Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) boss Stephen Hester is to receive a bonus of almost £1m.
RBS announced on Thursday that Mr Hester is to get £963,000 in shares based on the bank's closing share price on Wednesday 25 January 2012.
The bank said the bonus was for "substantial progress in making RBS safer, rebuilding performance in many businesses and improving customer service and support".
RBS is 82% owned by the taxpayer.
BBC business editor Robert Peston has learnt that the bonus came due to fears about resignations on the RBS board.
"I am reliably told that they feared Mr Hester and much of the board would have quit, if the payment had been vetoed by the government as the majority shareholder," said our business editor.
"Hester's pay reflects the significant contribution he has made towards rebuilding RBS in 2011," UK Financial Investments (UKFI) told BBC business editor Robert Peston.
UKFI was set up in 2008 to manage taxpayers' shareholdings in Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds after they had to be rescued.
Out of touch
The decision has prompted outrage amongst union leaders.
"Reports that the Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive is to take £1m from taxpayers' pockets as a bonus are utterly disgusting and offensive to every working person across the country," said David Fleming, Unite national officer.
Chris Leslie, the Labour Party shadow financial secretary to the Treasury gave a statement in reaction to the news.
"We now know that ministerial claims that the RBS board is contractually bound for years over bonuses were false. The board decides bonuses on an annual basis - and the biggest shareholder at the bank is the Government," said Mr Leslie.
"Anyone who thinks it is acceptable to award a bonus of almost £1m on top of a basic salary of £1.2m in these tough times is desperately out of touch with millions of people who are struggling to make ends meet."
'Progressing well'
The decision was made on Wednesday by the RBS remuneration committee whose chair is Sir Philip Hampton.
Sir Philip said on Thursday: "The Board is aware of the difficulties in trying to reconcile the competing objectives of all our stakeholders. This is especially true on the issue of pay."
Sir Philip pointed out that Mr Hester was not employed as chief executive during the period of its collapse and subsequent bailout.
"His pay is strongly geared to the recovery of RBS, which he was recruited to turn around, having played no part in its collapse," said Sir Philip.
"A safer and more valuable RBS is in the interests of our customers, shareholders and the UK economy and we are progressing well towards this goal under the leadership of Stephen Hester."
Contractual constraints
The bonus has been decided as politicians have wrestled over how to deal with the issue of compensation at banks amid the economic gloom.
Our business editor said: "The governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, caught the mood [on Tuesday] when he pointed to the perceived unfairness that it was the well-heeled bankers who caused the mess we're in, but it's those on average and below-average incomes who are paying the price."
For the past two years, part-nationalised RBS and Lloyds Banking Group have paid no cash bonuses of more than £2,000.
The firm has announced thousands of job cuts, although it recorded a £2bn profit in its most recent trading period compared with a £1.6bn loss in the same period in 2010.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has said ministers are "constrained" by contractual arrangements agreed by the last government at the time of Mr Hester's appointment regarding his bonus.
Labour Party leader Ed Miliband has retorted that, "if responsibility means anything", Mr Hester should not get a payout.
Why £963k ?? Why not just make it a cool £1m ?.
Doesn't make me sick at all. At least he is working for his money unlike the vast majority of civil servants here.
Doesn't bother me in the slightest either, as if i had a chance of seeing any of that. Suppose when you get that high up in your career that's what you can expect.
Quote from: theticklemister on January 26, 2012, 11:59:22 PM
Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) boss Stephen Hester is to receive a bonus of almost £1m.
The firm has announced thousands of job cuts, although it recorded a £2bn profit in its most recent trading period compared with a £1.6bn loss in the same period in 2010.
Says it all really. Though according to some we should all be paying as much tax as we can rather than avoid it by using a pint or two of red diesel.
Fat cat, greedy bankers are the reason we got into this mess. And it does make me sick some of the payments they receive, often quite obviously over the top and the profits some banks make themselves is sickening. However in this case it's actually more in line with what the bonuses should be, and there is no doubt Stephen Hester has had possibly the toughest job in banking over the past 12 months. However the criticism is going to stem fron the fact RBS is owned by the country, and while public sector workers are more increasingly protesting about pay freezes, there is a bonus being paid which effectively doubles his salary, while the average joe suffers.
