More bank bonuses on the way.

fliball123

swampgas wrote: »

Just to put another perspective on this.

A trader's bonus is somewhat similar to someone in sales getting a commission - if they earned it, they should be paid it. I haven't been able to find any breakdown of how the AIB bonuses were rewarded to make any kind of sensible judgement, but I don't see how they should lose their bonus for making the bank millions simply because we don't like the idea of them getting it, or because the bank has been nationalised since. Either rescue the bank or don't rescue it, but don't single out one group for unfair treatment because a big chunk of their payment happens to be given as a bonus.

I know some people who work in the financial sector, and anyone trading in the markets expects a big chunk of their payment to be in the form of performance related bonuses. You can't expect someone investing billions to get paid the same regardless of whether they make or lose millions for their company.

Would you entrust your savings to an investor who gets paid the same regardless of the return he gets for you?

As long as bonus payments are paid where the recipient has added real benefit, I have no problem with them.

My €.02

Bonuses should be overall not only on personal performance but also on how the company is doing...Its immoral that I a tax payer am paying out part of that 40 million in bonuses to an instituation that has brought this contry to its knees..We the tax payer now own this bank and as there has been a change off ownership the contracts are now null and void as I didnt enter any contract saying id pay any bonus and the gov should let this go to court

fliball123

Chucky the tree wrote: »

These bonus' should have been paid in 2008, before a bailout was needed.

You mean before the irish people found out that you were bare face fcuking lying about how bad the banks balance sheets where...You have some cheek

SC024

Hold on everyone, The reason these people are getting these bonuses is because capital markets division brought in over €500 million in profits in 2008 is it not? If that is the case these traders in that division should get their bonus along with a pat on the back, Its 500 million less we had to put in isn't it? If that divsion is performing we shoould increase the size of it should we not?

plus we dont own AIB yet, only a precentage of it like any other shareholder and as we're not over the 50% (yet) there not really a whole lot we can do is there

cyclopath2001

SC024 wrote: »

Hold on everyone, The reason these people are getting these bonuses is because capital markets division brought in over €500 million in profits in 2008 is it not? If that is the case these traders in that division should get their bonus along with a pat on the back, Its 500 million less we had to put in isn't it? If that divsion is performing we shoould increase the size of it should we not?

I suggest a compromise: let's pay them the bonus in AIB shares, purchased at the 2008 value.

Drumpot

SC024 wrote: »

Hold on everyone, The reason these people are getting these bonuses is because capital markets division brought in over €500 million in profits in 2008 is it not? If that is the case these traders in that division should get their bonus along with a pat on the back, Its 500 million less we had to put in isn't it? If that divsion is performing we shoould increase the size of it should we not?

What would of happened if we didnt bail out the banks ? They wouldnt even have a job let alone a bonus.

Dress this up anyway you like, it is wrong to expect the taxpayers to fund a bonus , considering the amount of money that is being blown in this industry. Paying individuals bonus's when a company/country is on the brink of collapse will only mean that others will pay more to prop up the few. As I said before, that 40 million will not be money made by the bank, it will be money that would of been used for Carer's allowance or somewhere else where its more needed. Even if it was going to be used to build a road or something else for the taxpayer, it wouldnt of been wasted (yes wasted) on rewarding individuals personal gain at everybody elses expense.

When I see posts like yours I still think some people are living in a bubble. You do realise that our country could pretty much collapse, economically, at any stage . Despite this, you feel its important for us to be more understanding that individuals (who still have a job thanks to the taxpayer) expect to get bonus's that were guaranteed by a differant employer, in a completely differant world to the one we are in now ? If losing a bonus is the worst thing that happens to these people, they should thank their lucky stars, that is all they lose.

SC024

yes possibly it could collapse, probably will if they dont take this loan from the IMF/ECB but if no irish bank ever got a penny from taxpayers, We'd still be in the same ****ty boat with no oars only difference being the imf would just another month or two down the road instead of here already... not sure if your living in a bubble or not but we've spending 50billion euros a year and only taking in 30billion euros a year for the last couple of years thats day to day spending only ie. Excluding what the banks are given

Drumpot

SC024 wrote: »

yes possibly it could collapse, probably will if they dont take this loan from the IMF/ECB but if no irish bank ever got a penny from taxpayers, We'd still be in the same ****ty boat with no oars only difference being the imf would just another month or two down the road instead of here already... not sure if your living in a bubble or not but we've spending 50billion euros a year and only taking in 30billion euros a year for the last couple of years thats day to day spending only ie. Excluding what the banks are given

What is your point and how am I living in a bubble ? The practises of old (incentivise aggresive investing) have to be scrapped and discouraged. People can no longer think that taking risks with other peoples money is acceptable.

