which will only mean they prosper at RBS's expense. If RBS becomes a lame duck or worse, it's the taxpayer who'll suffer.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-1277814



And Robert Peston's take on the matter here

Frankly if I wasn't a lady I'd spit..

there still rewarding failure -i don't get that -i get a bonus but by heck i have to earn every penny and its not a lot of money .

Originally Posted by Osem

I don't have a major issue with people who're successful earning good money and if these guys have done a good job in a division of RBS which has been highly profitable so be it - they're still earning far less than Wayne Rooney and all manner of footballers after all. If they're being rewarded despite their performance or are only being successful directly/indirectly because of HMG's bail out of the banks I'm far less comfortable about it all.

Like it or not, we need RBS to be profitable if the poor old taxpayer is to see a return on his/her sizeable investment. The last thing we want is to drive away any real talent from RBS to say Barclays or HSBC for example which will only mean they prosper at RBS's expense. If RBS becomes a lame duck or worse, it's the taxpayer who'll suffer.

Successful?

Well a bank that made a loss for the year of £1.67bn in 2010 (way better than the £35bn it lost in 2008 but still a loss) paid a total of £375m to 323 so-called "code" staff, or around £1.2m on average to each of them.

From Robert Peston's blog.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Successful?



From Robert Peston's blog.

RBS is a massive company with several different businesses (insurance for example) - should the failures of one adversely affect the others? As I've already made clear, if the people getting this money were directly responsible for the banking failures then I'd be very upset but you cannot blame everyone in RBS for the failures of a few. According to the figures in the article there's been a mssive turnround in the overall fortunes of the company so whilst RBS as a whole is still making a loss, the transformation from minus £35bn to minus £2bn is huge and that's hardly a failure. We should all be hoping that the trend carries on and that RBS is returned to huge profits from which the taxpayer can be repaid.

Originally Posted by Osem

RBS is a massive company with several different businesses (insurance for example) - should the failures of one adversely affect the others? As I've alreadyu made clear, if the people getting this money are directly responsible for the banking failures then I'd be very upset but you cannot blame everyone in RBS for the failures of a few.

And how would we find that one out?Seems to me if a firm or company or business makes a loss in a year then they shouldn't be paying a bonus to ANYONE that year.Instead some belt tightening should be taking place.

But then banks don't appear to be like any other business.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

And how would we find that one out?Seems to me if a firm or company or business makes a loss in a year then they shouldn't be paying a bonus to ANYONE that year.Instead some belt tightening should be taking place.

But then banks don't appear to be like any other business.

No idea how we find that out but surely we ought to ascertain the facts before being too critical.

So if ACME insurance (wholly owned by RBS having been bought out but nothing to do with their existing banking business) makes £10bn profit due entirely to their own good business sense and judgement, they should be penalised because in another RBS business somewhere somebody made a huge cock-up? If you do that then the good people at ACME insurance who made the profit just move somewhere else and RBS as a whole (us the taxpayer in large part) loses out. How's that a good idea? That'd be like you losing out because a teacher somewhere else was carp.

Belt tightening is taking place and banks aren't like any other businesses because we're totally reliant on them and that isn't going to change any time soon whether we like it or not.

Well if a bank has a fairly certain expectation that the government will bail them out if everything goes tits up then yes that bank does not have to obey the rules of economy that the rest of the universe has to apply.

That's why I'm trying not to spit.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Well if a bank has a fairly certain expectation that the government will bail them out if everything goes tits up then yes that bank does not have to obey the rules of economy that the rest of the universe has to apply.

That's why I'm trying not to spit.

That's not the fault of the banks is it. It's the fault of the government and regulators of the time - they created the environment in which the banks were operating and they're just as culpable as anyone else. The people directly responsible for what happened are the ones who ought to have been made to pay, not those who it appears have been doing a very good job sorting out the mess. Who's going to take on the job of rebuilding these institutions so we can get our money back if they're going to be severely penalised for so doing whilst Fred the Shred and his ilk have already departed with pensions, pay offs and honours intact? It's that final thought that makes me want to spit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...-bail-out.html

[gazzae]

I got a bonus last year while the company i work for made a loss. (It's not a bank)

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by gazzae

I got a bonus last year while the company i work for made a loss. (It's not a bank)

Let me guess, insider trading ?