Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: omega3000 on 27 January 2012, 16:15:39
-
Dont forget thats on top of his £1.2 m "basic salary" >:( >:( >:(
http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/uk-politics-16752358
"We need to pay him that bonus because we can't afford for him to leave
:-\
-
Isn't a salary what you get paid for doing your job? >:(
(see the Olympics post)
-
RBS have laid off thousands of people and the share price is a mere shadow of it's former self. Only in the world of greedy banking is reward for incompetence and failure the norm.
........and let's not forget that RBS is 81% taxpayer owned
It beggars belief that this payout was allowed. :( :( :( :( :(
-
It's basically the government saying a big f**k you to the ordinary man in the street, whilst giving the likes of Hester a pat on the back..... >:( >:( >:(
-
It's basically the government saying a big f**k you to the ordinary man in the street, whilst giving the likes of Hester a pat on the back..... >:( >:( >:(
In a nutshell .....yep
-
Isn't a salary what you get paid for doing your job? >:(
(see the Olympics post)
A salary is what you get paid for doing your job well.
A bonus is what you get paid for making an exceptional contribution, above and beyond the call of duty.
A P45 is what you get for just turning up and incrementing the number of bums on seats.
Now, which of the above should he have received? ::)
-
Isn't a salary what you get paid for doing your job? >:(
(see the Olympics post)
A salary is what you get paid for doing your job well.
A bonus is what you get paid for making an exceptional contribution, above and beyond the call of duty.
A P45 is what you get for just turning up and incrementing the number of bums on seats.
Now, which of the above should he have received? ::)
Theres a bonus then theres a pizz take >:( seen it all heard it all ...rich get richer poor get poorer ...one reason the whole uk is going bust cos of fat cat bankers and it still continues with the bonuses they get , they have a lot to answer for esp the bank in question . Rant over :y
-
Playing deivils advocate here.The bonus is in share options which he cant excircise for a couple of years.They might just be wrthless by then,unless he does a good enough job to make them worth having.The bonus is approx. half the amount he was paid (in share options) he had last year.Iirc he didnt have any bonus at all the year before.
He left a much higher paid job to take on the challenge of trying to rebuild RBS from the chaos which Fred Goodwin and his team left behind.
Goodwin was paid many millions more while he was wrecking RBS,and got a knighthood from Labour for his trouble.
The contract/terms and conditions of Hestons contract were drawn up by Labour before they left office.One of the terms was that the directors could at their discretion pay him a bonus,the amount of which would be at their discretion.
It was reported on radio 4 this morning that the board had planned on paying him £1.5 million but the Govt. argued very strongly against that and eventually they settled on the current figure. The govt. argued for less or none at all,but at that point the board threatened to resign en masse.This would almost certainly have brought about the collapse of RBS and the tapxpayers would have lost all their money.
There seems to be general agreement that he is doing a pretty decent job in the worst possible circumstances,and for someone in his position he is being paid a modest amount in comparison with his contemporaries.
-
Playing deivils advocate here.The bonus is in share options which he cant excircise for a couple of years.They might just be wrthless by then,unless he does a good enough job to make them worth having.The bonus is approx. half the amount he was paid (in share options) he had last year.Iirc he didnt have any bonus at all the year before.
He left a much higher paid job to take on the challenge of trying to rebuild RBS from the chaos which Fred Goodwin and his team left behind.
Goodwin was paid many millions more while he was wrecking RBS,and got a knighthood from Labour for his trouble.
The contract/terms and conditions of Hestons contract were drawn up by Labour before they left office.One of the terms was that the directors could at their discretion pay him a bonus,the amount of which would be at their discretion.
It was reported on radio 4 this morning that the board had planned on paying him £1.5 million but the Govt. argued very strongly against that and eventually they settled on the current figure. The govt. argued for less or none at all,but at that point the board threatened to resign en masse.This would almost certainly have brought about the collapse of RBS and the tapxpayers would have lost all their money.
There seems to be general agreement that he is doing a pretty decent job in the worst possible circumstances,and for someone in his position he is being paid a modest amount in comparison with his contemporaries.