That aside, the point stands, they have a job. Whether or not they made profits that year is a moot point. Thousands of bank staff will lose their jobs for just doing their job (bank tellors etc).

What you are in effect saying is that we should reward the risk takers (which is exactly what got us into this mess), once they are profitable! You dont make €500mil in profits without taking a few risks, ask Seanie Fitz.

tinkerbell

I still can't believe how much rubbish is being said on here - people have no clue what they are talking about. Referring to a trader's job as "financial fantasy football" - that is ignorance beyond belief. I actually cannot even believe that a statement as ignorant as that hasn't been commented on.

People don't have a clue. There is no understanding of what a trader actually does, the level of skill required to be a trader, you have to have such a high level of mathematical skills, the stress of it all, etc etc. You need to pay traders well as a result. You can't just hire some eejit off the street for €30k and expect them to have 0.00000000001% of competence to work as a trader.

It sounds to me like some of the people on here bashing the bonuses etc are most likely PS workers. And the only reason I say that is the statements being said are just typical PS opinion which I constantly hear from union heads and various other PS things. Saying rubbish like how PS workers are living in the real world etc in response to a point I made about an administrator. I don't think anyone on here could defend the fact that I know someone in the civil service who is in their late 20s with no post-Leaving Cert education getting €45k salary for stuffing envelopes and filing.

The PS spending is also at the heart of this country's problems. The PS are paid too much. Gardai, nurses, teachers etc are imperative to the future of this country so should not have pay cut but the likes of administrators getting paid €45k is just ridiculous. That would not happen in the private sector. Benchmarking is supposed to happen both ways, and you should not get increments based on your length of service. And that's why PS workers cannot seem to comprehend a performance bonus system. Because in the PS, if you just sit on your ass all day, you still get a payrise at the end of the year.

Rob A. Bank

Every cent paid to these bankers is adding to the Irish National debt... guesstimated here
http://www.financedublin.com/debtclock.php... it stood at € 89,126,174,149 Euro when I posted this message.

It is increasing by € 1000 every 2 seconds...

Dont forget that we are also talking about the two AIB executives who landed a bonus of € 710,000 between them in 2010.

Also the staff at Anglo Irish Bank up to manager level got a 5.1% salary increase in 2009... for a job well done no doubt ! :-/

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2010/12/01/00096.asp

Drumpot

tinkerbell wrote: »

I still can't believe how much rubbish is being said on here - people have no clue what they are talking about. Referring to a trader's job as "financial fantasy football" - that is ignorance beyond belief. I actually cannot even believe that a statement as ignorant as that hasn't been commented on.

People don't have a clue. There is no understanding of what a trader actually does, the level of skill required to be a trader, you have to have such a high level of mathematical skills, the stress of it all, etc etc. You need to pay traders well as a result. You can't just hire some eejit off the street for €30k and expect them to have 0.00000000001% of competence to work as a trader.

It sounds to me like some of the people on here bashing the bonuses etc are most likely PS workers. And the only reason I say that is the statements being said are just typical PS opinion which I constantly hear from union heads and various other PS things. Saying rubbish like how PS workers are living in the real world etc in response to a point I made about an administrator. I don't think anyone on here could defend the fact that I know someone in the civil service who is in their late 20s with no post-Leaving Cert education getting €45k salary for stuffing envelopes and filing.

The PS spending is also at the heart of this country's problems. The PS are paid too much. Gardai, nurses, teachers etc are imperative to the future of this country so should not have pay cut but the likes of administrators getting paid €45k is just ridiculous. That would not happen in the private sector. Benchmarking is supposed to happen both ways, and you should not get increments based on your length of service. And that's why PS workers cannot seem to comprehend a performance bonus system. Because in the PS, if you just sit on your ass all day, you still get a payrise at the end of the year.

It actually makes your argument a bit contradictary if you are arguing the concept of "Entitlement" for the payment of these bonus's and then bash public servants who have the very same kind of mindset (because they think they are entitled to it!).

I used to work in a bank and work in the financial services industry. I agree with many points you make on the PS pay etc, but I dont think taxpayers money should be paid as bonus's to any company employee's under any circumstances . If a company has to be bailed out by the state, it cannot afford to meet its financial commitements and I dont see why its in anyway fair to expect taxpayers to subsidise these commitements.

tinkerbell

Drumpot wrote: »

It actually makes your argument a bit contradictary if you are arguing the concept of "Entitlement" for the payment of these bonus's and then bash public servants who have the very same kind of mindset (because they think they are entitled to it!).

I used to work in a bank and work in the financial services industry. I agree with many points you make on the PS pay etc, but I dont think taxpayers money should be paid as bonus's to any company employee's under any circumstances . If a company has to be bailed out by the state, it cannot afford to meet its financial commitements and I dont see why its in anyway fair to expect taxpayers to subsidise these commitements.

