RBS boss Stephen Hester

[xs2man]

His turning down of nearly £1m. What a joke.

I think it is incredulous what has happened here. Here is a man, who took on what must be the most hated job in Britain, and did a good job. He is no doubt getting paid substantially less than he could be probably anywhere else in the world, and the media get all up in arms about the only real incentive for him to actually do a better job, FOR THIS COUNTRY.

What happens when he quits? Who will take the role? Certainly not the best person for the job, as the best person for the job won't want it now. He will take the job somewhere else, where he will get paid WHAT HE IS WORTH, and not be lambasted for accepting a bonus he has earned.

The bonus was to be paid in shares, not cash, so the better a job he does, the more the share value would rise, thus paying the bonus HIMSELF, through his own work. NOT out the taxpayers pocket. The better HE does, the more money HE makes himself.

So are pre-tax profits of £1.2bn, instead of losses, not justification for a £1m bonus? I think so. Sounds like a bargain for the UK if you ask me. Never mind the £15bn of "liquid" assets.
[FONT=Arial, Helmet, Freesans, sans-serif][/FONT]
What has he actually done for RBS?

• The bank is now making money. For the first nine months of 2011, RBS made pre-tax profits of £1.2bn.
• The bank says that all of its core businesses are now profitable, other than its Northern Irish unit, Ulster Bank.
• RBS's ratio of assets - loans and investments - to its loss-absorbing equity capital is a fraction more than 20 times, down from 50 times in the autumn of 2008 when it was rescued. (According to the BBC's business editor Robert Peston, in 2008 a fall in the value of its assets of just 2% was enough to sink it. Today, its assets would have to be written down by 5%.)
• RBS's balance sheet has been reduced by more than £600bn since 2008.
• RBS has lent more than £68bn to UK companies in the nine months to September 2011, including over 40p in every £1 lent to small businesses in the UK compared with a much lower customer market share.
• The bank's ratio of the loans it has made to deposits is 112%, down from 154% more than three years ago.
• It has increased its portfolio of liquid assets (which it assets that can supposedly be turned into cash in a crisis) from £155bn to £170bn.

 

[ScottD3]

I'm confused.

What are you ranting about?

his bonus, the fact he's not getting it but he deserves it, that he's under paid, RBS making money or the best man wont get his job when he leaves?

I'm not up on all this bank ****** but am interested in enough to read the off post about it on forums.

 

[xs2man]

I'm really ranting about the fact he was essentially forced into turning it down despite all he has done to deserve it. How the public (media) appear to think it will be coming out of their pockets rather than the results of his actions. Just the lunacy of the whole situation really.

 

[ScottD3]

I'm really ranting about the fact he was essentially forced into turning it down despite all he has done to deserve it. How the public (media) appear to think it will be coming out of their pockets rather than the results of his actions. Just the lunacy of the whole situation really.

Ahhh, Now I understand.

So I assume cause his under boy took his £900k Odd bonus and people was ranting about it so much, he thought it be best to drop his bonus?

 

[jojo]

I agree with you, but the issue has come about that the bank is 82% owned by the tax payer, which automatically mean every man who pays their taxes is entitled an expression of opinion, not particularly helped by the media making a song and dance about it!

I keep thinking how such a small sum of money this is compared to what England managers get for failing to qualify for certain footy competitions and getting the sack!

 

[Matt_S]

His turning down of nearly £1m. What a joke.

I think it is incredulous what has happened here. Here is a man, who took on what must be the most hated job in Britain, and did a good job. He is no doubt getting paid substantially less than he could be probably anywhere else in the world, and the media get all up in arms about the only real incentive for him to actually do a better job, FOR THIS COUNTRY.

What happens when he quits? Who will take the role? Certainly not the best person for the job, as the best person for the job won't want it now. He will take the job somewhere else, where he will get paid WHAT HE IS WORTH, and not be lambasted for accepting a bonus he has earned.

