fair pay for bankers

Does not seem to be much in the app to justify the $11.99 price.

Plenty of sites where can see what people earn in different occupations, I looked at the NUT website last week after I saw a dubious claim that newly qualified teachers earn less than a McDonalds employee.

Please explain what exactly these people do to be considered for such high bonuses and salaries.

My Auntie cares for old and mentally ill people, has done all her life, works over for no pay for the benefit of the vulnerable. She helps out free of charge for charities which are related to these people. Totally selfless along with many thousands of others for fujckall at the end of the week.

Then you get these parasitic basterds and those on here who support them earning obscene amounts for licking their bobbes arses and doing f****all, pretending to be something they are not.

I`ve never heard such bullshit regading these people in all my life when reasons are given for bonuses.

*bosses arses

Shamenlee

the defenders of banker greed like Java will be along shortly to point out that your Auntie is just another nasty worker in the state sector and that she is lucky even to have a job; and that it wasn't for all the bankers creating all the wealth she would be on benefits, and if she was in a 2 bedroom rented house she would be moved into a slum as a scrounger and someone in need of social cleansing.

it will be utter tripe of course but there you are.

Good post cryof

"and if she was in a 2 bedroom rented house she would be moved into a slum as a scrounger and someone in need of social cleansing."

You really are insane.

No Jave you are the one with reasoning difficulties.

Its the policies you support that punish ordinary working people by throwing them on the dole and then making it impossible for them to live in their rented accommodation by slashing benefits.

Its already quite clear that thousands will have to move out of non-poor areas because of the carefully designed amendments to housing benefits.

The fact that so many poor people will have to pay for the greed of the bankers makes some people quite rightly angry. The fact that you support the bankers ludicrous bonuses makes you look very foolish - which you so clearly are.

"then making it impossible for them to live in their rented accommodation by slashing benefits."

How much have benefits reduced over the last 3 years Cry?

"thousands will have to move out of non-poor areas because of the carefully designed amendments to housing benefits."

Do you disagree with a housing benefit cap?  Do you think a person dependent on welfare should be allowed to live in Chelsea when a worker has to live in Zone 6?  Yes or no will do.

Unfortunately for you Cry you rant and rant and as soon as you are hit by facts you hit the buffer.  You are known as "CryoftheDeranged" for a reason.

If it were possible for you plebs to understand the answer to "what do they do" then you'd be clever enough to do it instead of moaning about how poor and stupid you are instead.

He`s not talking about immigrants living in 2k per week rentals in Chelsea, is he?

Please explain what exactly these people do to be considered for such high bonuses and salaries.

If it were possible for you plebs to understand the answer to "what do they do" then you'd be clever enough to do it instead of moaning about how poor and stupid you are instead.

Instead of asking smart arse questions like the one above which means ****all. Answer mine, it`s been there long enough, hasn`t it?

Vendetta used to call himself Goring,Shane. That's all you need to know really.

Luckily that is all there's room for in your pea-brained skull.

V - I agree it is nonsense to compare bankers pay with carers, nurses, taxi drivers etc.

Out of interest what is bankers pay compared to other highly educated, long hours professions such as City lawyers, Top Accountants, Architects,  Surgeons etc.

I think a key area is the middle level, where mediocre traders can pull in £1 million in hedge funds for example,  whereas the really big remuneration for the lawyers/accountants it pretty close to the top.

Don't know about private surgeons/architects.

Which brings us back to the problem of traders having optionality in their remuneration.  Trader makes £5 million in 2004 and gets £500k bonus.  He loses £7 million in 2005 and gets the boot.  Rocks up at another bank (provided he can sell the reason his trading book went awry) and makes £2 million in 2006 and gets a £200k bonus.

He has made nothing, but had bonuses of £700k.  This is an unlikely example, and is before the days of clawback or bonuses in shares, but it illustrates the flaws in the system.

And of course the extreme example is one bank loses billions, and needs bailing out.  All the other banks make a fortune and get massive bonuses.  All that has happened is the taxpayer has paid for all the other banks' employees bonuses.

Before someone thinks I have had my login stolen, I will restate that I am against our financial services industry getting the pasting it does from the media, but the bonus set up is wrong in my opinion.  I do think they are making progress in this area though, with higher bases and clawback proposal, not to mention the issuing of bonuses in equity.

One word, B0LL0CKS.

As in you don't think they are making progress?  Surely remuneration in equity has a longer term aspect to it than cash in hand which can't be clawed back.

