Phoenix of Hamble
Well-Known Member
The term 'hoisted by your own petard' springs to mind.......
You don't work in customer services do you?
What does Tullett Prebon do?
- Thread starter cgull
- Start date
The term 'hoisted by your own petard' springs to mind.......
You don't work in customer services do you?
philiphurst
Well-Known Member
Certainly not. But I do understand how the banks, financial and investment markets work. I'm self employed and take responsibility for myself.
bluemoongaffer
Well-Known Member
Bedouin wrote: "Would you mind explaining that for those of us who are a bit slow.
The reports suggest that Barclays will be paying the largest bonuses - but they didn't take any taxpayers money, so how is our money paying those bonuses?"
Barclays benefited greatly from the general bail out of banks and then via access to the UK's quantitive easing programme. To be fair to them, they've also made a lot out of buying Lehman's Wall Street business - which was their call, and a good one. In general though, without the government bailouts (on both sides of the Atlantic), Barclays would not have been making money on the scale it has been if they didn't have access to cheap money to lend on at a greatly increased margin. All this support has been provided by you and me in the form of reduced interest rates for savings and increased government borrowings. I'd say that was a pretty comprehensive transfer of wealth from taxpayers (particularly savers) to investment bankers
The reports suggest that Barclays will be paying the largest bonuses - but they didn't take any taxpayers money, so how is our money paying those bonuses?"
Barclays benefited greatly from the general bail out of banks and then via access to the UK's quantitive easing programme. To be fair to them, they've also made a lot out of buying Lehman's Wall Street business - which was their call, and a good one. In general though, without the government bailouts (on both sides of the Atlantic), Barclays would not have been making money on the scale it has been if they didn't have access to cheap money to lend on at a greatly increased margin. All this support has been provided by you and me in the form of reduced interest rates for savings and increased government borrowings. I'd say that was a pretty comprehensive transfer of wealth from taxpayers (particularly savers) to investment bankers
pyrojames
Well-Known Member
A bit slow, or a bit obtuse?
I don't have a problem with Barclays actually and did not mention them by name. If you have a vested interest in Barclays then you should be able to recognise that they are rather the exception. They were the only UK based bank AFAIK, which did not requie a bailout. Use of available funds at reduced rates is a different matter. Barclays got into trouble and got themselves out. Well done, and they can pay whatever bonuses they like. Most of the other banks, RBS, Halifax, Lloyds on the other hand...
banger
Well-Known Member
The usual rubbish being expressed again, according to the BBC the average bonus at Barclays Investment arm is £225,000, after tax is ,what? less than half,useful sum I agree but hardly billions. People should remember that the headline bonus pot is exactly that a headline,it is spread over the entire employees including my daughter in law who works part time, last year she has a bonus of £2,500 before tax not enough to buy a Sunseeker.
Finally, in another post that suggested wiping out all banks I asked the posters to suggest another industry to take over the gap left if the banks were forced offshore, the answer was silence, so I would suggest that if people cannot put up then shut up.
Finally, in another post that suggested wiping out all banks I asked the posters to suggest another industry to take over the gap left if the banks were forced offshore, the answer was silence, so I would suggest that if people cannot put up then shut up.
Phoenix of Hamble
Well-Known Member
Its a F***ing enormous amount of money to most people...... for many, if not most of the people I know its quite a few years of salary.....
Also, £2.5k bonus for a part time job seems pretty good to me.
I can help but feel that there is a sense of detachment from reality.
banger
Well-Known Member
For those who need an explanation of the works bonus, it refers to how much PROFIT you make for the company over and above what is expected, and your percentage of that PROFIT is the bonus,although my daughter in law was part time due to family she worked the hours from home that would be expected from someone working full time and made for the company the profit over and above what was required, therefore she earned her money.
In the real world at lot of people are on a very small salary and have to work hard to get a suitable income, the bonus system gives incentive to do that, the better you are the more you earn, and that includes bankers.
In the real world at lot of people are on a very small salary and have to work hard to get a suitable income, the bonus system gives incentive to do that, the better you are the more you earn, and that includes bankers.
bedouin
Well-Known Member
But in City terms RBS and Lloyds are minnows.