Quote from: tyrone exile on January 27, 2012, 01:05:48 AM
Doesn't bother me in the slightest either, as if i had a chance of seeing any of that. Suppose when you get that high up in your career that's what you can expect.
Quote from: under the bar on January 27, 2012, 12:36:38 AM
Doesn't make me sick at all. At least he is working for his money unlike the vast majority of civil servants here.
Youse two would make great Conservative MPs!
I don't know how anybody can justify such high wages or bonus' when people are barley living on whatever money they can muster up. Add on the fact that the majority of the bank is owned by the tax payers of Britain and it should double your amazment. It was these fecking clowns who got us into this mess and Tyrone Exile and Under the Bar see no contradiction in giving them all this money. I think it is probably people like ye who would blame the crippling system both here and in Britain and in the rest of the world in that matter on the people doing the 'double' just to survive.
Larkin and Connolly would be spinning in their graves.
Quotedoing the 'double' just to survive.
Do people really need to do the double "just to survive"?
In lo of cases yes
What the general public fail to see about these bonuses is that they are all taxable, the British treasury has lost out on billions because Cam boy needs the voters on his side and cut these bonuses. He now have to find the money from somewhere else so the lower paid has to suffer because of this.
There's two sides to this story.
I've no idea if Hester is a capable man or not, but I presume he was appointed on ability. If the going rate for banking CEOs includes a 7 figure bonus, then I'd rather someone was running a public company properly, and getting remunerated accordingly, than the inverse.
Quote from: thewobbler on January 27, 2012, 09:12:42 AM
There's two sides to this story.
I've no idea if Hester is a capable man or not, but I presume he was appointed on ability. If the going rate for banking CEOs includes a 7 figure bonus, then I'd rather someone was running a public company properly, and getting remunerated accordingly, than the inverse.
Quote from: theticklemister on January 26, 2012, 11:59:22 PM
although it recorded a £2bn profit in its most recent trading period compared with a £1.6bn loss in the same period in 2010.
He was brought in to sort out a mess, above states the results. Give him his deserved bonus.
Quote from: EC Unique on January 27, 2012, 09:36:50 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on January 27, 2012, 09:12:42 AM
There's two sides to this story.
I've no idea if Hester is a capable man or not, but I presume he was appointed on ability. If the going rate for banking CEOs includes a 7 figure bonus, then I'd rather someone was running a public company properly, and getting remunerated accordingly, than the inverse.
Quote from: theticklemister on January 26, 2012, 11:59:22 PM
although it recorded a £2bn profit in its most recent trading period compared with a £1.6bn loss in the same period in 2010.
He was brought in to sort out a mess, above states the results. Give him his deserved bonus.
100% agree - if they were making losses then thats a different story. The man was brought in to hit targets and would get bonuses based on that. Its good for the tax payer if RBS are successful so fair play to him.
You are not going to like this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9043010/RBS-chief-Stephen-Hester-in-line-for-7m-payout-despite-bonus-cut.html
However, the bank admitted Mr Hester was still potentially eligible for an award under a long-term incentive plan (LTIP) worth as much as £4.8m.
This means his total pay package for last year including his £1.2m salary and £420,000 pension could reach £7.38m.
If Mr Hester were to receive his maximum LTIP grant it would take the total value of the awards made to him since he took over as chief executive in October 2008 to about £27.5m.
Quote from: nifan on January 27, 2012, 08:23:18 AM
Quotedoing the 'double' just to survive.
Do people really need to do the double "just to survive"?
Yes, a lot of self employed people who previously were working in the construction trade are now doing it quite a lot. They are still working similar hours to what they were 2-3 years ago but are not getting paid the same amount or even at all. It is a depressing situation for many.
As for the Banker, he is a trouble shooter and has done his job, he deserves what he earns.
Yes that's all well and good. He has just cut 2000 jobs in Ulster Bank in Ireland. The average salary for a new start in retail banking is £15k pa. His remuneration this year would have held on to 144 of these people. That also blows the argument about taxable income out of the water.
£2bn profits gained by sacking the low paid and all the time getting almost £2m a year for doing it.
The pricks on here applauding this need to have a look at themselves.
Sweet f**k how anybody, particularly in Ireland of all places, could defend this gross overpayment using taxpayers money is beyond me. Staggering.