The bonus was to be paid in shares, not cash, so the better a job he does, the more the share value would rise, thus paying the bonus HIMSELF, through his own work. NOT out the taxpayers pocket. The better HE does, the more money HE makes himself.

So are pre-tax profits of £1.2bn, instead of losses, not justification for a £1m bonus? I think so. Sounds like a bargain for the UK if you ask me. Never mind the £15bn of "liquid" assets.
[FONT=Arial, Helmet, Freesans, sans-serif][/FONT]
What has he actually done for RBS?

• The bank is now making money. For the first nine months of 2011, RBS made pre-tax profits of £1.2bn.
• The bank says that all of its core businesses are now profitable, other than its Northern Irish unit, Ulster Bank.
• RBS's ratio of assets - loans and investments - to its loss-absorbing equity capital is a fraction more than 20 times, down from 50 times in the autumn of 2008 when it was rescued. (According to the BBC's business editor Robert Peston, in 2008 a fall in the value of its assets of just 2% was enough to sink it. Today, its assets would have to be written down by 5%.)
• RBS's balance sheet has been reduced by more than £600bn since 2008.
• RBS has lent more than £68bn to UK companies in the nine months to September 2011, including over 40p in every £1 lent to small businesses in the UK compared with a much lower customer market share.
• The bank's ratio of the loans it has made to deposits is 112%, down from 154% more than three years ago.
• It has increased its portfolio of liquid assets (which it assets that can supposedly be turned into cash in a crisis) from £155bn to £170bn.

I couldn't agree more! And I wouldn't blame him if he jacked it in after all this! You have covered everything so I can't add anymore lol.

 

[Matt_S]

I agree with you, but the issue has come about that the bank is 82% owned by the tax payer, which automatically mean every man who pays their taxes is entitled an expression of opinion, not particularly helped by the media making a song and dance about it!

I keep thinking how such a small sum of money this is compared to what England managers get for failing to qualify for certain footy competitions and getting the sack!

Correct, but RBS issue notice of AGM and rights to vote based on said 82% voting rights, most wouldn't have a clue. And that last part is the problem. Most people do not have the slightest understanding of what's going on, but only know what the papers have told them.

 

[a3tdi2001]

Hester was awarded £7.7 million in bonus and pension contributions in 2010 alone. The reason that he has decided not to collect this time is to try and curry favour with the British sheeple and protect his future bonus payments. Wake up Britain.

 

[quattrojames]

The media will ruin this country one day, the 'power' they hold over the British public is not good.

 

[sportstractor]

Yes, I was disappointed he turned it down. Forced into it by hypocritical politicians and press....

He's turned RBS around, and to keep a decent employee, they need to give competitive bonus's... And the funniest thing is everybody iv spoken to agreed.

 

[warren_S5]

He'll get it as a backhander so don't lose too much sleep about it. It's likely to be a diversion tactic.

When the share value is actually gaining some ground maybe they can start paying out 6 figure bonuses again.

 

[jagojon]

what about all the poor old sods that were conned into buying shares on a rights issue before it went bang!!! do you feel so passionate about that?

confused why you are so bothered.
i thought his deal when he took on the role was that the share price had to hit 70p before he got any bonus.

he isnt the miracle worker there, its the people at the coal face that work hard facing bank customers, and believe me they are treated like cr+p. he made a huge profit did he? hmm did they cut mortgage rates or loan rates when they had tax payers money to bail them out..........dont think so, thats where the huge profit comes from, oooh yeah did you know most "normal " employees had a pay freeze or in fact pay cut due to increased targets!


do the maths.

i dont blame Hester, just the idiots who brokered the deal on behalf of the tax payer!!!

so pleased that my children will be paying for their mistakes for years, long after Hester has retired on a huge pension!

ooh yeah its loan ratio is down because they wont sanction ****** all to clients who need help. remind me , how much have RBS paid back to the tax payer?


what the hell has any of this got to do with Audi!

