He didn't really have much of a choice. 3 day news cycle had him pinned down.

Bonus culture is farked up worldwide.

We should all get bonuses for the shiat we have to go through in daily life.

When I agree to do a job for a certain amount of money, I always demand more when I claim to be finished, no matter how shoddy the results are.

PsiChi: We should all get bonuses for the shiat we have to go through in daily life.

We do. If we do things right, it's called "tomorrow."

He should start a support group with Tony "I'd like my life back" Hayward.

Normal people do our jobs because it's our job and what we are paid to do.

Executives seem to need further motivation to perform adequately. Heck, they still rake "performance bonuses" in even if they deliberately plunder and destroy the company.

We need a new model of capitalism, this free for all is broke.

Mugato: I knew it wasn't in the US long before I got to that weird moon man symbol they use instead of a dollar sign in the headline.

Wow... get out much. Do all Americans a favor and don't speak up in articles about the world.

And due to the cry baby masses, that's £480,000 the tax office does not get to collect.

gmoney101: And due to the cry baby masses, that's £480,000 the tax office does not get to collect.

His wages are paid by tax money (bank went tits up, so the government now owns it) so that point is moot

Funny, the last Fark article (new window) on the subject had a much more cynical headline.

I'll bite...

Stephen Hester takes job turning around completely farked bank. Could EASILY have continued in previous career earning 10x the salary he gets for running the bank.

Only other suitable candidate had already walked away from the job offer, having first negotiated a contract that included a share bonus.

Stephen Hester accepts job on same terms negotiated by previous candidate.

Labour Government (at the time) had APPROVED the terms of the contract.

Bank awards Stephen Hester 60% of his performance related bonus entitlement because he has been doing a rather good job.

Labour Party (now in opposition) raises an unholy row about it even though:

1 they approved the contract
2 Stephen Hester is doing a good job
3 nobody else of a similar character is available or willing to replace Stephen Hester (they've been looking)
4 doing this kind of thing is likely to drive Stephen Hester away and dissuade anybody with any sense from replacing him when they can be earning MUCH more without all the political bullshiat

/no, I don't feel sorry for Stephen Hester I just think that this political opportunism is sickening and a huge distraction from the real troubles of the world

gmoney101: And due to the cry baby masses, that's £480,000 the tax office does not get to collect.

Is that 50% tax on bonus figure real or theoretical in the UK?

In other words, is your tax law swiss cheese as in the U.S.?

thelordofcheese: When I agree to do a job for a certain amount of money, I always demand more when I claim to be finished, no matter how shoddy the results are.


bonus incentives do not work that way.

Pert is right

Worth noting, he didn't fark up RBS, Goodwin did. He was brought in to try and make something out of the wreckage. Since he's been there, RBS has Stephen Hester he has reduced RBS's loan exposure by £600bn. And that was not easy to do. Because RBS is mostly owned by the govt, that means he's done us all a favour.

I don't like the idea of excessive remuneration when someone's done a bad job. But when they've done a good job, and a saved a shiat tonne of money, I reckon he deserves recognition.

Rub it on your pantaloons man

It's all because he's a Foxhunter. Everybody hates us Foxhunters. We're impeccably dressed and quite superior to you Fark rabble...

I heard someone on Radio 4's "Any Answers" program the other week, crying about how all the "talent" would leave if bonuses were cut, and go to other banks. What's worse (apparently) is that if systemic changes are brought in to limit that ability of any bank to pay bonuses like that then the UK will lose these "talented" individuals to other countries.

Talent?
Talent?

Would this be the same motherfrakking talent that ran the place into the farking ground so badly that the taxpayer had to buy the damned thing just to keep it going?
Would this be the same cocksucking talented crowd that ran the whole financial industry into the ground, causing a whole clusterfark of economic consequences that we're still reeling from today?

You have the damned cheek to insist that the UK taxpayer (owner of RBS) approve masses of extra money for the same bunch of talentless monkeys that ruined it?

The balls on these people! Honestly!

I'm no socialist, I'm certainly no communist, but the idea that these arseholes sitting in their offices, pushing numbers around, are producing anything worthwhile is a nonsense. What we really need is a rethink of the financial systems to enable productive capitalism, and design these farking parasites out from the ground up.

capitulating fromage masticating simian: gmoney101: And due to the cry baby masses, that's £480,000 the tax office does not get to collect.