Would the taxpayer prefer if they had made another 1.6bn loss but the boss was only getting average wage?
Quote from: Franko on January 27, 2012, 10:37:12 AM
Yes that's all well and good. He has just cut 2000 jobs in Ulster Bank in Ireland. The average salary for a new start in retail banking is £15k pa. His remuneration this year would have held on to 144 of these people. That also blows the argument about taxable income out of the water.
£2bn profits gained by sacking the low paid and all the time getting almost £2m a year for doing it.
The pricks on here applauding this need to have a look at themselves.
Nobody is applauding this. But that bank is owned by the public, and if it's found that it can run at greater profitability and greater efficiency with 2,000 less staff, then it's in the company's interests, and in public interests, to reduce staff. Sorry to tell you Franko, but that's just simple economics.
RBS is a mess. Hester's job is to return it to a state where the UK government can sell it back to private ownership.
Nally Stand could take over and run it into the ground. The taxpayer could take up the tab.
Quote from: seafoid on January 27, 2012, 11:52:17 AM
RBS is a mess. Hester's job is to return it to a state where the UK government can sell it back to private ownership.
Nally Stand could take over and run it into the ground. The taxpayer could take up the tab.
Finally the penny drops ;)
Quote from: seafoid on January 27, 2012, 11:52:17 AM
RBS is a mess. Hester's job is to return it to a state where the UK government can sell it back to private ownership for a fraction of what the tax payer has pumped into it.
Just adding a bit of clarity.
Quote from: seafoid on January 27, 2012, 11:52:17 AM
RBS is a mess. Hester's job is to return it to a state where the UK government can sell it back to private ownership.
Nally Stand could take over and run it into the ground. The taxpayer could take up the tab.
Quote from: nifan on January 27, 2012, 11:03:46 AM
Would the taxpayer prefer if they had made another 1.6bn loss but the boss was only getting average wage?
So basically what you are saying is that giving one single individual
any less than £7.3m from taxpayer coffers in one year to run a bank, would mean that bank would inevitably be run into the ground? This really does beggar belief that any Irish people could defend this on the back of what we are currently going through. FF will be back in power before we know it.
Nifan, nobody is suggesting paying the man an average wage, as I suspect you know, but to imply that if he didn't get the full amount of this scandalous bonus, that the bank would inevitably make a 1.6bn loss is being sensationalist/facetious in the extreme.
Quote from: Franko on January 27, 2012, 10:37:12 AM
Yes that's all well and good. He has just cut 2000 jobs in Ulster Bank in Ireland. The average salary for a new start in retail banking is £15k pa. His remuneration this year would have held on to 144 of these people. That also blows the argument about taxable income out of the water.
£2bn profits gained by sacking the low paid and all the time getting almost £2m a year for doing it.
The pricks on here applauding this need to have a look at themselves.
I'm pretty sure it would have been written into his contract that he would be due a bonus if certain targets were met. He has obviously met them so fair play. As for the job losses, well if the business can run more efficiently without these people then tough sh1t! It is a business not a charity..
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 27, 2012, 12:18:31 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 27, 2012, 11:52:17 AM
RBS is a mess. Hester's job is to return it to a state where the UK government can sell it back to private ownership.
Nally Stand could take over and run it into the ground. The taxpayer could take up the tab.
Quote from: nifan on January 27, 2012, 11:03:46 AM
Would the taxpayer prefer if they had made another 1.6bn loss but the boss was only getting average wage?
So basically what you are saying is that giving one single individual any less than £7.3m from taxpayer coffers in one year to run a bank, would mean that bank would inevitably be run into the ground? This really does beggar belief that any Irish people could defend this on the back of what we are currently going through. FF will be back in power before we know it.
Nifan, nobody is suggesting paying the man an average wage, as I suspect you know, but to imply that if he didn't get the full amount of this scandalous bonus, that the bank would inevitably make a 1.6bn loss is being sensationalist/facetious in the extreme.
It's not 7.3 but has the potential to be.
There would be no need for these f**king job losses if the bankers had run the banks properly. Hester is just one of many CEOs who earn such extravagant money. The money these men earn are off the back of working class people who are now out of a job due to the banking system.