I don't feel my argument is contradictory. PS get paid the same regardless. Those on bonuses have a basic level of pay and bonus then to top it up to an actual salary. The basic pay can be quite low. That is the point I'm trying to make. People are bashing bonuses, but they are not looking at the basic salary which if paid by itself, is too low to a person working that kind of a job.

And no there is no money left, but in that case then the PS should be taking a bigger wage cut, there is no money to spend on them so if people are arguing about no money to pay for bonuses, well there's no money to pay for the massive over-inflated PS wage bill either. And a pension levy is not a pay cut - it is a contribution to a pension. And that's what happens when the stock mkt crashes, you need to pay more of a pension contribution.

Drumpot

tinkerbell wrote: »

I don't feel my argument is contradictory. PS get paid the same regardless. Those on bonuses have a basic level of pay and bonus then to top it up to an actual salary. The basic pay can be quite low. That is the point I'm trying to make. People are bashing bonuses, but they are not looking at the basic salary which if paid by itself, is too low to a person working that kind of a job.

And no there is no money left, but in that case then the PS should be taking a bigger wage cut, there is no money to spend on them so if people are arguing about no money to pay for bonuses, well there's no money to pay for the massive over-inflated PS wage bill either. And a pension levy is not a pay cut - it is a contribution to a pension. And that's what happens when the stock mkt crashes, you need to pay more of a pension contribution.

Again, while I agree with many points you make on the PS pay, I dont see how that justifys the bonus being paid. They were to be paid by the bank, not the people of Ireland. The contract was with the Fookers who have completely raped this country, not our government.

Like PS defenders, their main argument is on fairness and entitlement (this is subjective and difficult to debate objectively), which I dont really see is too differant from your points. However, two wrongs dont make a right. Just because the PS sectors are getting away with murder does not mean that we should embrace the bonus's due to employee's of banks that would not of been able to even pay these guys salaries had the state not intervened.

cyclopath2001

tinkerbell wrote: »

And a pension levy is not a pay cut - it is a contribution to a pension.

The pension fund (NPRF), instead of being invested wisely in bonds and shares is being given to Irish banks.

doncarlos

tinkerbell wrote: »

And that's what happens when the stock mkt crashes, you need to pay more of a pension contribution.

How so? Now you are buying shares at an extremely low price hence your pension will be worth more when the share price rises. Swings and roundabouts

Rob A. Bank

tinkerbell wrote: »

Those on bonuses have a basic level of pay and bonus then to top it up to an actual salary. The basic pay can be quite low. That is the point I'm trying to make. People are bashing bonuses, but they are not looking at the basic salary which if paid by itself, is too low to a person working that kind of a job.

Lets see... Mr Foy's basic salary was €75,190 a year (quite low according to you) and his 2008 bonus was €161,000 !!!

So you feel Mr Foy and all his cohorts deserve to get paid approximately the same as the Taoiseach out of the public purse ?

really ?

sollar

tinkerbell wrote: »

I I don't think anyone on here could defend the fact that I know someone in the civil service who is in their late 20s with no post-Leaving Cert education getting €45k salary for stuffing envelopes and filing.

The PS spending is also at the heart of this country's problems. The PS are paid too much. Gardai, nurses, teachers etc are imperative to the future of this country so should not have pay cut but the likes of administrators getting paid €45k is just ridiculous. That would not happen in the private sector. Benchmarking is supposed to happen both ways, and you should not get increments based on your length of service. And that's why PS workers cannot seem to comprehend a performance bonus system. Because in the PS, if you just sit on your ass all day, you still get a payrise at the end of the year.

Your getting all hot and bothered over complete rubbish, nobody in the CS is getting 45K for stuffing envelopes as you like to put it. That level of pay is for grade 5's, not 3's.

SC024

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

Lets see... Mr Foy's basic salary was €75,190 a year (quite low according to you) and his 2008 bonus was €161,000 !!!

So you feel Mr Foy and all his cohorts deserve to get paid approximately the same as the Taoiseach out of the public purse ?

really ?

In there defence they are an awfull lot more productive than any Taoiseach We've had recently or oppisition leader for that matter are they not?

SC024

sollar wrote: »

Your getting all hot and bothered over complete rubbish, nobody in the CS is getting 45K for stuffing envelopes as you like to put it. That level of pay is for grade 5's, not 3's.

So how much do they get

jmayo

SC024 wrote: »

In there defence they are an awfull lot more productive than any Taoiseach We've had recently or oppisition leader for that matter are they not?

Yeah right Irish bankers were very productive oiver the last few years alright, that must be why the banks need us the lowly not well paid taxpayers to bail them out. :rolleyes:
If true captialism was allowed run it's course most of the Irish banks, mr foy's ex employer included, would not exist anymore.
Then what would his bonus have been ?

