RBS Bonuses

[TheAnimus]

So apparently they're having to give them back.

But that now means the tax payer isn't getting the 50% it would have previously gottern.

In the case of the CEO he left a role which paid 1.8M, to now earn 1.2M.

How on earth are we going to get anyone to work for RBC when the angry mob decide their comp?

(Also please note this is not to say that there isn't a culture of CEOs sitting on comp boards for their buddies, failure been rewarded, social mobility, etc. which really should be addressed.)

[jim]

I take it you mean RBS? RBC is Royal Bank of Canada.

[santa claus]

In the case of the CEO he left a role which paid 1.8M, to now earn 1.2M.

How on earth are we going to get anyone to work for RBC when the angry mob decide their comp?

You don't think a salary of £1.2m is incentive enough? And I thought they were turning down a bonus not leaving the job.

[Raz316]

This all seems really unprofessional to me, if he's not allowed the bonus, he should have never been offered the bonus to start with. This is not his fault, it's the fault of the people who appointed him.

(unless of course I am missing something)

[MadduckUK]

Cockland?

is that where male chickens come from then?

[Biscuit]

You don't think a salary of £1.2m is incentive enough?

My thoughts exactly. People seem to state that this salery is less than it previously was.... whup-de-do whats your point? Any salary over £1 million is ludicrous, this becomes especially more true given the ****ty state the banks got us into.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

TBH,it depends on the other employees IMHO. If they are getting pay cuts and pay freezes then its only fair that everyone(even the higher management) is treated the same.

The same goes with the bonuses - I would rather prefer a more appropriate base pay in the first place than huge bonuses. The fact that you are being paid indicates you should be doing the job well in the first place - the bonus should not be the incentive to put 100% into your work. Bonuses should only be awarded for exceptional performance(AFAIK,that is what they used to be a long time ago) and not be part of the contract.

[TooNice]

Aren't bonuses, even those built into the contract, conditional?

[roachcoach]

This REALLY annoys me.

The problems are:

a) Massive public jealously - anyone being paid more than you can't POSSIBLY deserve it
b) The term 'bonus' is wrong - its not a 'bonus' in the traditional sense; it is payment for reaching agreed targets. Many reasons for this, indeed it actually makes sense on a lot of levels.

By rights, the board should resign over this, however since they're in charge of a balance sheet of over a trillion quid, we're quite fortunate they have not.


Disclaimer: I don't work in a bank and I don't get bonuses

[BobF64]

b) The term 'bonus' is wrong - its not a 'bonus' in the traditional sense; it is payment for reaching agreed targets. Many reasons for this, indeed it actually makes sense on a lot of levels.

You've made me curious now, what is a bonus in the traditional sense?

To me, a bonus is "something you receive as a reward outside any usually expected reward", so that could be as a result of a good deed, personal or company performance.

[Ross1]

TBH,it depends on the other employees IMHO. If they are getting pay cuts and pay freezes then its only fair that everyone(even the higher management) is treated the same.

The same goes with the bonuses - I would rather prefer a more appropriate base pay in the first place than huge bonuses. The fact that you are being paid indicates you should be doing the job well in the first place - the bonus should not be the incentive to put 100% into your work. Bonuses should only be awarded for exceptional performance(AFAIK,that is what they used to be a long time ago) and not be part of the contract.

Whether bonuses even improve performance at all is highly controversial. I know Dan Ariely has done some work on the subject... stuff like http://danariely.com/2008/11/20/what...f-a-big-bonus/

is worth a quick read, as is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princip...3agent_problem

[roachcoach]

You've made me curious now, what is a bonus in the traditional sense?

To me, a bonus is "something you receive as a reward outside any usually expected reward", so that could be as a result of a good deed, personal or company performance.

Exactly that. An unexpected 'extra' in a payslip. Imagine the stereotypical old 'christmas bonuses' in the pay slips if the company did well.


These 'bonuses' talked of today however are not unexpected, they are structured and defined at the start of the year - people work towards targets and if they hit them, they are given the money.

The current remuneration structure of many places now is you have a wage of £X and by doing A, B and C to a standard of n, you will received and additional y% of £X.

It's not a big jolly pat on the back "well done that man, didn't expect that this year". Unfortunately between the media, ignorance, jealously and politicians the damage is long done and the misconception is cast in granite.


I know people who worked in banks (IT division, before any readers start foaming at the mouth) who have moved on to new companies and without fail, the new hiring company has matched basic + 'bonus' as part of their 'basic' because it is understood to be a part and parcel of the remuneration.

Edit: Hell when I worked in a store I was given a 'bonus' of £1 every time I sold a store card...that's the way these 'bonuses' are now. The correct word would probably be: "Incentive".

[Platinum]

This all seems really unprofessional to me, if he's not allowed the bonus, he should have never been offered the bonus to start with. This is not his fault, it's the fault of the people who appointed him.

(unless of course I am missing something)

Wasn't that the Labour government? and they didn't address the bonus issue at the time, and now there complaining about it?

[badass]

So apparently they're having to give them back.

But that now means the tax payer isn't getting the 50% it would have previously gottern.

In the case of the CEO he left a role which paid 1.8M, to now earn 1.2M.

How on earth are we going to get anyone to work for RBC when the angry mob decide their comp?

(Also please note this is not to say that there isn't a culture of CEOs sitting on comp boards for their buddies, failure been rewarded, social mobility, etc. which really should be addressed.)

He never had a £900,000 bonus in the first place. It was share options that are only worth any money if he does a good job for 3 years.
Instead of the angry mob focusing on his pay, they should focus on whether they are getting value for money. The short term share price is irrelevant as every bank took a kicking last year.

[jim]

Funny thing is, if all the people complaining had a target linked bonus and were told that it was being arbitrarily revoked, they would be livid.

Agreeing a contract then trying to embarrass him out of his agreed bonus is not progressive. If they think he should be paid less, then fine, agree a better contract next time. This isn't the way to do it.

[TheAnimus]

ah yeah dislexico on the title, can a mod please change RBC to RBS!