I really can't believe there is an 80-20 split here in favour of Hester. Ye lot make my f**king blood boil. Supporting him is supporting the right-wing governments of britain and ireland.
Quote from: EC Unique on January 27, 2012, 12:20:47 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 27, 2012, 10:37:12 AM
Yes that's all well and good. He has just cut 2000 jobs in Ulster Bank in Ireland. The average salary for a new start in retail banking is £15k pa. His remuneration this year would have held on to 144 of these people. That also blows the argument about taxable income out of the water.
£2bn profits gained by sacking the low paid and all the time getting almost £2m a year for doing it.
The pricks on here applauding this need to have a look at themselves.
I'm pretty sure it would have been written into his contract that he would be due a bonus if certain targets were met. He has obviously met them so fair play. As for the job losses, well if the business can run more efficiently without these people then tough sh1t! It is a business not a charity..
Of course he would be due a bonus - but £1m bonus (on top of a £1m+) salary - that's the problem. And yes - it's a business, but the fact that it's still a business is due to the charity of the taxpayer.
If the taxpayer had than the same 'hard faced' capitalistic look at things in 2008 RBS would be a distant memory.
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 27, 2012, 12:18:31 PM
Nifan, nobody is suggesting paying the man an average wage, as I suspect you know, but to imply that if he didn't get the full amount of this scandalous bonus, that the bank would inevitably make a 1.6bn loss is being sensationalist/facetious in the extreme.
I didnt say it would lead to that loss, I asked would they be. From what ive heard from a number of people since this was reported makes me think they almost would.
Quote from: theticklemister on January 27, 2012, 01:13:43 PM
There would be no need for these f**king job losses if the bankers had run the banks properly. Hester is just one of many CEOs who earn such extravagant money. The money these men earn are off the back of working class people who are now out of a job due to the banking system.
I really can't believe there is an 80-20 split here in favour of Hester. Ye lot make my f**king blood boil. Supporting him is supporting the right-wing governments of britain and ireland.
This sh1te sickens my hole - I don't see to may working class people in society any more. We are mostly middle class or useless scum ;)
Would the core rationale for a public company not be to deliver the best return on investment for shareholders?
In that case I'd like to see what the criteria were for his bonus award as RBS shares fell by approx 50% in 2011.
Quote from: thebigfella on January 27, 2012, 02:13:01 PM
Quote from: theticklemister on January 27, 2012, 01:13:43 PM
There would be no need for these f**king job losses if the bankers had run the banks properly. Hester is just one of many CEOs who earn such extravagant money. The money these men earn are off the back of working class people who are now out of a job due to the banking system.
I really can't believe there is an 80-20 split here in favour of Hester. Ye lot make my f**king blood boil. Supporting him is supporting the right-wing governments of britain and ireland.
This sh1te sickens my hole - I don't see to may working class people in society any more. We are mostly middle class or useless scum ;)
Where on God's earth do you live????????????????? Blinkered and tunnell vision.
Quote from: Franko on January 27, 2012, 02:15:37 PM
Would the core rationale for a public company not be to deliver the best return on investment for shareholders?
In that case I'd like to see what the criteria were for his bonus award as RBS shares fell by approx 50% in 2011.
Are you for real???? Seriously do you understand anything on how stock markets and a share issue's work? Do you know what a dividend and how it is calculated?
FFS you financial genius's on here should be banned from the internet.
Quote from: thebigfella on January 27, 2012, 02:54:01 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 27, 2012, 02:15:37 PM
Would the core rationale for a public company not be to deliver the best return on investment for shareholders?
In that case I'd like to see what the criteria were for his bonus award as RBS shares fell by approx 50% in 2011.
Are you for real???? Seriously do you understand anything on how stock markets and a share issue's work? Do you know what a dividend and how it is calculated?
FFS you financial genius's on here should be banned from the internet.
Go on then Gekko... give us the answer...
Quote from: Franko on January 27, 2012, 03:35:14 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 27, 2012, 02:54:01 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 27, 2012, 02:15:37 PM
Would the core rationale for a public company not be to deliver the best return on investment for shareholders?
In that case I'd like to see what the criteria were for his bonus award as RBS shares fell by approx 50% in 2011.
Are you for real???? Seriously do you understand anything on how stock markets and a share issue's work? Do you know what a dividend and how it is calculated?