His wages are paid by tax money (bank went tits up, so the government now owns it) so that point is moot

Public sector workers still pay tax...

Even the non-governemt owned banks, the lefties still cry like little babies that their staff get bonuses! The money either stays in the banks assets it more money or it gets paid as bonuses to the staff. If it stays in the assets it does not go back into the public purse!

UtileDysfunktion: gmoney101: And due to the cry baby masses, that's £480,000 the tax office does not get to collect.

Is that 50% tax on bonus figure real or theoretical in the UK?

In other words, is your tax law swiss cheese as in the U.S.?

It is real and it is not just on bonuses, but any income over £150,000

Personally I think it's a farking disgrace, income tax should be a flat rate across the board, everyone then pays what they can afford, in proportion to their income

gmoney101: Personally I think it's a farking disgrace, income tax should be a flat rate across the board, everyone then pays what they can afford, in proportion to their income

People who earn more can afford a larger percentage.

Next canard please.

Gothnet:
Would this be the same motherfrakking talent that ran the place into the farking ground so badly that the taxpayer had to buy the damned thing just to keep it going?
Would this be the same cocksucking talented crowd that ran the whole financial industry into the ground, causing a whole clusterfark of economic consequences that we're still reeling from today?


If Pert's post is accurate, its not the same talent that farked it all up, but talent that is somewhat fixing it.

An Account To Make Comments: If Pert's post is accurate, its not the same talent that farked it all up, but talent that is somewhat fixing it.

What I wrote was cobbled together from what I've read on the BBC news website, Robert Peston's blog and heard on BBC Radio 4 news, so hopefully it's reasonably accurate.

An Account To Make Comments: Gothnet:
Would this be the same motherfrakking talent that ran the place into the farking ground so badly that the taxpayer had to buy the damned thing just to keep it going?
Would this be the same cocksucking talented crowd that ran the whole financial industry into the ground, causing a whole clusterfark of economic consequences that we're still reeling from today?


If Pert's post is accurate, its not the same talent that farked it all up, but talent that is somewhat fixing it.


This individual - perhaps, in this case depending on history (presumably he was involved in this sector before being appointed head of RBS?)

The general point that cutting bonuses will cause the bank to lose "talent", or the wider point around altering the legal landscape to make bonuses harder to give/smaller - it's a bloody joke.

The RBS job is a poison chalice...which city type is going to take that job, knowing any remuneration is going to be scrutinized in the tabloid press for the express purpose of whipping that newspapers "Frothing at the mouth" readership into a frenzy...

From what I can make out, this guy has drastically cut RBS's (and ergo the tax payers) exposure to some pretty lame commitments and for that he deserves a bonus...problem we have now that as soon as you mention the words "City" and "Bonus"..the knee jerkers have a field day :\

Gothnet: gmoney101: Personally I think it's a farking disgrace, income tax should be a flat rate across the board, everyone then pays what they can afford, in proportion to their income

People who earn more can afford a larger percentage.

Next canard please.

You think this is fair

Basic rate: 20%

2011 - £0-£37,400

2012 - £0-£35,000

2013 - £0-£34,370

Higher rate: 40%

2011 - £37,401-£150,000

2012 - £35,001-£150,000

2013 - £34,371-£150,000

Additional rate: 50%

Over £150,000

Notice how the most you can earn before paying a higher rate starts going down?

Gothnet: I heard someone on Radio 4's "Any Answers" program the other week, crying about how all the "talent" would leave if bonuses were cut, and go to other banks. What's worse (apparently) is that if systemic changes are brought in to limit that ability of any bank to pay bonuses like that then the UK will lose these "talented" individuals to other countries.

Talent?
Talent?

Would this be the same motherfrakking talent that ran the place into the farking ground so badly that the taxpayer had to buy the damned thing just to keep it going?
Would this be the same cocksucking talented crowd that ran the whole financial industry into the ground, causing a whole clusterfark of economic consequences that we're still reeling from today?

You have the damned cheek to insist that the UK taxpayer (owner of RBS) approve masses of extra money for the same bunch of talentless monkeys that ruined it?