 

[voorhees]

the British sheeple and protect his future bonus payments. Wake up Britain.

So true

The media will ruin this country one day, the 'power' they hold over the British public is not good.

The media have so much power it's unreal,we are too brainwashed to realise or question it.

 

[quattrojames]

what the hell has any of this got to do with Audi!

Nothing whatsoever.

Hence why it's in the General Chat section

 

[monster_munch]

I personally think someone getting paid an annual salary of £1.2 million should be doing a good job and turning round the banks fortunes.

Quite how so many of you think someone can deserve an almost £1 million bonus (in shares or whatever) is absolutely beyond me.

How can you be passionate about a banker losing his bonus, when every day there are doctors saving lives, british servicemen losing their lives for the security of the country, and they get paid peanuts in comparison?

For too long in this country there has been a divide which enables the rich to get richer, and the poor just have to put up. It will never change.

 

[jagojon]

Nothing whatsoever.

Hence why it's in the General Chat section

fair comment , i asked for that

 

[StateOfPlay]

He has yet to do a good job. He has the use of serious amounts of money provided to him by the taxpayer, and he has not yet paid back a single pound of that money. And are our shares worth more, or less, than we paid for them? Less is the answer.

Why on earth would anyone expect to get a bonus when the business has yet to perform?

It is right that he turned down his bonus. His contract was as soft as mud. Lay off 30000 staff, reduce shareholder value, and get a million pound bonus? His pals must have given him that contract.

Once that Bank starts to repay the money and improve on it's share price, he can have a bonus. Until then he will face outrage of the masses.

Whatever your views, the majority of people in the UK think it is wrong for him to take a bonus in these circumstances. Majority wins in a democracy.

I think it would have been better for him to donate the money to charity.

 

[jagojon]

I personally think someone getting paid an annual salary of £1.2 million should be doing a good job and turning round the banks fortunes.

Quite how so many of you think someone can deserve an almost £1 million bonus (in shares or whatever) is absolutely beyond me.

How can you be passionate about a banker losing his bonus, when every day there are doctors saving lives, british servicemen losing their lives for the security of the country, and they get paid peanuts in comparison?

For too long in this country there has been a divide which enables the rich to get richer, and the poor just have to put up. It will never change.

couldnt agree more

 

[audimad918]

The trouble with this topic is that a lot of people do not realise what these people do. They do have a normal 9-5 job, a rare home life, and stress that mere mortals would not be able to cope with. He has turned the bank around. However the argument should be around all wages and bonuses. No one should get more than they are worth, so a ceiling should be set, especially for public owned institutions. Private firms fair enough, but if you work in the public sector you should accept lower wages. Adam Crozier was the highest paid postie for a couple of years, wrong, now he has gone to ITV and is paid on his results. Rambling now, so going to stop.

 

[warren_S5]

Interestingly banks rely on our money to stay afloat.

When we all pull it back (a la Northern Rock), due to the leverage these institutions run at they start to fold.

Ultimately they use our money and our debt to make money out of us.

Problem is in Britain as we export sweet FA, financial services account for a huge percentage of our GDP and bridge the balance of trade deficit somewhat. Hence why it has the powers it now has and the salaries attached.

It's the more speculative / risk based banking that is the dangerous part of it, esp. where banks are taking bets on their own industry.

That said it's not better in the US where Goldman Sachs have fingers deep in the pie at the Senate / Govt.

The only vote we really have is to withdraw funds and watch the house of cards collapse, but would that really help anyone.

You can save lives every day of your working life and you won't earn in a lifetime what someone on the board of a bank will get paid in a year (who has probably spent the year runing lives by enforcing redundancies). It's the world we've chosen to let happen to us, so broadly speaking we're going to have to learn to accept it.

Modern life is so busy we live like ostriches, and without the awful media we'd be none the wiser.