FFS you financial genius's on here should be banned from the internet.
Go on then Gekko... give us the answer...
So then I take your answer to the above is, no you don't understand.
If you want to debate, at least have the courtesy to read up on the basics, instead of regurgitating sensationalist nonsense from the sun and other newspapers. My suggestion is have a look on Investopedia.
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 27, 2012, 12:18:31 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 27, 2012, 11:52:17 AM
RBS is a mess. Hester's job is to return it to a state where the UK government can sell it back to private ownership.
Nally Stand could take over and run it into the ground. The taxpayer could take up the tab.
Quote from: nifan on January 27, 2012, 11:03:46 AM
Would the taxpayer prefer if they had made another 1.6bn loss but the boss was only getting average wage?
So basically what you are saying is that giving one single individual any less than £7.3m from taxpayer coffers in one year to run a bank, would mean that bank would inevitably be run into the ground? This really does beggar belief that any Irish people could defend this on the back of what we are currently going through. FF will be back in power before we know it.
Nifan, nobody is suggesting paying the man an average wage, as I suspect you know, but to imply that if he didn't get the full amount of this scandalous bonus, that the bank would inevitably make a 1.6bn loss is being sensationalist/facetious in the extreme.
It's €1 million. Taxed at 40%. If he got no bonus he'd leave and Eugene Sheehy or Seanie Fitz could do the job ;). RBS is a broken bank and it's going to take a lot of work to get it back to its feet again. Think about the point of view of your own (British) government ;) If they pay him £1m they get a potential upside. If they rule themselves out of the market and get a plonker RBS could go down the swannee. Say your car breaks down and you can't fix it. Would you call in an expert ? Would that be outrageous ?
I think earnings in the banking sector are obnoxious but a bit of perspective wouldn't go amiss. How much does Wayne Rooney earn? Isn't it outrageous? Couldn't some striker from Cliftonville or Linfield do the job ?
Quote from: seafoid on January 27, 2012, 04:29:40 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 27, 2012, 12:18:31 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 27, 2012, 11:52:17 AM
RBS is a mess. Hester's job is to return it to a state where the UK government can sell it back to private ownership.
Nally Stand could take over and run it into the ground. The taxpayer could take up the tab.
Quote from: nifan on January 27, 2012, 11:03:46 AM
Would the taxpayer prefer if they had made another 1.6bn loss but the boss was only getting average wage?
So basically what you are saying is that giving one single individual any less than £7.3m from taxpayer coffers in one year to run a bank, would mean that bank would inevitably be run into the ground? This really does beggar belief that any Irish people could defend this on the back of what we are currently going through. FF will be back in power before we know it.
Nifan, nobody is suggesting paying the man an average wage, as I suspect you know, but to imply that if he didn't get the full amount of this scandalous bonus, that the bank would inevitably make a 1.6bn loss is being sensationalist/facetious in the extreme.
It's €1 million. Taxed at 40%. If he got no bonus he'd leave and Eugene Sheehy or Seanie Fitz could do the job ;). RBS is a broken bank and it's going to take a lot of work to get it back to its feet again. Think about the point of view of your own (British) government ;) If they pay him £1m they get a potential upside. If they rule themselves out of the market and get a plonker RBS could go down the swannee. Say your car breaks down and you can't fix it. Would you call in an expert ? Would that be outrageous ?
I think earnings in the banking sector are obnoxious but a bit of perspective wouldn't go amiss. How much does Wayne Rooney earn? Isn't it outrageous? Couldn't some striker from Cliftonville or Linfield do the job ?
More assumptions presenting it as black or white. Why does everyone who is defending this seemingly assume that if he didn't get this almost £1m bonus payment, he would undoubtedly have quit? And why further assume that the person who would take his place would undoubtedly be woeful?
Quote from: thebigfella on January 27, 2012, 03:51:33 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 27, 2012, 03:35:14 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 27, 2012, 02:54:01 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 27, 2012, 02:15:37 PM
Would the core rationale for a public company not be to deliver the best return on investment for shareholders?
In that case I'd like to see what the criteria were for his bonus award as RBS shares fell by approx 50% in 2011.