Just remember that the Irish banks exist today thanks to the good grace of a cowardly government and the money of the Irish taxpayers current and future. :mad:

SC024

jmayo wrote: »

Yeah right Irish bankers were very productive oiver the last few years alright, that must be why the banks need us the lowly not well paid taxpayers to bail them out. :rolleyes:
If true captialism was allowed run it's course most of the Irish banks, mr foy's ex employer included, would not exist anymore.
Then what would his bonus have been ?

Just remember that the Irish banks exist today thanks to the good grace of a cowardly government and the money of the Irish taxpayers current and future. :mad:

We're nt talking about the whole of AIB here just capital markets & Mr Foy

jmayo

SC024 wrote: »

We're nt talking about the whole of AIB here just capital markets & Mr Foy

Well I view the whole of AIB would a jaundiced eye.
After all AIB subsidaries have given us ICI, Allfirst and John Rusnak, Goodbodys and their Nevis funds, etc, etc.

Are AIB capital markets somehow estranged from the rest of AIB group and thus would exist as a wholly independent subsidary, say if the Irish taxpayers took back their capital injection of 3.5 Billion and the other billions of purchases made by NAMA of dodgy sh**e AIB loans ?

Just remember AIB currently still exists, because the Irish taxpayers have been lumbereed with their f***ups.

oppenheimer1

tinkerbell wrote: »

I still can't believe how much rubbish is being said on here - people have no clue what they are talking about. Referring to a trader's job as "financial fantasy football" - that is ignorance beyond belief. I actually cannot even believe that a statement as ignorant as that hasn't been commented on.

People don't have a clue. There is no understanding of what a trader actually does, the level of skill required to be a trader, you have to have such a high level of mathematical skills, the stress of it all, etc etc. You need to pay traders well as a result. You can't just hire some eejit off the street for €30k and expect them to have 0.00000000001% of competence to work as a trader.

Exactly. This section of AIB was very profitable and thus the traders deserved their bonus. It isn't fair that a person who does an excellent job and makes part of his department a fortune and has guaranteed rights to share in the profits of his department (or subsidiary) as part of his contract should be punished because another department made a loss.

How many people here would forgo their bonus for the greater good of the bank if they were entitled and had earned it? Trading is cut-throat, if you don't perform you are out on your backside - most only do it for a few years before they burn out. For this reason the rewards for performance have to be considerable as the consequences for non performance are pretty dire.

tinkerbell

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Exactly. This section of AIB was very profitable and thus the traders deserved their bonus. It isn't fair that a person who does an excellent job and makes part of his department a fortune and has guaranteed rights to share in the profits of his department (or subsidiary) as part of his contract should be punished because another department made a loss.

How many people here would forgo their bonus for the greater good of the bank if they were entitled and had earned it? Trading is cut-throat, if you don't perform you are out on your backside - most only do it for a few years before they burn out. For this reason the rewards for performance have to be considerable as the consequences for non performance are pretty dire.

Thank you. Finally someone who can understand it.

cyclopath2001

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Exactly. This section of AIB was very profitable and thus the traders deserved their bonus. It isn't fair that a person who does an excellent job and makes part of his department a fortune and has guaranteed rights to share in the profits of his department (or subsidiary) as part of his contract should be punished because another department made a loss.

Guaranteed rights to the profits and no liability for the losses. This is typical of ouir banks social philosophy.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Trading is cut-throat, if you don't perform you are out on your backside - most only do it for a few years before they burn out. For this reason the rewards for performance have to be considerable as the consequences for non performance are pretty dire.

There is no such thing as money for nothing. Let's look more closely at this financial witchcraft, shall we? When traders win at the game of 'exploiting market anomolies', who loses?

fliball123

tinkerbell wrote: »

I still can't believe how much rubbish is being said on here - people have no clue what they are talking about. Referring to a trader's job as "financial fantasy football" - that is ignorance beyond belief. I actually cannot even believe that a statement as ignorant as that hasn't been commented on.

People don't have a clue. There is no understanding of what a trader actually does, the level of skill required to be a trader, you have to have such a high level of mathematical skills, the stress of it all, etc etc. You need to pay traders well as a result. You can't just hire some eejit off the street for €30k and expect them to have 0.00000000001% of competence to work as a trader.

It sounds to me like some of the people on here bashing the bonuses etc are most likely PS workers. And the only reason I say that is the statements being said are just typical PS opinion which I constantly hear from union heads and various other PS things. Saying rubbish like how PS workers are living in the real world etc in response to a point I made about an administrator. I don't think anyone on here could defend the fact that I know someone in the civil service who is in their late 20s with no post-Leaving Cert education getting €45k salary for stuffing envelopes and filing.

