Comments on: Call RBS Board’s Bluff? Yes, I think so.

By: Southie

Southie — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 23:19:29 +0000

“What would you do with a politician, a contractor or an employee who refuses to do the things you’ve told them to do, over and over again? ”

A contractor you hit with a pipe. Sometimes, you gotta hurt people for their own good,

“But, more probably, they form part of a performance related pay packets.”

Plastic sheeting if they let you down would be better.

Southie

By: Leyton Jay

Leyton Jay — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:23:11 +0000

If these banks are owned (for the most part) by the Government then we are all shareholders. We’re not going to be invited to a AGM sadly, but if we register our contempt with the government, we should get our say in the running of what are now, OUR banks.

What would you do with a politician, a contractor or an employee who refuses to do the things you’ve told them to do, over and over again? Sack them.

Lawyers and bankers are ten-a-penny and this lot have failed us. Just like in politics, there are dozens and dozens of successful people queuing up behind everyone of these fat cats. they’re probably foaming at the mouth with anticipation at the moment, and so they should be.

I think we could actually be better off with fresh blood and a close working relationship with the Treasury. I’d consider just sacking them, use our power as major (if not controlling) shareholders. But that’ll never happen.

Calling their bluff is the best I can realistically hope for.

By: Si Keighley

Si Keighley — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:21:47 +0000

Where I work, we haven’t had a Christmas Bonus for a few years now. Actually, that’s untrue, we’ve never had a Christmas bonus. Calling it a bonus, claim HR, would make it a part of our salary that we were entitled to, and the Christmas payment we used to get was a discretionary sweetener.

It seems that everyone assumes bankers “bonuses” are seen as being exactly like the extra money I got at Christmas, just a lump sum to keep them sweet. But, more probably, they form part of a performance related pay packets.

I’m sure there could be good grounds to be aggrieved at the level of remuneration some of these bankers get.
If I knew the sort of typical packages these people got rather than relying on the figure of them all lumped together, I may feel aggrieved. But all I get is a general sense that it’s “way too much”.

By: Psi

Psi — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:33:41 +0000

Alternatively, the RBS Board could sell of the investment banking arm and any other profit making bits where bonuses need to be paid, that way those individuals could receive their bonuses. There should be a good price available as well, getting some of our money back from what was put in. The (currently loss making) remaining high street operations of RBS and Natwest could be run as retail banks.

The Labour party could screw these banks up even further and show us yet again how it is a terrible idea to allow government to interfere in what should be a private sector (in which I include mutuals) activity. The sooner people remember what a disaster nationalised industries the better.

By: Philip Hunt

Philip Hunt — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:27:33 +0000

Better still, sack the fuckers.

By: Laurence

Laurence — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:50:56 +0000

“The best and only way the RBS board can protect their shareholders is to get out of Government control altogether”

That’s no longer an option for them, Charlotte.

“and if they can’t do that then resigning, surely, is better than capitulating?”

And then what does the successor board do? I think Mr Darling has waded off out of his depth (St Vince too, but he doesn’t have to suffer the consequences) and it is only a matter of time before he blinks.

By: Charlotte Gore

Charlotte Gore — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:43:45 +0000

The best and only way the RBS board can protect their shareholders is to get out of Government control altogether, and if they can’t do that then resigning, surely, is better than capitulating?

By: Laurence

Laurence — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:37:09 +0000

I’m with John Scott on this. The board has to act in the interest of all the shareholders and cannot simply do the state’s bidding.

A thirst for revenge, or spite, are not a good way to enhance shareholder value.

By: Charlotte Gore

Charlotte Gore — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:09:31 +0000

Yeah that doesn’t surprise me. Problem is when he says it it makes me reconsider.

By: David Matthewman

David Matthewman — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:52:07 +0000

For what it's worth Vince Cable seems to agree with you on this.