The balls on these people! Honestly!

I'm no socialist, I'm certainly no communist, but the idea that these arseholes sitting in their offices, pushing numbers around, are producing anything worthwhile is a nonsense. What we really need is a rethink of the financial systems to enable productive capitalism, and design these farking parasites out from the ground up.

Well, they were able to : 1.) convince consumers that they could afford way too much house by offering 0% ARMs and assuring them that the price of their house would always go up, so they could just refinance when the rate adjusted 2.) bribe the assessment companies into assigning bloated, unrealistic values to shoddy homes 3.) get loan originators to falsify income levels of borrows so that they would qualify 3.) buy up all those shiat loans, bundle them together into one giant turd, and then bride the ratings agencies to say that it was solid gold 4.) dump their polished turds onto unwitting retirement plans, municipalities, and other entities looking for "safe" investments and, now this is truly the kicker, 5.) get the government to bail them out when the whole house of cards came crashing down, sinking the world economy and decimating retirement plans and public investments worldwide, and turn a blind eye to the obvious massive levels of fraud at every level.

Now, could you pull something like that off?? I didn't think so. That level of soullessness and hubris requires real talent.

fireclown: thelordofcheese: When I agree to do a job for a certain amount of money, I always demand more when I claim to be finished, no matter how shoddy the results are.

[jdwho.com image 593x261]
bonus incentives do not work that way.

Hotlinking does not work that way.

Pert: I'll bite...

Stephen Hester takes job turning around completely farked bank. Could EASILY have continued in previous career earning 10x the salary he gets for running the bank.

Only other suitable candidate had already walked away from the job offer, having first negotiated a contract that included a share bonus.

Stephen Hester accepts job on same terms negotiated by previous candidate.

Labour Government (at the time) had APPROVED the terms of the contract.

Bank awards Stephen Hester 60% of his performance related bonus entitlement because he has been doing a rather good job.

Labour Party (now in opposition) raises an unholy row about it even though:

1 they approved the contract
2 Stephen Hester is doing a good job
3 nobody else of a similar character is available or willing to replace Stephen Hester (they've been looking)
4 doing this kind of thing is likely to drive Stephen Hester away and dissuade anybody with any sense from replacing him when they can be earning MUCH more without all the political bullshiat

/no, I don't feel sorry for Stephen Hester I just think that this political opportunism is sickening and a huge distraction from the real troubles of the world

I'm with you. The guy has turned the bank around, which is what he was brought into to do. He hit targets that were set for him and therefore he is contractually eligible for said bonus. Yes it's a contentious issue because he's a banker and therefore the spawn of satan, but if anyone here in their day to day jobs was promised a bonus if they met certain targets in their job, and then were pressured into turning them down they'd be rightfully pissed.

It also sets a bad precedent for the next time the UK government wants someone to come in and turn an ailing institution around. Who will want to do it if they know that they do a good job and then get crucified for being offered what is contractually due. They'll just say "no thanks" and go and get a private sector position instead.

Gothnet: The general point that cutting bonuses will cause the bank to lose "talent", or the wider point around altering the legal landscape to make bonuses harder to give/smaller - it's a bloody joke.

He gets a basic salary which is substantially below what he could earn elsewhere, plus will possibly receive additional money for hitting certain targets.

What is your infallible method for linking performance to pay if this doesn't work for you?

It actually makes me far crosser that London transport workers are being paid bonuses JUST TO TURN UP TO WORK TO DO THEIR FARKING JOBS during the Olympics. Not related to performance, nor additional work, they are actually (with a straight face) insisting on being paid extra money to encourage them to come to work.

Link (new window)

gmoney101: You think this is fair

Basic rate: 20%

2011 - £0-£37,400

2012 - £0-£35,000

2013 - £0-£34,370

Higher rate: 40%

2011 - £37,401-£150,000

2012 - £35,001-£150,000

2013 - £34,371-£150,000

Additional rate: 50%

Over £150,000

Notice how the most you can earn before paying a higher rate starts going down?