Are you for real???? Seriously do you understand anything on how stock markets and a share issue's work? Do you know what a dividend and how it is calculated?
FFS you financial genius's on here should be banned from the internet.
Go on then Gekko... give us the answer...
So then I take your answer to the above is, no you don't understand.
If you want to debate, at least have the courtesy to read up on the basics, instead of regurgitating sensationalist nonsense from the sun and other newspapers. My suggestion is have a look on Investopedia.
As I expected... all mouth and no trousers...
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 27, 2012, 04:56:11 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 27, 2012, 04:29:40 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 27, 2012, 12:18:31 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 27, 2012, 11:52:17 AM
RBS is a mess. Hester's job is to return it to a state where the UK government can sell it back to private ownership.
Nally Stand could take over and run it into the ground. The taxpayer could take up the tab.
Quote from: nifan on January 27, 2012, 11:03:46 AM
Would the taxpayer prefer if they had made another 1.6bn loss but the boss was only getting average wage?
So basically what you are saying is that giving one single individual any less than £7.3m from taxpayer coffers in one year to run a bank, would mean that bank would inevitably be run into the ground? This really does beggar belief that any Irish people could defend this on the back of what we are currently going through. FF will be back in power before we know it.
Nifan, nobody is suggesting paying the man an average wage, as I suspect you know, but to imply that if he didn't get the full amount of this scandalous bonus, that the bank would inevitably make a 1.6bn loss is being sensationalist/facetious in the extreme.
It's €1 million. Taxed at 40%. If he got no bonus he'd leave and Eugene Sheehy or Seanie Fitz could do the job ;). RBS is a broken bank and it's going to take a lot of work to get it back to its feet again. Think about the point of view of your own (British) government ;) If they pay him £1m they get a potential upside. If they rule themselves out of the market and get a plonker RBS could go down the swannee. Say your car breaks down and you can't fix it. Would you call in an expert ? Would that be outrageous ?
I think earnings in the banking sector are obnoxious but a bit of perspective wouldn't go amiss. How much does Wayne Rooney earn? Isn't it outrageous? Couldn't some striker from Cliftonville or Linfield do the job ?
More assumptions presenting it as black or white. Why does everyone who is defending this seemingly assume that if he didn't get this almost £1m bonus payment, he would undoubtedly have quit? And why further assume that the person who would take his place would undoubtedly be woeful?
£1m is low enough for the bonus of a bank CEO, Nally Stand. That is the way it is. Some people are all take. BTW Norn Irn enjoys the generosity of a subvention which amounts to a very large % of provincial GDP and comes from the UK Treasury and is funded in large part by taxes on financial activity in GB . if you would prefer RBS to collapse which hospital services in Tyrone would you cut first?
How much would you pay Hester ?
Quote from: seafoid on January 27, 2012, 05:00:05 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 27, 2012, 04:56:11 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 27, 2012, 04:29:40 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 27, 2012, 12:18:31 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 27, 2012, 11:52:17 AM
RBS is a mess. Hester's job is to return it to a state where the UK government can sell it back to private ownership.
Nally Stand could take over and run it into the ground. The taxpayer could take up the tab.
Quote from: nifan on January 27, 2012, 11:03:46 AM
Would the taxpayer prefer if they had made another 1.6bn loss but the boss was only getting average wage?
So basically what you are saying is that giving one single individual any less than £7.3m from taxpayer coffers in one year to run a bank, would mean that bank would inevitably be run into the ground? This really does beggar belief that any Irish people could defend this on the back of what we are currently going through. FF will be back in power before we know it.
Nifan, nobody is suggesting paying the man an average wage, as I suspect you know, but to imply that if he didn't get the full amount of this scandalous bonus, that the bank would inevitably make a 1.6bn loss is being sensationalist/facetious in the extreme.
It's €1 million. Taxed at 40%. If he got no bonus he'd leave and Eugene Sheehy or Seanie Fitz could do the job ;). RBS is a broken bank and it's going to take a lot of work to get it back to its feet again. Think about the point of view of your own (British) government ;) If they pay him £1m they get a potential upside. If they rule themselves out of the market and get a plonker RBS could go down the swannee. Say your car breaks down and you can't fix it. Would you call in an expert ? Would that be outrageous ?