The PS spending is also at the heart of this country's problems. The PS are paid too much. Gardai, nurses, teachers etc are imperative to the future of this country so should not have pay cut but the likes of administrators getting paid €45k is just ridiculous. That would not happen in the private sector. Benchmarking is supposed to happen both ways, and you should not get increments based on your length of service. And that's why PS workers cannot seem to comprehend a performance bonus system. Because in the PS, if you just sit on your ass all day, you still get a payrise at the end of the year.

I am not P.S and the bankers getting a bonus when they are being bailed out by my tax take is not right...Show me where I the tax payer signed an agreement to pay these fcuks 40 million in bonuses

fliball123

Drumpot wrote: »

Again, while I agree with many points you make on the PS pay, I dont see how that justifys the bonus being paid. They were to be paid by the bank, not the people of Ireland. The contract was with the Fookers who have completely raped this country, not our government.

Like PS defenders, their main argument is on fairness and entitlement (this is subjective and difficult to debate objectively), which I dont really see is too differant from your points. However, two wrongs dont make a right. Just because the PS sectors are getting away with murder does not mean that we should embrace the bonus's due to employee's of banks that would not of been able to even pay these guys salaries had the state not intervened.

sorry who owns now nearly 99% of that bank the tax payer...

tinkerbell

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Guaranteed rights to the profits and no liability for the losses. This is typical of ouir banks social philosophy.

There is no such thing as money for nothing. Let's look more closely at this financial witchcraft, shall we? When traders win at the game of 'exploiting market anomolies', who loses?

*sigh*

What part of trader salary = basic + bonus don't you understand?

If they don't perform well, they don't get a bonus. So therefore they do lose out.

A normal person gets a salary, it is not divided up into basic + performance related. Traders have a salary which is divided up, if they perform well then they get the full salary, if they don't then they just get basic.

And that is what traders do - they exploit market anomalies - that is how you generate profits on the market, you buy cheap, sell high, if something is mispriced you buy or sell it. You clearly haven't a clue what a trader does if you're using statements like putting exploiting anomolies in inverted commas.

fliball123

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Exactly. This section of AIB was very profitable and thus the traders deserved their bonus. It isn't fair that a person who does an excellent job and makes part of his department a fortune and has guaranteed rights to share in the profits of his department (or subsidiary) as part of his contract should be punished because another department made a loss.

How many people here would forgo their bonus for the greater good of the bank if they were entitled and had earned it? Trading is cut-throat, if you don't perform you are out on your backside - most only do it for a few years before they burn out. For this reason the rewards for performance have to be considerable as the consequences for non performance are pretty dire.

thats b0ll0x its not fair that my tax is going to pay these bonuses...its cut throat trying to survive currently in this country...wheres my bonus...ask my hole this is seriously wrong wrong wrong...as I said many a time let these bankers with a w sue and there will be mob with pitch forks waiting for them if they do sue in Ireland...cheek of them they are using our tax to pay wages and now they are looking for bonuses...

Drumpot

fliball123 wrote: »

sorry who owns now nearly 99% of that bank the tax payer...

And who agreed to pay the bonus ? The previous owner who went bankrupt. .

I imagine if the banks were allowed to go under, they wouldnt of gotten the bonus, so why do you think its ok to demand that the people who saved the bank should also honor bonus agreements that were agreed under the failed regime?

Case closed, they have no moral right to that bonus , particularly while the taxpayer is funding their job.

swampgas

fliball123 wrote: »

Bonuses should be overall not only on personal performance but also on how the company is doing...Its immoral that I a tax payer am paying out part of that 40 million in bonuses to an instituation that has brought this contry to its knees..We the tax payer now own this bank and as there has been a change off ownership the contracts are now null and void as I didnt enter any contract saying id pay any bonus and the gov should let this go to court

That in fact is how my own bonus works - if my employer doesn't hit its targets, then I get no bonus, regardless of my own performance. This has its own pros and cons. For example, if I think the company is having a bad year and may miss its targets, I have to wonder whether it is worth the effort to try to hit mine. A major advantage though is that it makes employees far more sensitive to the bigger picture and more likely to flag up problems in other parts of the company. But that's not the issue here.


Let's look at this another way. Why pay the staff of AIB anything at all? Why pay their salaries but not their bonuses? Why not halve all their salaries, or cap them at 10K, seeing as "the tax payer is paying for it"?

This fixation on bonuses is missing a major point: we have bailed out the bank so that it can continue to function as a bank. It would be pointless to do that and then ruin it with knee-jerk restrictions on salaries and bonuses; we might end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Drumpot

swampgas wrote: »

That in fact is how my own bonus works - if my employer doesn't hit its targets, then I get no bonus, regardless of my own performance. This has its own pros and cons. For example, if I think the company is having a bad year and may miss its targets, I have to wonder whether it is worth the effort to try to hit mine. A major advantage though is that it makes employees far more sensitive to the bigger picture and more likely to flag up problems in other parts of the company. But that's not the issue here.


