Bankers "need to join real world" minister says

[cunning fergus]

The point was about morality not the working of the labour market.

The financial sector employs about a million people and contributes around to about 9% of GDP. It actually therefore contributes less than manufacturing or the wider service sector.

I would be interested in the source of your stats; as I understood it the financial services sector has long been the single largest contributor to UK exports. In 2008 these were in excess of £20 billion and in 2007 approx. £33 billion.

I think 10% GDP is about right however this would not include Legal and other professional services that are predicated on the banking and wider financial services industy, to that extent it is closer to 16-18% of UK GDP.

According to PwC in 2007 the UK’s financial services sector alone contributed approx £67.8bn to UK government taxes, 13.9% of the total UK tax take (financial year ending 31 March 2007).

Corporation tax was the largest tax take at £12.2bn, more than a quarter (27.5%) of total corporation tax paid in the UK economy. That means for every £1 paid in corporation tax, financial services companies contributed £1.50 in other taxes borne.

Employers’ National Insurance Contributions (NICs) was the second largest tax borne by companies, at £7.6bn. In addition, individuals working in the financial services industry paid £14.9bn in personal income tax through PAYE and £3.2bn in employees’ NICs. This means an average of £25,000 tax paid per worker employed in the financial services’ industry.

What is the stock price today for 'childish platitudes'?

 

[Tooting Gull]

I havent spontaneously combusted, I've just calmly, languidly even, pointed out that you havent got a f***ing clue what you're talking about, you're just spouting meaningless "bash the bankers" rhetoric, without a clue as to what the course of action you recommend would entail.

How many more times. I would regulate the industry such that, even if a few people made a bit less money and one or two greedy fuckers went to live in Switzerland, this could not happen.

The problem is mugs like you, who have swallowed hook, line and sinker everything the banks say to protect their own very cushy number. Seriously, what sort of flawed argument is it that goes 'We must keep them baling them out or it will be anarchy'. Sort out the original problem.

Their concern isn't ordinary people. It is their own pockets. They aren't going to put their own house in order, so the government will have to do it for them.

 

[User removed 4]

Not really, I add value to a socially vital organisation.You work in a glorified casino. I'm quite happy with my worth.

If being an HR manager for a housing asociation is adding value to a socially vital organisation then i suppose you do "add value", basically you chose the path of coasting through your working life in a safe but ultimately boring ,unrewarding job, with a good pension at the end, i chose the other path, and for the record ive known hard times , but ive never worked for an organisation thats had to be bailed out, now or in the past, ive always CREATED the wealth that pays for people like you in the public sector, to sit there and pontificate how f***ing worthy you are , when given half the chance you'd grab a high paying job in the city with both hands , except you prefer your easy, nine to five, cushioned from the realities of actually having to make a profit existence, you just disguise it as morals.

 

[User removed 4]

How many more times. I would regulate the industry such that, even if a few people made a bit less money and one or two greedy fuckers went to live in Switzerland, this could not happen.

The problem is mugs like you, who have swallowed hook, line and sinker everything the banks say to protect their own very cushy number. Seriously, what sort of flawed argument is it that goes 'We must keep them baling them out or it will be anarchy'. Sort out the original problem.

Their concern isn't ordinary people. It is their own pockets. They aren't going to put their own house in order, so the government will have to do it for them.

No, the problem is mugs like you, who are now changing the original premise of the argument because you have been exposed as not having a f***ing clue, as for swallowing the banks arguments hook line and sinker , i work in the city and know what i am talking about,unlike , very obviously, you.

 

[Tooting Gull]

No, the problem is mugs like you, who are now changing the original premise of the argument because you have been exposed as not having a f***ing clue, as for swallowing the banks arguments hook line and sinker , i work in the city and know what i am talking about,unlike , very obviously, you.