I disagree with you Albs. But Then I always do... ;)
-
Almost all of what I posted was simply stating facts,no opinions involved. ;)
-
Just seen the debate on the news , glad im not a shareholder :o And never banked with them .
a modest amount
:-X
-
A modest amount in comparison with his contemparies. A bit pointless quoting three words from a sentence or paragraph. ;)
I was a shareholder.Bought at around 30p and sold at around 55p. ;) :)
-
A modest amount in comparison with his contemparies. A bit pointless quoting three words from a sentence or paragraph. ;)
I was a shareholder.Bought at around 30p and sold at around 55p. ;) :)
Fred goodwin , yes set up nicely now ... ::)
Hester , he gets paid a salary and considering the circumstances of the country should set an example and put the tax payers money back into the bank ....
Nuff said im out of here to count my coppers in me bottle ::) :y
-
Gotta agree with Albs. Also let's also not forget that just like Hester probably doesn't know jack sh1t about kitchen fitting, plumbing, repairing Omegas etc etc, a very large number of people reading know jack sh1t about what Hester does for a living. And that extends to the media too in many cases.
It just is a pity that everybody is so so quick to judge.
-
Fred Goodwin was his predecessor not a contempary. In 2007 (while he was in the process of wrecking RBS) Goodwin was paid £ 4.2 million, including a bonus of £2.86 million. So Heston is earning a hell of a lot less to try to sort out the utter carnage caused by Gordon Browns favourite banker. ::)
Personally I wouldnt want his job, even if I did have the brains to be able to do it. ;)
The waters get so muddied by the politics of envy.
-
Fred Goodwin was his predecessor not a contempary. In 2007 (while he was in the process of wrecking RBS) Goodwin was paid £ 4.2 million, including a bonus of £2.86 million. So Heston is earning a hell of a lot less to try to sort out the utter carnage caused by Gordon Browns favourite banker. ::)
Personally I wouldnt want his job, even if I did have the brains to be able to do it. ;)
The waters get so muddied by the politics of envy.
I suppose when most of the country is asked to do more work for the same pay as a few years ago despite huge rises in the cost of living, some guy drawing a million pound bonus is going to elicit quite a bit of envy really isn't it?
-
Does the emphasis on paying vast sums or applying these very favourable bonus terms mean that people occupying such lofty positions are bereft of the ability to work for anything less?
In my view many people who possess this level of self-regard and expect such rewards epitomise all that is bad in humanity – avarice, greed and distain for anything but their perceived worth in this consumer driven top-down society.
-
Asked my boss for a nice bonus today, was told if you don't like the pay you get, there's the door >:(
-
Its the going rate for the job globally Den.No single country can take it upon themselves to introduce a cap on earnings as it would be meaningless,and would result in the people concerned simply jumping on a plane and going elsewhere (I know of it happening).
Furthermore,I think that when Govts. decide how much companies can pay people in their employ we will be in a much worse situation than we are in presently.
If it were to happen it would have to apply to everyone (footballers,music stars,film stars,etc) and not just one sector of the economy.
This particular sector is the best in the world at what it does,the majority of financial transactions in europe take place in London for example.It was the provider of the countless billions of tax pounds to the treasury in recent years,which provided the last govt. with the opportunity to do so much good in this country.What a shame they wasted every penny of it,and then recklessly borrowed even more and wasted that too.
without the financial sector our economy would lose approx 20%,which is a huge amount for one sector of the economy.Longer term we should diversify much more,but in the meantime we need it badly.
Why do you think that little sh1t Sarkozy is so desperate to get his hands on a slice of it.
Is there any one of us on this forum who,if we had the brains, and the opportunity would turn down a salary of £1 million plus if it were offered ? I know I wouldnt. ;)
There always has been and always will be,those who have a hell of a lot and those who have very little and most people sitting somewhere in between. It has to be like that. No other system works.
-
As much as I dislike banks and haven't got a great deal of time for bankers. We need a strong financial sector in this country. as it is one of the few major industries we have still got.
RBS bailout cost £45bn and Lloylds cost £17bn a total of £62bn. To put this into perspective the financial sector pays about £20bn in taxes each year. So in 3 years having it in the UK has covered the one off £62bn bailout cost. In comparison, how quickly are we going to see all the benefits money paid out in 2008, received back in taxes, I think we all know the answer to this one.