As in I'm starting to think you an apologist for the banking industry regurgitating "feel good" soundbites intended to pacify the clueless public, without a clue about what's really going on with the GLACIAL pace of any REAL reforms and the watering down of any proposed oversight and pay limits by the time any implementation takes place.

So again, B0LL0CKS.

Well - there is certainly no reason why they can't split retail and investment banking in a short time frame.  It seems clear that vested interests delay that as much as possible because if that happens then they don't get underwritten by the taxpayer on derivatives.

But bonus reform is a positive step.

As in I'm starting to think you an apologist for the banking industry







No sh1t

Java, I asked this question before, perhaps you didn't see it, but what do you do? What's your interest in the financial sector?

(If you did see the question before and chose not to answer, that's okay too, I will respect that)

I don't want to say on a public forum.

No problem. Thanks for letting me know.

Just in case you didn't see this today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9922668/British-banks-may-have-30bn-hidden-losses.html

Scrap the word "may" and AT LEAST double that £50bn in undeclared losses and you may begin to get close to the truth. The real truth is NO ONE KNOWS, not even the BoE.

We bail them out, we change accounting rules for them,  we look the other way when we know they are still lying about their financial state, and we keep deferring reforms until some unknown date in the future, not to mention watering them down as to make them totally ineffective.

So I ask again, WHO THE F/K RUNS THIS PLACE while mugs on here continue to engage in endless "bad tories"/"bad labour" irrelevant debates?

Nothing will be "fixed" until the public wakes up first by....going hungry.

The "Trader Option" as it is called is not a "flaw", Java.  It's something both business and traders price into the goings on.  As it's known upfront, there's nothing left unknown.  You trade a trader's reputation and known past performance for the option.

(There's a simple valuation of the "Trader Option" in many texts in terms of the risk limits.  You can price it in cash, so you know what you've "paid" with it).

Hello Vendetta

Just to expand where I think the problem is, let’s take a senior hedge fund trader who as a 10% of P&L clause in his contract each year.

Let’s say he is bright, and comes up with a winning strategy on complex derivatives (synthetic CDO tranches for the sake of argument) and the fund makes 10% in consecutive years and he gets paid accordingly.  Now the market changes, and his strategy no longer works and the investors want to redeem.  At the same time the liquidity drops out of the market and he now loses 30% getting out of positions and his position becomes redundant.

Now, this guy can quite convincing make an argument to a new prospective employer that his fundamentals are sound, and the change in market conditions was outside his control.  He gets hired at a new fund, and makes 10% in a different market and gets paid accordingly.

Over a 4 year period this guy will have banked large bonuses, but his contribution to investor growth is zero.

Wouldn’t you say that is flawed?

I've used hedge funds as I know the bank bonus calculations are more complex to the example I have given, but would be interested to hear your thoughts.

please bear in mind that English doesn't appear to be  Java's first language

V - I agree it is nonsense to compare bankers pay with carers, nurses, taxi drivers etc.

I don't agree. its a fair comparison to make. one worker gets naff all but does good. The other rips everyone off and takes a massive salary enough to make his extended family rich beyond reason for generations.

The facts are there.

It might irritate bankers to see the facts; never mind eh.

If it were possible for you plebs to understand the answer to "what do they do" then you'd be clever enough to do it instead of moaning about how poor and stupid you are instead.

i doubt any of us plebs would aspire to such insights.

All we'd like is for at least one or two of you (one would do a a pinch) to be clever enough to understand what you do,  so that we don't have to pick up the pieces, pay the bills and  live with the consequences when, as ever, you royally f*ck up.

Java - in a sense yes, but it's a market (or should be) and institutions are capable of learning what is "in the bag" and what isn't themselves.  In fact, far better than any state monkey or monkeys who are slow(er) to catch on and didn't see any of this coming in the first place despite causing it all. In summary, the problem is one for the board and shareholders.

gus - you don't have to.  Never did.