Let's look at this another way. Why pay the staff of AIB anything at all? Why pay their salaries but not their bonuses? Why not halve all their salaries, or cap them at 10K, seeing as "the tax payer is paying for it"?

This fixation on bonuses is missing a major point: we have bailed out the bank so that it can continue to function as a bank. It would be pointless to do that and then ruin it with knee-jerk restrictions on salaries and bonuses; we might end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Thats fair enough, but I dont see how that should mean that this new employer should be liable for previous owners agreed bonus's!

Going forward, all salaries/bonus should be agree straight away.

Part of the problem is that few of us would have the confidence in our government running the banks (look how lame/weak they are with the public service). I imagine that the government would go in looking to reduce costs and end up doubling the wages ! ! !:rolleyes:

cyclopath2001

tinkerbell wrote: »

And that is what traders do - they exploit market anomalies - that is how you generate profits on the market, you buy cheap, sell high, if something is mispriced you buy or sell it. You clearly haven't a clue what a trader does if you're using statements like putting exploiting anomolies in inverted commas.

Who loses when you gain?

fliball123

swampgas wrote: »

That in fact is how my own bonus works - if my employer doesn't hit its targets, then I get no bonus, regardless of my own performance. This has its own pros and cons. For example, if I think the company is having a bad year and may miss its targets, I have to wonder whether it is worth the effort to try to hit mine. A major advantage though is that it makes employees far more sensitive to the bigger picture and more likely to flag up problems in other parts of the company. But that's not the issue here.


Let's look at this another way. Why pay the staff of AIB anything at all? Why pay their salaries but not their bonuses? Why not halve all their salaries, or cap them at 10K, seeing as "the tax payer is paying for it"?

This fixation on bonuses is missing a major point: we have bailed out the bank so that it can continue to function as a bank. It would be pointless to do that and then ruin it with knee-jerk restrictions on salaries and bonuses; we might end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I think that in a day and age where the P.S is being pushed to cut their wages (and I am the biggest p.s basher on here) I think its incredible that any banker who expects a bonus .... The fact is and I sick and tired of hearing ahh sure it will only save x amount. Its 40 million less we the tax payer have to pay thats the nuts and bolts of my problem with it. Its been taken out of my pocket...I didnt make any profit out of the banking cnuts in 2008 so why should I pay them a bonus

RobbieTheRobber

swampgas wrote: »

That in fact is how my own bonus works - if my employer doesn't hit its targets, then I get no bonus, regardless of my own performance. This has its own pros and cons. For example, if I think the company is having a bad year and may miss its targets, I have to wonder whether it is worth the effort to try to hit mine. A major advantage though is that it makes employees far more sensitive to the bigger picture and more likely to flag up problems in other parts of the company. But that's not the issue here.

Huh, you point out the positives of a bonus scheme and then also point out how its not applied in banking. So what is the point of it, except to encourage risky trading becasue the potential pay-off of success is much higher than the punishment for failure.

Let's look at this another way. Why pay the staff of AIB anything at all? Why pay their salaries but not their bonuses? Why not halve all their salaries, or cap them at 10K, seeing as "the tax payer is paying for it"?

What has halving their salaries, got to do withy anything.
Why even suggest that, unless you are just trying to muddy the water!

This fixation on bonuses is missing a major point: we have bailed out the bank so that it can continue to function as a bank. It would be pointless to do that and then ruin it with knee-jerk restrictions on salaries and bonuses; we might end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater

WE bailed out the banks becasue they are suppossed to be intrinsic to the state, we did not bail them out to fund highly paid people who work for an organisation which has failed in its goals.

Rob A. Bank

"Banks have been the second-worst performers among 19 industry groups in the Stoxx Europe 600 Index this year."

http://www.businessandleadership.com/business/item/27315-banks-avoid-irish-debt


...and yet their bonuses keep being paid by the Irish taxpayer !


"Two AIB executives landed €710,000 between them in 2010."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/ireland-business-blog-with-lisa-ocarroll/2010/dec/10/aib-staff-defer-bank-bonuses


Pure madness for a banking system that has proved to be the single greatest destroyer of wealth in this country since Cromwell !

:mad:

SC024

fliball123 wrote: »

sorry who owns now nearly 99% of that bank the tax payer...

we dont own 99% Yet

swampgas

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

What has halving their salaries, got to do withy anything.
Why even suggest that, unless you are just trying to muddy the water!

I wasn't seriously suggesting halving their salaries - the point I was trying to make is that the bonuses should be seen as part of an individuals overall package: salary + bonus.

You could argue that the tax payer is paying the salary just as much as they are paying the bonus.