I think earnings in the banking sector are obnoxious but a bit of perspective wouldn't go amiss. How much does Wayne Rooney earn? Isn't it outrageous? Couldn't some striker from Cliftonville or Linfield do the job ?
More assumptions presenting it as black or white. Why does everyone who is defending this seemingly assume that if he didn't get this almost £1m bonus payment, he would undoubtedly have quit? And why further assume that the person who would take his place would undoubtedly be woeful?
£1m is low enough for the bonus of a bank CEO, Nally Stand. That is the way it is. Some people are all take. BTW Norn Irn enjoys the generosity of a subvention which amounts to a very large % of provincial GDP and comes from the UK Treasury and is funded in large part by taxes on financial activity in GB . if you would prefer RBS to collapse which hospital services in Tyrone would you cut first?
How much would you pay Hester ?
Jaysus drop the sensationalism. Tyrone doesn't have much in the way of a Health Service and you can be damn sure that if this scandalous bonus payment didn't happen, a hospital wouldn't suddenly pop up as a result; but as for how much I would pay, plain and simply I don't know how much, but you can also be damn sure it wouldn't be near the £27.5m he could be receiving for just over three years in the job. I keep saying it, but it boggles the mind how any Irishman could defend this sort of practice, it really does.
Quote from: Franko on January 27, 2012, 04:56:40 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 27, 2012, 03:51:33 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 27, 2012, 03:35:14 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 27, 2012, 02:54:01 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 27, 2012, 02:15:37 PM
Would the core rationale for a public company not be to deliver the best return on investment for shareholders?
In that case I'd like to see what the criteria were for his bonus award as RBS shares fell by approx 50% in 2011.
Are you for real???? Seriously do you understand anything on how stock markets and a share issue's work? Do you know what a dividend and how it is calculated?
FFS you financial genius's on here should be banned from the internet.
Go on then Gekko... give us the answer...
So then I take your answer to the above is, no you don't understand.
If you want to debate, at least have the courtesy to read up on the basics, instead of regurgitating sensationalist nonsense from the sun and other newspapers. My suggestion is have a look on Investopedia.
As I expected... all mouth and no trousers...
So based on your response I have to again assume you don't really understand how share price from secondary markets really has no effect on the shareholders or dividends.
To quote you "Would the core rationale for a public company not be to deliver the best return on investment for shareholders?" - Yep, he
appears to be doing that by returning £2bn profit in its most recent trading period compared with a £1.6bn loss in the same period in 2010.
OK, yet the value of the company has halved? Forgive me for my very basic understanding of this but I can't see how that helps RBS shareholders unless they pay some sort of huge dividend??
How to cook like Hester.
Quote from: Franko on January 27, 2012, 05:52:09 PM
OK, yet the value of the company has halved? Forgive me for my very basic understanding of this but I can't see how that helps RBS shareholders unless they pay some sort of huge dividend??
Thebigfella is right franko, but your not far off the mark, the value on the stock market had halved yes, but that is due to the government bailing out the bank when it was in a disastrous position. The aim for Hester is to ultimately help the bank increase the value of RBS, the government can then sell RBS at hopefully a profit so that eventually we (the taxpayer/shareholders) ultimately receive the benefit. But this is not an overnight fix, its long term, so to judge him on the value of the shares at the moment is not an appropriate measure and no matter what anyone says, in basic terms Hester has done a right job in RBS so far.
The anger here should not be directed at Hester at all, he could, and most definitely will in the future, earn a lot more than his 2 million. Yes it is a big bonus but in perspective of the banking world fact is its not over the top, this story has annoyed people is ridiculous considering some of the other bonuses receivedand it is the whole issue of bankers looking after their own interests and bonuses rather than our money that needs to be addressed. It's reaction to stupid hype about the media of RBS being a publicly owned business, when in reality, Hester is one banker that is actually trying to recover a business that the economy we live in DESPERATELY relies on.
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 27, 2012, 05:20:01 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 27, 2012, 05:00:05 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 27, 2012, 04:56:11 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 27, 2012, 04:29:40 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 27, 2012, 12:18:31 PM
Quote from: seafoid on January 27, 2012, 11:52:17 AM
RBS is a mess. Hester's job is to return it to a state where the UK government can sell it back to private ownership.