Now if you want RBS to recover you need top class management to turn it around, if he has achieved his targets then he should get his bonus. If he hasn't then he shouldn't get it as IMO any employee should not be rewarded for failure. And it is not just senior management that get rewarded for failure there a plenty of example particularly in the public sector. As it is in shares options for shares in the future it is in his interests to make the bank successful and profitable again.
If I was in that position, I would want and take my bonus, provided I had achieved the targets set. On a smaller scale, if your employer said reach these targets and we will pay you a bonus. At bonus time he then said you have achieved your target, but we are not giving it to you. The local news paper has heard about it and printed a story and many people have complained. How motivated would that leave you to do a good job over the following 12 months?
Now I'm going to do a comparison between two people, so you can decide who is the better value for money?
Wayne Rooney - Position: Player. Employee of Manchester United Football Club. Company revenue about £800m.
Basic Salary £10.4m, Bonuses and Sponsorship deals £8m. Responsible for 0 employees (10 when captain).
Stephen Hester - Position CEO. Employee of RBS. Company revenue about £32,000m.
Basic Salary £1.2m, Bonuses: £0.963m. Responsible for 141,000 employees.
Do I begrudge either of them their money in a word NO, good luck to both of them. We all try to sell our labour and skills for the maximum we can get for them. That is the capitalist system with all of the alternatives infinitely worse in socialism / communism. As the only rewards above the average in these systems are through theft, corruption, political patronage or being a politician. The only equality is that everybody is very poor except the connect few. Go and see the real poverty in many ex-communist countries, where they are still recovering from 60 years of misrule. For capitalist countries to thrive you actually need rich people to invest in their own new projects (like Richard Branson's, whole new industry of space tourism), and also many of them are business angels where they lend money and provide support for the next generation of entrepreneurs.
Finally I will finish off with a Russian joke, where during communism the waiting list for a car was many years.
Man receives a phone call from the car manufacturer to tell him he has now been allocated a time slot for receiving his new car and it is in exactly 10 years time. The man then asks if it will be delivered in the morning or afternoon, the man said why does it matter it is 10 years time, to which he replies, I've got the plumber coming in the morning. ;)
-
Albs, agree with all that you are saying as my thoughts are very much along the same lines. :y :y :y :y
-
Thanks Rod.I completely agree with what you posted (as I usually do) apart from a bit of generalisation in the first couple of sentences. :y
Bankers - there are hundreds of thousands of them in this country and millions of them globally, so by definition they will be a very diverse bunch of people and wont fit into the stereotypical boxes we try to make them fit into, and that is my experience of them having met a few. Some of them are complete tossers and deserve the reputation,others are very kind,considerate,thoughtful people with very strong morals and social consciences.
-
Its the going rate for the job globally Den.No single country can take it upon themselves to introduce a cap on earnings as it would be meaningless,and would result in the people concerned simply jumping on a plane and going elsewhere (I know of it happening).
Furthermore,I think that when Govts. decide how much companies can pay people in their employ we will be in a much worse situation than we are in presently.
If it were to happen it would have to apply to everyone (footballers,music stars,film stars,etc) and not just one sector of the economy.
This particular sector is the best in the world at what it does,the majority of financial transactions in europe take place in London for example.It was the provider of the countless billions of tax pounds to the treasury in recent years,which provided the last govt. with the opportunity to do so much good in this country.What a shame they wasted every penny of it,and then recklessly borrowed even more and wasted that too.
without the financial sector our economy would lose approx 20%,which is a huge amount for one sector of the economy.Longer term we should diversify much more,but in the meantime we need it badly.
Why do you think that little sh1t Sarkozy is so desperate to get his hands on a slice of it.
Is there any one of us on this forum who,if we had the brains, and the opportunity would turn down a salary of £1 million plus if it were offered ? I know I wouldnt. ;)
There always has been and always will be,those who have a hell of a lot and those who have very little and most people sitting somewhere in between. It has to be like that. No other system works.
Yes I do understand how this system works son - I've seen it at first hand both here and in our 'delightful' homeland remembering particularly those 'who had no education just a lot of power' and how they manipulated a system of government for their own purposes - but it doesn't make it any more palatable for that fact.
We have allowed free enterprise and the freedom and justification to practice it to be sacrificed on the altar of self-justified reward and financial expectation.
It will do for us in the end of course as those people who consider themselves to be disadvantaged by such excess may well make their disapproval felt in ways other than vocal.