If you think the AIB staff are overpaid, that's fine, I don't have an opinion on that. But screaming blue murder about bonuses and ignoring salaries and headcount seems a little strange to me. It's possible that someone is getting no bonus and is still massively overpaid. Or they may be getting their bonus but are still relatively underpaid.

Bonuses are not automatically undeserved.
Salaries are not automatically deserved.

Either they are earning their overall package or they are not. Just looking at the bonus aspect doesn't make sense to me.

Humbly, my €.02

RobbieTheRobber

swampgas wrote: »

I wasn't seriously suggesting halving their salaries - the point I was trying to make is that the bonuses should be seen as part of an individuals overall package: salary + bonus.

You could argue that the tax payer is paying the salary just as much as they are paying the bonus.

If you think the AIB staff are overpaid, that's fine, I don't have an opinion on that. But screaming blue murder about bonuses and ignoring salaries and headcount seems a little strange to me. It's possible that someone is getting no bonus and is still massively overpaid. Or they may be getting their bonus but are still relatively underpaid.

Bonuses are not automatically undeserved.
Salaries are not automatically deserved.

Either they are earning their overall package or they are not. Just looking at the bonus aspect doesn't make sense to me.

Humbly, my €.02

No i agree bonuses can be part of a financial offering from a job, however when your employer is effectively bankrupt without the assitance of the state, then I would suggest that bonuses are off the table.

swampgas

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

No i agree bonuses can be part of a financial offering from a job, however when your employer is effectively bankrupt without the assitance of the state, then I would suggest that bonuses are off the table.

I would be nervous about bailing out a bank at huge expense, then removing the agreed incentives for the employees to be productive. If anything they need to be even more motivated. It's bad enough being unpopular with the public and being blamed (rightly or wrongly) for the state of the nation, without the demoralising effect of having your pre-agreed bonus whipped away at the last moment because of (IMO) ill-informed public opinion.

Obviously this is an emotive issue, but we need to make sure that AIB recovers as quickly as possible. Stopping or super-taxing bonuses is not necessarily in the tax-payer's best interest.

Leiva

swampgas wrote: »

I would be nervous about bailing out a bank at huge expense, then removing the agreed incentives for the employees to be productive. If anything they need to be even more motivated. It's bad enough being unpopular with the public and being blamed (rightly or wrongly) for the state of the nation, without the demoralising effect of having your pre-agreed bonus whipped away at the last moment because of (IMO) ill-informed public opinion.

Obviously this is an emotive issue, but we need to make sure that AIB recovers as quickly as possible. Stopping or super-taxing bonuses is not necessarily in the tax-payer's best interest.

There is nothing ill-informed about AIB as a group giving out a €40 million bonus from public coffers , its just wrong .

€40 million is over 5% of AIB's total capital value .
Show me another company that is virtually bankrupt , receiving a public money bailout and awarding 5% of their total value in bonus ?..crazy !

If there is a Dept of AIB that is making money then they should be exempt from any bailout .Targets should be set and when reached bonuses paid after .

Lets not try and say that this is the case , its not , bonus will go to AIB employees that should not be getting them . full stop

There was no legal challenge to the awarding of these bonuses .
AIB decided to award them after a legal consultation , how fitting :rolleyes:

fliball123

SC024 wrote: »

we dont own 99% Yet

Sorry once we bail them out they are using our tax and I believe that AIB we own or will own once the money is transfered we own 99%

fliball123

swampgas wrote: »

I would be nervous about bailing out a bank at huge expense, then removing the agreed incentives for the employees to be productive. If anything they need to be even more motivated. It's bad enough being unpopular with the public and being blamed (rightly or wrongly) for the state of the nation, without the demoralising effect of having your pre-agreed bonus whipped away at the last moment because of (IMO) ill-informed public opinion.

Obviously this is an emotive issue, but we need to make sure that AIB recovers as quickly as possible. Stopping or super-taxing bonuses is not necessarily in the tax-payer's best interest.

Nervous...the banks are fecked...Nervous...they should of been let go to the wall...

oppenheimer1

fliball123 wrote: »

thats b0ll0x its not fair that my tax is going to pay these bonuses...its cut throat trying to survive currently in this country...wheres my bonus...ask my hole this is seriously wrong wrong wrong...as I said many a time let these bankers with a w sue and there will be mob with pitch forks waiting for them if they do sue in Ireland...cheek of them they are using our tax to pay wages and now they are looking for bonuses...

It isn't cut throat trying to survive in this country, the state provides social welfare which is adequate for survival some may say it is adequate for comfort even.


The bailout is for non performing loans and loss making departments not profitable parts of AIB. The profits the capital markets divisions made will pay the bonuses of the traders, the rest of the money will then be handed over to the parent company AIB. Your taxes are not funding the bonuses actually what capital markets is doing is lessening the amount of money that needs to be put into the banks.