So you keep saying. As I said, self interest,

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

If being an HR manager for a housing asociation is adding value to a socially vital organisation then i suppose you do "add value", basically you chose the path of coasting through your working life in a safe but ultimately boring ,unrewarding job, with a good pension at the end, i chose the other path, and for the record ive known hard times , but ive never worked for an organisation thats had to be bailed out, now or in the past, ive always CREATED the wealth that pays for people like you in the public sector, to sit there and pontificate how f***ing worthy you are , when given half the chance you'd grab a high paying job in the city with both hands , except you prefer your easy, nine to five, cushioned from the realities of actually having to make a profit existence, you just disguise it as morals.

NCS can get tedious sometimes.....then all of a sudden KAPOW

 

[CHAPPERS]

I think bushy must have gone to see the Colombians at lunchtime.

 

[Tooting Gull]

If being an HR manager for a housing asociation is adding value to a socially vital organisation then i suppose you do "add value", basically you chose the path of coasting through your working life in a safe but ultimately boring ,unrewarding job, with a good pension at the end, i chose the other path, and for the record ive known hard times , but ive never worked for an organisation thats had to be bailed out, now or in the past, ive always CREATED the wealth that pays for people like you in the public sector, to sit there and pontificate how f***ing worthy you are , when given half the chance you'd grab a high paying job in the city with both hands , except you prefer your easy, nine to five, cushioned from the realities of actually having to make a profit existence, you just disguise it as morals.

Ah, now we're getting to it. So what you do is really important, and what other people do is much less important. Well done.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The key problem here is how the facts are presented.

Positive = RBS Investment Division makes £6billion profit gross, £4.5 million net
Negative = RBS Investment Division set to pay £1.5 million bonus.

The same story, but with 2 different angles.

I don't think Joe Public cares too much about bonuses provided they're earned, and I buy the notion that you need to pay bonuses to keep the best people.

The word 'regulation' is bandied about too much. The emphasis needs to be on 'auditing'; I think beefed-up audits should be introduced to all banks, and these should involve government agencies far more closely. That way any wrongdoing can be rooted out at an earlier stage.

 

[Simster]

The problem is mugs like you, who have swallowed hook, line and sinker everything the banks say to protect their own very cushy number. Seriously, what sort of flawed argument is it that goes 'We must keep them baling them out or it will be anarchy'. Sort out the original problem.

I would absolutely love to agree with you and disagree with Lokki on this, but I can't because I think history has told us otherwise.

Last time a major economy refused to bail out it's faltering banks, was the US government in the great depression of the 20s and 30s. The problem is this: a saver walks into bank A with £1. The bank decides to lend that out at a cost of £1.20 to other banks B and C (60p each). This process continues and means that the original £1 has been lent out over and over again. When the original saver needs that £1 back, he goes to bank A. But Bank A hasn't got it because he's lent it out, so he has to call it in from B & C who in turn have to call it in from whomever they have lent to. Now if anyone in the chain defaults on their loan, we have problems. Because it means that saver aint getting all his money back when he needs it. The result is that consumer confidence plummets, and queues of people demand ALL their money back from their banks, which they can NEVER actually give back straight away because they haven't got. It leads to economic meltdown.

So in my view, the banks MUST be regulated. There must be restrictions on how highly geared their income from savings can be, and there *must* be a "pot" put in place, paid for by the banks for when defaulting takes place. But we absolutely cannot afford NOT to bail out the banks, because they are the only industry that can seriously bring down the whole economy.

The problem with regulation is that it can't be done unilaterally without making ourselves uncompetitive. Maybe we should be looking into rebuilding our manufacturing base instead, but this is my reasoning for it - nothing to do with bluster such as "we don't make anything".

 

[Pavilionaire]

This banking crisis shows that there needs to be a separation between retail banking and investment banking.

For a few months there you couldn't borrow any money for any purpose, and perfectly routine overdrafts were being withdrawn or slashed pushing people into financial distress. That short-termism has to stop.

 

[User removed 4]

Ah, now we're getting to it. So what you do is really important, and what other people do is much less important. Well done.

