Banker REFUSES bonus!

#3
I didn't really understand the outrage over his bonus. He wasn't the one who got RBS into trouble and he's apparently done an extremely good job since he was running the show.

At the end of the day, if you want to attract top class bankers to run your bank you have to offer attractive contracts whether or not your bank is publicly owned. I'd rather pay out a large salary and big bonus (couple of million quid a year say) than have a Government owned bank go under (x billion quid).
 
#4
Daily Wail said:
Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive Stephen Hester bowed to pressure last night and gave up his controversial bonus.
Well it's not like he did out of the kindness of his heart - He would have known from the start that taking any sort of bonus would cause public outrage - I guess he left it long enough to see how bad the public reaction would be. Maybe if the MPs hadn't chipped in, he would have taken it.

If he had any real sense of decency, he would have turned it down at the very first mention of it, and not said anything.
 
#5
No one harps on about footballers salaries , or exhorbitant transfer fees , and all they do all day is practice cradling a baby ,or a Brazilian samba or whatever the current scoring celebration is . It's not as if the economic future of the country is in their hands is it ?
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#6
No one harps on about footballers salaries , or exhorbitant transfer fees , and all they do all day is practice cradling a baby ,or a Brazilian samba or whatever the current scoring celebration is . It's not as if the economic future of the country is in their hands is it ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7036953.stm
Don't think they ever coughed up and I'm not saying they should have in the first place.
 
#7
Well it's not like he did out of the kindness of his heart - He would have known from the start that taking any sort of bonus would cause public outrage - I guess he left it long enough to see how bad the public reaction would be. Maybe if the MPs hadn't chipped in, he would have taken it.

If he had any real sense of decency, he would have turned it down at the very first mention of it, and not said anything.
What utter bollocks.

This bloke has taken a failing bank, that is now only worth 50% of what it used to be and turned it back into a profitable business. The fact that it is 80% owned by UK PLC (ie, us) should have no bearing on his ability to pick up a nice bonus for a job well done. Why is it do you think that so far it is ONLY the Chairmen etc of the taxpayer beholdent banks that have refused their bonuses, when the rest of the financial sector big bosses are quite happily taking theirs? Essentially it is because they are being turned into pariahs by the press and certain politicos. If we want to get these banks sold off at a decent profit, we need to ensure that we reward the bosses for a job well done, otherwise they are going to vote with their feet, and **** off.
Do you really want banks that WE own put into the hands of political yes men, second tier bankers that will never be up to the job. These are the type that can only ensure we will never be rid of the banks. Maybe you feel that good old Gideon should run the banks as well, after all, he is doing such a good job at treasury, isn't he? The bottom line is that if we want the best, we pay for it.
 
#8
Well it's not like he did out of the kindness of his heart - He would have known from the start that taking any sort of bonus would cause public outrage - I guess he left it long enough to see how bad the public reaction would be. Maybe if the MPs hadn't chipped in, he would have taken it.

If he had any real sense of decency, he would have turned it down at the very first mention of it, and not said anything.
Why should it cause public outrage and why the hell should he turn it down?

Would you knock back a million quid if someone offered you it? I certainly bloody wouldnt, and i imagine that all of those that are apparently 'outraged' wouldnt say no either.
 
#9
What utter bollocks.

This bloke has taken a failing bank, that is now only worth 50% of what it used to be and turned it back into a profitable business. The fact that it is 80% owned by UK PLC (ie, us) should have no bearing on his ability to pick up a nice bonus for a job well done. Why is it do you think that so far it is ONLY the Chairmen etc of the taxpayer beholdent banks that have refused their bonuses, when the rest of the financial sector big bosses are quite happily taking theirs? Essentially it is because they are being turned into pariahs by the press and certain politicos. If we want to get these banks sold off at a decent profit, we need to ensure that we reward the bosses for a job well done, otherwise they are going to vote with their feet, and **** off.
Do you really want banks that WE own put into the hands of political yes men, second tier bankers that will never be up to the job. These are the type that can only ensure we will never be rid of the banks. Maybe you feel that good old Gideon should run the banks as well, after all, he is doing such a good job at treasury, isn't he? The bottom line is that if we want the best, we pay for it.
Agree completely.
 
#10
For once a banker was getting a bonus for actually succeeding! He's completely turned the bank around and has made it profitable, what sort of bonus do people think he should get? A bottle of Cava? £50 M&S voucher?

He's worked hard and now small-minded public opinion has made him give up a bonus he not only worked hard for but also deserved! I wonder how many people baying for his blood would have given up any bonus given to them?

If there was a computer system that would have helped turn the bank around no-one would have complained if it cost millions but because it's down to human skill it shouldn't be rewarded according to some.

Besides, if he takes it as a bonus he gets taxed on it at 40%. If it goes back into the company then the company gets taxed on it at 25% so the country is better off with him taking it!
 