AFAIK neither HSBC nor SC, both UK based, took UK Government money either
The big guys are Citi, Goldmans, BarCap, HSBC, Deutsche, JPM, UBS, CS and so on. Even though you might not think of them as UK banks their investment banking arms are either based in the City or have a very heavy presence here.
The banks that got into real trouble were those that were purely, or at least predominately retail banks - whereas the bonuses relate primarily to investment banks.
Phoenix of Hamble
Well-Known Member
urm.... I think you'll find that most of us know how bonus is earned and what PROFIT is...... the problem we have is that its very hard for the rest of us to make a PROFIT because the banks are squeezing us so hard its almost impossible, so that they can make a huge PROFIT and pay big bonuses... geddit?
pyrojames
Well-Known Member
I'd be interested to know what you consider a "very small salary", the national average? I suspect that very few on the national average have any chance of earning a "bonus" of any real meaning based on company profits. SIPS hardly rates.
I would be happy with the payment of bonuses on a percentage of profit, OR LOSS. I get paid a bonus if I work more hours. Conversely if I don't work enough hours to cover my basis salary, it counts against my bonus, which can go negative. Anyone in the banking industry prepared to work on that basis?
banger
Well-Known Member
Its always been the same,get used to it, or if you can,join them if you are any good.
bedouin
Well-Known Member
Legally it is very difficult to take someone's salary away.
What often happens in banks is that the base salary is "very" low and the bonus represents that majority of the income (often several times base). That allows the bank to control the pay based both on and individual performance and the bank's performance as a whole.
I can't think of any other industry where the rewards of employees is so tightly linked to corporate performance
maxi77
Well-Known Member
There are many companies wher very high proportions of pay are generated by 'performance', many salespeople get paid commision on the sales they make. It is widely recognised that when this commision becomes to large a proportion of the take home pay then misselling starts to take place as has happened with insurance products, energy etc. Exactly the same has happened with the bankers where bonuses are paid for short term profit on long tern high risk investments.
Finaly if bonus payments are really a measure of profitability worth rewarding it is equally a proper thing to tax
bbg
Well-Known Member
FWIW, the system of salary + bonus is also an efficient way (at least here in Switzerland) for banks to effectively increase salary without some of the associated costs of doing so. For example, an employer has to pay things like pension contributions based on a percentage of salary, but not on bonuses. In some respects, companies with a bonus scheme (and this isn't limited to banks) have - in effect - reduced the cost of paying a higher base salary.
Are the employees "worth it"? IMHO there is an argument for saying that, provided the company doesn't fail due to excessive labour costs, and provides a good return / dividend to shareholders, then they are "worth it". I happen to know someone who (I assume) gets very high bonuses. PhD in mathematics - a very, very bright guy. Didn't stop him getting fired when his part of the bank decided to wind its operations down.
I'm not a banker, and never will be, so what they earn isn't really my concern. Same with professional athletes. I never will be one (unless one of you happens to own a Premiership club, and would be prepared to hire me at top salary despite the fact that I've never played organised football - PM me). If they can demand the money and someone is willing to pay it, so be it. It doesn't affect what I am going to have for dinner tonight (gnocchi, if anyone is interested). I'm kind of bemused by some of what I read in this thread.
philiphurst
Well-Known Member
bbg has got this spot on.
Coaster
Well-Known Member
I understand that tax is paid on bonuses, at each individual's top rate.
Is there any suggestion tax is not paid by most UK domiciled recipients?
Presumably for every large bonus paid to UK taxpayers a large sum of tax is recieved by the Exchequer? If so, one reason for welcoming large bonuses is that the rest of us should pay less tax than we otherwise might have to.
davidfox
Well-Known Member
Hmm, well thats what my brother does! i did use the etc etc to imply more - Hmm
doris
Well-Known Member
And to think that Citi, Deutsche, JPM, UBS were all bust just a few months ago. Funny old world isn't it. In fact in my time in the city I seem to remember Nat West, Midland, Barclays, RBS all being bust at least once in most cases several times.
To answer the original poster's question about Tullett Prebon.....If you need to ask the question, you will not understand the answer.
doris
Well-Known Member
With NI plus Income tax over 50% goes to the treasury. After April that will be about 62%. Lots of schools etc from that!!
maxi77
Well-Known Member
Of course the recipients are taxed, currently at 50%, but I was suggesting that the level of bonus payment should be used as a basis for at least part of the tax paid by the bank