Yes, I did notice that, when I looked it up on HMRC a little while ago. I'm thinking it might be something to do with this deficit cutting I hear so much about (and generally approve of). As a higher rate tax payer (before I left the UK a couple of years back, and likely after I move back in future) I can't really say I have a problem with it. When I crossed the threshold I was living pretty comfortably in London, 40% of above threshold earnings is a lot, but the principle of progressive taxation is sound. I can better afford to pay the extra on earnings over the barrier, than someone earning half my wage can afford to pay a higher percentage and still eat.

If you'd like to argue that the government is wasteful, huge, overbearing and generally in need of a good gutting so we can all have lower taxes, then I'm right there with you.

D-D-D-Dave: PsiChi: We should all get bonuses for the shiat we have to go through in daily life.

We do. If we do things right, it's called "tomorrow."

Pert: He gets a basic salary which is substantially below what he could earn elsewhere, plus will possibly receive additional money for hitting certain targets.

What is your infallible method for linking performance to pay if this doesn't work for you?

Unsure, but I doubt many people share any form of pity for the poor man who *only* gets to take home in a single year what the median earner in the UK will take home over the course of a 40 year career.

Pert: It actually makes me far crosser that London transport workers are being paid bonuses JUST TO TURN UP TO WORK TO DO THEIR FARKING JOBS during the Olympics. Not related to performance, nor additional work, they are actually (with a straight face) insisting on being paid extra money to encourage them to come to work.

Link (new window)


The tube drivers and the Olmpic committee, not to mention Ken Livingstone, can suck my sweaty balls. I'll not be returning to the UK until that particular farce is over.

Gothnet: I'll not be returning to the UK until that particular farce is over.

If you're in WA (Perth in profile) then I can't say I blame you....although my cousin tells me it's about 38 degrees (centigrade) over there at the moment. Bit hot for me.

/lived in Bunbury for 6 months

Pert: Gothnet: I'll not be returning to the UK until that particular farce is over.

If you're in WA (Perth in profile) then I can't say I blame you....although my cousin tells me it's about 38 degrees (centigrade) over there at the moment. Bit hot for me.

/lived in Bunbury for 6 months

Yeah, it's been stinking hot here for the last few days, which is why I was down south :)
Drove through Bunbury on my way back yesterday, it's a nice little place, and I found a great cider makers in Donnybrook nearby, an ex-pat relocated from Somerset to teach the aussies a thing or two about scrumpy!

Gothnet: An Account To Make Comments: Gothnet:
Would this be the same motherfrakking talent that ran the place into the farking ground so badly that the taxpayer had to buy the damned thing just to keep it going?
Would this be the same cocksucking talented crowd that ran the whole financial industry into the ground, causing a whole clusterfark of economic consequences that we're still reeling from today?


If Pert's post is accurate, its not the same talent that farked it all up, but talent that is somewhat fixing it.


This individual - perhaps, in this case depending on history (presumably he was involved in this sector before being appointed head of RBS?)

The general point that cutting bonuses will cause the bank to lose "talent", or the wider point around altering the legal landscape to make bonuses harder to give/smaller - it's a bloody joke.

You're right that huge bonuses paid to bank executives without regard to the success or failure of their tenure is wrong and shouldn't happen in Gov't owned/supported institutions. And it maybe should be regulated in other institutions that are as large or central to the health of the economy as an RBS would be, or a General Motors in the US.

But if a million pounds/dollars will induce someone to come to your corporation and improve it sufficiently, then let em have it.

Gothnet: it's a nice little place, and I found a great cider makers in Donnybrook nearby

My wife used to work in Donnybrook once a week while we were over there (she was my gf at the time).

Happy days!

/about 7 years ago, when the £ was worth something!

The odd thing about bank executives is that somehow dealing with massive amounts of other people's money has come to mean that you yourself deserve to be paid massive amounts of money.

The day-to-day work of a top bank executive is not very different at all from a top executive in any large corporation, and there's a good chance that you're actually personally responsible for generating less cash than say a director at Argos.


One man stores other peoples cabbages, one man stores other peoples diamonds. They're doing the same job. The profit on those things if lent out while the owner is not using them is the owner's, not the warehouse manager.

kudayta: D-D-D-Dave: PsiChi: We should all get bonuses for the shiat we have to go through in daily life.

We do. If we do things right, it's called "tomorrow."

[upload.wikimedia.org image 215x168]

hehehe. I should stop posting before my first cup of coffee.

Of course Hester returned it.