Is this concept really that hard to understand?

fliball123

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It isn't cut throat trying to survive in this country, the state provides social welfare which is adequate for survival some may say it is adequate for comfort even.


The bailout is for non performing loans and loss making departments not profitable parts of AIB. The profits the capital markets divisions made will pay the bonuses of the traders, the rest of the money will then be handed over to the parent company AIB. Your taxes are not funding the bonuses actually what capital markets is doing is lessening the amount of money that needs to be put into the banks.

Is this concept really that hard to understand?

So thats great news...Its alright lads the tax payer does not have to bail out AIB thats 10/15 billion less needed...

Is the concept that this 40 billion will be paid back by me, my children and all the other tax payers plus interest...Is that hard for you to understand.

oppenheimer1

fliball123 wrote: »

So thats great news...Its alright lads the tax payer does not have to bail out AIB thats 10/15 billion less needed...

Is the concept that this 40 billion will be paid back by me, my children and all the other tax payers plus interest...Is that hard for you to understand.

It there any point in arguing with someone like yourself who clearly doesn't have a notion on how the rewards for trading work? Another word for bonus is called "performance related pay". Clearly these traders performed and are entitled to their pay.

The fact that other parts of the bank made a loss is not relevant.

tinkerbell

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Who loses when you gain?

What are you on about? Go back and read my post again and then see that the trader loses out if they don't reach their targets. Because they don't get that bonus that makes up their salary.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend? Their pay scales are made up differently to a normal 9-5 employee, who has X salary.

Trader's salary = A+B = X.

It's actually pointless even bothering posting because everybody's of some silly opinion that these people in capital markets should not get paid their wages.

Fine, well if that is the opinion, then lets go and cut the PS salaries in half. Because it's the exact same opinion. But noooo, you'll have the unions in uproar, work to rule and all the typical public sector BS that goes with pay.

fliball123

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It there any point in arguing with someone like yourself who clearly doesn't have a notion on how the rewards for trading work? Another word for bonus is called "performance related pay". Clearly these traders performed and are entitled to their pay.

The fact that other parts of the bank made a loss is not relevant.

I do have a fcuking notion but you refuse to take in the fact that we the tax payer are paying this 40million + interest..show me the contract that I and any other tax payer signed for us to pay this...There is always too sides to this equation...Your sticking to yours because you probably work in the bank.

The banks lied back in 2008 about the state of their bank books and there profits...All bonuses are measured not only by individual performance but also on who the company as a whole is doing..and there are people getting bonuses for 2010 how can that be...

So dont bother argueing becaus no matter what you say the tax payer picking up this 40 million + interest bonus cheque is wrong wrong wrong

cyclopath2001

tinkerbell wrote: »

What are you on about?

Sorry, if you cannot see the moral angle. When the traders make a profit by exploiting 'anomolies', where does the money come from? - in short, who must lose money so that the trader gains money?

We own your bank, so it's only right we know more about where it gets its money from.

tinkerbell

fliball123 wrote: »

I do have a fcuking notion but you refuse to take in the fact that we the tax payer are paying this 40million + interest..show me the contract that I and any other tax payer signed for us to pay this...There is always too sides to this equation...Your sticking to yours because you probably work in the bank.

The banks lied back in 2008 about the state of their bank books and there profits...All bonuses are measured not only by individual performance but also on who the company as a whole is doing..and there are people getting bonuses for 2010 how can that be...

So dont bother argueing becaus no matter what you say the tax payer picking up this 40 million + interest bonus cheque is wrong wrong wrong

You aren't getting the point that a trader's pay package is made up of basic + bonus. The bonus is part of their pay package. So by your train of thought, we shouldn't pay the staff in AIB their pay then? Why bother pay them anything? Let them work for free is it?

Yah, because that would work so well. These traders are propping up the bank so that it's not in bigger crap than it already is.

Jees, people are on a witch hunt and they haven't got one clue what they are talking about.

rightwingdub

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Exactly. This section of AIB was very profitable and thus the traders deserved their bonus. It isn't fair that a person who does an excellent job and makes part of his department a fortune and has guaranteed rights to share in the profits of his department (or subsidiary) as part of his contract should be punished because another department made a loss.

How many people here would forgo their bonus for the greater good of the bank if they were entitled and had earned it? Trading is cut-throat, if you don't perform you are out on your backside - most only do it for a few years before they burn out. For this reason the rewards for performance have to be considerable as the consequences for non performance are pretty dire.

I'm a right winger as you gather by my username:D but I think these bonuses are a disgrace no matter how profitable capital markets may be, AIB shouldn't even be in existence if capitalism had been allowed run its natural course.

I'm not saying trading isn't hardcore and not stressful but if I was working in capital markets I would forgo a bonus and just be greatful to have a job given that tax payers are keeping the bank afloat at the moment.