V4 Vendetta 13 Mar 13 19:37 
Java - in a sense yes, but it's a market (or should be) and institutions are capable of learning what is "in the bag" and what isn't themselves.  In fact, far better than any state monkey or monkeys who are slow(er) to catch on and didn't see any of this coming in the first place despite causing it all. In summary, the problem is one for the board and shareholders.


in a sense yes

in a sense yes, in reality no? Yes, maybe, is this multiple choice?

it's a market (or should be)

is it, or isn't it, make up your mind

institutions are capable of learning what is "in the bag"

capable of learning doesn't mean they have in fact learned

In fact

Exactly what evidence have you offered that gives you liberty to call this fact?

didn't see any of this coming in the first place despite causing it all

who didn't see this coming? who caused it? You are confused

In summary

Your friggin' post is five lines to begin with FFS. Or, is it that the first four lines said....nothing?

the problem is one for the board and shareholders

Really? The shareholders?? The same shareholders who would have zeroed out if not bailed out? The same shareholders who have been proven powerless on issues of remuneration? Are you referring to those shareholders, or to taxpayer mugs who own some of these pigs now?

sigh

Sign is a good idea. The alternative would have been defending the scrambled sh1t you posted trying to pass as intelligent opinion.

sigh


....on second thought, not just as opinion, but as fact.

the problem with the 'free' market is that it produces such ludicrous and unequal results which go far beyond any rationality. Hence you get the barmy situation of top footballers/bankers etc getting paid more in a week than many people doing useful jobs get in a decade!! There is no way that society can function well with such a crazy distribution of wealth.

p.s. was it Lincoln who said 'you can fool all of the people some of the time.....' - this statement basically sums up how politics works, and going by many of the views on this forum (and the same goes for the public in general), nothing has changed since the 1800s

There is never a problem with a free market. NEVER.

If a footballer is such a special talent, then he ought to be paid as a special talent. If people are willing to pay today's ticket prices to go watch such a special talent, then so be it. The market has spoken.

The problem is paying billions to bankers who possess no special talent, over say an engineer or a doctor, other than the knowledge  that they can privatize gains and socialize losses with their gambling. THEY KNOW THEY WILL BE BAILED OUT WHEN THEY F/K UP. And the people, or the free market, has absolutely no say in this at all.

That's where the real inequity lies.

i usually agree with everything u post menelaus but not on this one. The problem with the free market is it assumes the human mass is rational and capable of making sensible logical decisions when quite clearly its not!! I dont disagree that a top footballer deserves to be reasonably well paid as a successful entertainer, just like a good doctor or engineer, but its a matter of degree. no-one deserves to be paid 100s of times more than a bog cleaner imo

for most of the 20th century (up to about the 1980s) the wealth gap was closing. their were rich people for sure but much less of the obscene wealth gap we see today, that is ever-widening. corporate profit as a % of GDP has never been higher, and wages as a % of GDP never lower. this is just dismal

The whole point is, if there is a point, footballers, entertainers, engineers, scientists, doctors, or anything else HAVE NOT DISTORTED the free market (hence the inequity that you mentioned), bankers have.

Because they pay themselves obscene amounts, not based on reality, not based on talent, not based on REAL profits as we found out, but simply......BECAUSE THEY CAN.

And that's NOT how a free market functions. If we truly had a free market, we would let them FAIL. The "human mass" has no idea what's going on here, never mind having a say in all of this.

this makes no sense. i didnt say footballers distort the free market. i said the free market causes massive wealth inequality, e.g. footballers getting paid 100s of times more than bog cleaners.

I agree with yr anti banker rant but i dont think its relevent to the argument about free market economics. And if we had let the banks fail in 2008 the whole economy wudda been fckked.

the banks WERE too big to fail. obviously thats a ludicrous state of affairs but unfortunately its a fact. letting the whole banking industry go up the sh1tter was not an option

Why not?

Tell me why it was not an option?

"If a footballer is such a special talent, then he ought to be paid as a special talent. If people are willing to pay today's ticket prices to go watch such a special talent, then so be it. The market has spoken."'

I don't agree with this Menelaus.  I think we can all agree that Chelsea would be insolvent if it were not for Mr Abramovich converted their debt to shareholder equity making them "debt free".  Buying footballers is his thing to blow off steam.  We need to look behind the footballers to see where the wealth is coming from and whether that is the market speaking.  Don't know enough about Abramovich's wealth to comment, but you get my drift.  Football clubs don't make money so the market isn't speaking.

I agree with you on the entertainment business, as the record/film companies are making enough to pay them large salaries.

"The problem is paying billions to bankers who possess no special talent, over say an engineer or a doctor, other than the knowledge  that they can privatize gains and socialize losses with their gambling. THEY KNOW THEY WILL BE BAILED OUT WHEN THEY F/K UP. And the people, or the free market, has absolutely no say in this at all."

Agree with this 100% but we both know the solution.