Humanity is on the cusp of self-destruction and blatant concern for one’s self to the exclusion of everything else - especially when displayed by those people in positions of authority and responsibility - will only hasten that demise.
Despite all the technological advances and the pool of history from which to draw knowledge and understanding we are simple creatures at heart driven by basic almost primeval urges. It is sad to see that today there seems no shortage of people who wish to exploit those unwelcome inclinations to put self beyond all else.
-
Tbh Den, I dont see that someone earning a lot of money automatically means they are only concerned for themselves to the exclusion of all others. ???
-
Tbh Den, I dont see that someone earning a lot of money automatically means they are only concerned for themselves to the exclusion of all others. ???
In what we have witnessed in this country my son I would have to disagree with you - sadly, of course.
-
I can only say,that knowing a few people who have earned good money (in banking in the city as it happens)I know from personal experience that it isnt always the case.Far from it with some individuals tbh. ;)
-
Where is the sense of reality? Has he really met his targets? Are the banks lending to SME's. Er no. Are SMEs crucial to the Uk getting out of recesion Er yes.
Everywhere people are losing their jobs or at best standing still on pay.
CEO's just keep increasing the gap(multiple) between themselves and the drones (US). When will it stop.? It is just blatant two fingering.
Oh and in a world where even bankers aren't exempt from redundancy wouldn't wage(remuneration) moderation show a good example. Plenty of talented bankers waiting in the wings for a job. Moral Capitalism perchance? No chance. Nice try Cameron but you are in the pay like it or not.
-
Albs, the best business bank manager I every had, hated being a bank manager, but as he put it, it paid for him and his family to have a comfortable life and his hobby of restoring classic cars. He was completely honest and very cynical, like when my business had lots of money in the bank he would say do you want to borrow any money, we have to ask when you are no risk, but when you have little money in the bank and need to borrow some, we won't want to lend you any as you don't have any in the bank so you are now a risk. :o :o :o
In those days I had a big enough business to be taken out to lunch to review the account about every 6 months. Then it all changed to appointed business managers, who seemed to change about every 6 weeks and how you were looked after was very hit and miss, no more reviews over lunch, although having said that when I did need a borrowing facility, I away put together a good presentation and cash flow projections and was never turned down. :y :y :y
What I dislike about banks at the moment is the too big to fail situation and the resultant lack of moral hazard. This is partly due to the fool Brown, scrapping many of the rules and completely screwing the regulatory system, like he did everything else. >:( >:( >:( >:(
But the banks are not without blame, just because you are allowed to something, does not mean you should do something. All the recessions I have lived through, what have the banks made big losses on, yes property, with the UK banks in the past especially on commercial property, where values change considerably between booms and busts. They like over lending in this area as they think they will get their money back, but of course during a recession the commercial property from the bankrupt developer is worth far less than the boom valuation and mortgage. The money then has to be recouped, with one of the methods being opaque and excessive bank charges.
Now some activities banks are involved in are crucial for society and I appreciate that, but others have dubious or are positively harmful to society, like commodities speculation. Having said that there is also much in the public sector which is positively harmful to society.
I think a very big problem at the moment is the bad press that capitalists get, much of which is their own fault as there a many who give large amounts of money to charitable causes, but it is done on the basis of anonymity. Bill Gates is an exception, where his current mission is to eradicate 12 major diseases (including polio) from the planet.
-
Varche - Apparently he has met the targets the board set for him.RBS has greatly increased its lending to small businesses this year.
His remuneration has dropped considerably year by year. Not that much Cameron can do.As I said earlier,Labour wrote his contract, which includes a condition that the board may pay him a bonus as they see fit. The govt. has been arguing with the board behind the scenes, which is why the bonus has been reduced from £1.5 million.Rumour has it that the board wouldnt go any lower and were prepared to walk out if they were pushed any further.
They are imo trying to protect the traditional level of earnings in the sector,so that when things eventually get back on an even keel in world finance they will of course will be the major wealth creators once more and they wont have to fight their too far back up the ladder to return to previous levels of pay.
-
I suspect that compared to his contemperaries (such as Bob Diamond at Barclays) Stephen Heston's renumeration package is no where near as generous and he has a much more difficult job!! ;)