Ah i see your tactic, cant win the original argument, so lets change tack. no mate , lots of people do far more worthy and important jobs than me and are entitled to comment about "glorified casinos" and the rewards on offer with a degree of anger, all the usual suspects, nurses, firemen etc, just not housing association HR managers.

 

[BigGully]

Ah i see your tactic, cant win the original argument, so lets change tack. no mate , lots of people do far more worthy and important jobs than me and are entitled to comment about "glorified casinos" and the rewards on offer with a degree of anger, all the usual suspects, nurses, firemen etc, just not housing association HR managers.

Bushy, it is glorified casinos, it has to be otherwise many high rolling bankers are just utterly utterly thick and I am guessing they aren't.

It might rankle you and others that wish to think your jobs are far more complicated than that, but it isn't really.

I happen to find it interesting how gamblers study form and its many variables and then back that opinion with money, it does take a degree of skill, if successful.

Can I ask how you and others performance is assessed and although we know the rewards, how much do you need to lose or not succeed enough to be sacked ??

 

[WATFORD zero]

The key problem here is how the facts are presented.

Positive = RBS Investment Division makes £6billion profit gross, £4.5 million net
Negative = RBS Investment Division set to pay £1.5 million bonus.

The same story, but with 2 different angles.

I don't think Joe Public cares too much about bonuses provided they're earned, and I buy the notion that you need to pay bonuses to keep the best people.

But the point i was trying to make earlier is that making a profit in a growing market is not an indicator of performance, but an indicator of the underlying market. Therefore, any performance bonus would need to be earned by significantly outperforming the market.

Unfortunately, most of the organisations that I am aware of award performance bonuses on a financial profit basis (ie the performance of the market).

I don't believe that the fact that £6 Billion profit was made in a growing market is any justification for a 'performance' bonus. What would justify a bonus is proof of significantly out-performing the underlying market. (But I think we all know that would mean a significantly smaller number of bonuses for the genuine 'top performers' rather than bonuses all round for majority of the time the markets are growing).

 

[User removed 4]

Bushy, it is glorified casinos, it has to be otherwise many high rolling bankers are just utterly utterly thick and I am guessing they aren't.

It might rankle you and others that wish to think your jobs are far more complicated than that, but it isn't really.

I happen to find it interesting how gamblers study form and its many variables and then back that opinion with money, it does take a degree of skill, if successful.

Can I ask how you and others performance is assessed and although we know the rewards, how much do you need to lose or not succeed enough to be sacked ??

My job isnt complicated at all , im a broker,its all about relationships,a glorified f***ing bingo caller if you like ,i just shout out my prices down an open telephone line to various banks and hedge funds , and im judged on how much brokerage fees i bring in, i used to be a trader and they will be set a profit target depending on the instrument or commodity they trade.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Watford - I'm a layman and I think you're over-complicating things.

In the good times when there is money around many tradesman make a decent profit even though they are not particularly good at their jobs.

The bonus culture of banking will not change, but the risk-taking culture CAN change with the right safeguards in place.

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

My job isnt complicated at all , im a broker,its all about relationships,a glorified f***ing bingo caller if you like ,i just shout out my prices down an open telephone line to various banks and hedge funds , and im judged on how much brokerage fees i bring in, i used to be a trader and they will be set a profit target depending on the instrument or commodity they trade.

Sounds like a cushy number to me

Can I ask how you and others performance is assessed and although we know the rewards, how much do you need to lose or not succeed enough to be sacked ??

Can I assume it would take only minor losses and / or only a few months of no revenue being brought in before you see your P45?

 

[User removed 4]

Sounds like a cushy number to me



Can I assume it would take only minor losses and / or only a few months of no revenue being brought in before you see your P45?

how much experince do you have of financial markets ?

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

how much experince do you have of financial markets ?

said one bingo caller to another

 

[User removed 4]

said one bingo caller to another

i know mate, hows life at bishopsgate these days ?