#11
I think he's done the right thing. It doesn't matter how you dress it up, the banks have a lot to answer for and one of the things they desperately need to do is regain if not the trust of the public, at least a sense of understanding that they are not a crowd of money grabbing shysters who are looking for huge payouts at the expense of the rest of us, regardless of how they are performing.

There's a long way to go yet and if they have to share our pain a little bit, then they should suck it up. Hester is still on more money than many of us will ever see in our lives so he's not going to go skint. I also don't doubt for one second that the money he has forgone on this occasion will no doubt turn up in his bonus cheque next year or the year after that. The headlines might announce he's giving it up but it will come back his way in the future in some form. For bankers and for the government, it's a question of timing and at the moment, it's still not a good time.
 

Boldnotold

LE
Book Reviewer
#12
It won't change the culture of Bankers, CEOs and Directors getting bigger and bigger bonuses and pay rises and pension pots as their companies fail, will it? Or the massive multiplier of their salaries to their average employee's? Heston is an easy target, but there are many many more who are more deserving of pariah status, imho.
 
#13
Aren't some of you missing the point? He already gets £1.2 million a year in pay. Why should they get the equivalent of his annual pay as a bonus for doing his job? I should hope that, on that amount of pay, he should be doing a good job.
 
#14
Aren't some of you missing the point? He already gets £1.2 million a year in pay. Why should they get the equivalent of his annual pay as a bonus for doing his job? I should hope that, on that amount of pay, he should be doing a good job.
Because those where the terms and conditions that he was employed under and agreed to by the politicians. The gross hypocrisy of a bunch of free loading MPs to come out and moan because someone was getting what they agreed to just shows you what a short term memory they all seem to have.

During these times of hardship perhaps they should give up their allowances that they receive on top of a great salary and a subsidised canteen at work
 
#15
Wonder how many other top bankers will now reconsider working for UK banks having seen the treatment this guy has been given?

Pay peanuts.....
 
#16
Because those where the terms and conditions that he was employed under and agreed to by the politicians. The gross hypocrisy of a bunch of free loading MPs to come out and moan because someone was getting what they agreed to just shows you what a short term memory they all seem to have.

During these times of hardship perhaps they should give up their allowances that they receive on top of a great salary and a subsidised canteen at work
It's also worth pointing out that this bonus was agreed and put in place by the, then, Labour Government. Yes, that's right, the very Labour party who are now slagging off the Government for paying out their bonus. According to Milliband the Government should have refused to comply with Labour's bonus (which would, no doubt, bring about a breech of contract suit.

Labour don't only **** up in their own time in power, they leave behind contracts and agreements that stitch us all up for years! Ask MoD procurement!
 
#17
Its only the uninformed and utterly dim that climb on the outrage bus, rather than give a bloke a pat on the back for picking up a shitty ball, ploughing through a pro defence and booting it out of the stadium.

I bet there are only a fistful of people in this country capable of doing what he's doing.
 
#18
Now that the bankers are "doing the right thing" by setting an example in these austere times, I wonder if the Honourable Members will be following their example.

MPs vote themselves a £5 million "catering subsidy" each year. This ensures that, every time an MP gets a round in in one of Parliament's many bars, or gets stuck in to steak and chips in the members' restaurant, the taxpayer foots about half the bill.

Taxing people on minimum wage to supply cheap booze to people on six figure incomes is obscene. Why not ask your MP if he or she agrees?
 
#19
Now that the bankers are "doing the right thing" by setting an example in these austere times
I don't think he's setting an example, he is just appeasing a dense and gormless ill educated public.

I reckon in the longrun he will nail the bank for a much much more lucrative deal and will come out of it better off. The £900k for what he's done is peanuts in comparison to what he's brought to the table.
 
#20
Well it's not like he did out of the kindness of his heart - He would have known from the start that taking any sort of bonus would cause public outrage - I guess he left it long enough to see how bad the public reaction would be. Maybe if the MPs hadn't chipped in, he would have taken it.

If he had any real sense of decency, he would have turned it down at the very first mention of it, and not said anything.
So you'll be over the moon that the Lloyds Antonio Osorio of Lloyds says he will not be accepting a bonus either (according to media reports)

The fickle public are laughable in cases like this, OOT outrage & ignoring the fact this was a 'contracted deal' by Labour, the very people along with many olthers that got the UK into this mess in the first place,

Mr Hestor is regarded 'very highly' in the City & what he's doing is a marathon not a sprint, he could quite easily have stuck up two fingers to the low pay (bankers CEO going rate) and moved elswhere,

IIRC Mr Hestor has said nothing, however there's much more work to be done for RBS to be worth anything like to a status where the Taxpayer will benefit in the long term.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top