Nally Stand could take over and run it into the ground. The taxpayer could take up the tab.
Quote from: nifan on January 27, 2012, 11:03:46 AM
Would the taxpayer prefer if they had made another 1.6bn loss but the boss was only getting average wage?
So basically what you are saying is that giving one single individual any less than £7.3m from taxpayer coffers in one year to run a bank, would mean that bank would inevitably be run into the ground? This really does beggar belief that any Irish people could defend this on the back of what we are currently going through. FF will be back in power before we know it.
Nifan, nobody is suggesting paying the man an average wage, as I suspect you know, but to imply that if he didn't get the full amount of this scandalous bonus, that the bank would inevitably make a 1.6bn loss is being sensationalist/facetious in the extreme.
It's €1 million. Taxed at 40%. If he got no bonus he'd leave and Eugene Sheehy or Seanie Fitz could do the job ;). RBS is a broken bank and it's going to take a lot of work to get it back to its feet again. Think about the point of view of your own (British) government ;) If they pay him £1m they get a potential upside. If they rule themselves out of the market and get a plonker RBS could go down the swannee. Say your car breaks down and you can't fix it. Would you call in an expert ? Would that be outrageous ?
I think earnings in the banking sector are obnoxious but a bit of perspective wouldn't go amiss. How much does Wayne Rooney earn? Isn't it outrageous? Couldn't some striker from Cliftonville or Linfield do the job ?
More assumptions presenting it as black or white. Why does everyone who is defending this seemingly assume that if he didn't get this almost £1m bonus payment, he would undoubtedly have quit? And why further assume that the person who would take his place would undoubtedly be woeful?
£1m is low enough for the bonus of a bank CEO, Nally Stand. That is the way it is. Some people are all take. BTW Norn Irn enjoys the generosity of a subvention which amounts to a very large % of provincial GDP and comes from the UK Treasury and is funded in large part by taxes on financial activity in GB . if you would prefer RBS to collapse which hospital services in Tyrone would you cut first?
How much would you pay Hester ?
Jaysus drop the sensationalism. Tyrone doesn't have much in the way of a Health Service and you can be damn sure that if this scandalous bonus payment didn't happen, a hospital wouldn't suddenly pop up as a result; but as for how much I would pay, plain and simply I don't know how much, but you can also be damn sure it wouldn't be near the £27.5m he could be receiving for just over three years in the job. I keep saying it, but it boggles the mind how any Irishman could defend this sort of practice, it really does.
Have you ever left your farm and gone into the village ?
Apparently some Irish people work in finance. I heard it from someone.
Or are they all dancing at the croosroads where you are ?
Condescending arrogance now? There's a surprise.
Important to note that this bonus is in shares (not cash), which he cannot sell for some time. It's therefore in his interest to make the bank successful. And whenever he does sell the shares, he'll pay CGT on any profit.
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 27, 2012, 11:06:51 PM
Condescending arrogance now? There's a surprise.
The notion that Irish people are all the same and follow SF orthodoxy is naive. There are loads of people who couldn't care less what people earn. Have you ever come across the Sunday Independent ? Anyway SF itself in government is intensely relaxed about the massive salaries paid to certain people working for the Government and in quangos.
Quote from: seafoid on January 27, 2012, 11:26:44 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 27, 2012, 11:06:51 PM
Condescending arrogance now? There's a surprise.
The notion that Irish people are all the same and follow SF orthodoxy is naive. There are loads of people who couldn't care less what people earn. Have you ever come across the Sunday Independent ? Anyway SF itself in government is intensely relaxed about the massive salaries paid to certain people working for the Government and in quangos.
Did I mention SF? Try keep on track.
Quote from: seafoid on January 27, 2012, 11:26:44 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on January 27, 2012, 11:06:51 PM
Condescending arrogance now? There's a surprise.
The notion that Irish people are all the same and follow SF orthodoxy is naive. There are loads of people who couldn't care less what people earn. Have you ever come across the Sunday Independent ? Anyway SF itself in government is intensely relaxed about the massive salaries paid to certain people working for the Government and in quangos.
SF???? not a word was mentioned about them. I wouldn't agree that they are socialists at all for that matter.
Labeling people for their beliefs (and getting it wrong) is very poor argument.
Panic of, he's not taken it now