Business Executive pay and bonuses Britain's bank bosses to get millions in share payments in bonus cap dodge

Britain's bank bosses to get millions in share payments in bonus cap dodge
Payments would be on top of bank leaders' basic pay in a move to circumvent EU's limits on bonuses

The bosses of Britain's biggest banks are on course to be awarded millions of pounds in share payments to circumvent a Brussels-imposed bonus cap – a move that risks inflaming the toxic row over City pay deals.

The new payments would be in addition to bank leaders' basic pay because the EU is limiting bonuses to 100% of salaries – or 200% if shareholders approve larger payments.

The big-four high street banks are consulting shareholders about bonuses for chief executives that hit the 200% limit, alongside discussions on additional share payments so that none of the elite boardroom-level bankers would be worse off as a result of the cap.

The initiative threatens to bring further political and public scorn on an industry that suffered yet another reputational blow this month when Barclays increased its bonuses to staff by 10% to £2.4bn, despite reporting a 32% fall in profits.

The attempt to outflank pay limits comes as thousands of bank employees face the threat of redundancy.

Britain's biggest bank, HSBC, will on Monday become the first high street player to reveal the full details of how it has paid its 200,000 staff by publishing a 500-page annual report which contains the precise sums paid to its chief executive, Stuart Gulliver, and other top executives.

HSBC is expected to outline its approach to the bonus cap amid speculation that Gulliver stands to receive share awards on top of his £1.2m salary.

His counterpart at Barclays, Antony Jenkins, and fellow chief executives at bailed-out Lloyds Banking Group, António Horta-Osório, and Royal Bank of Scotland, Ross McEwan, are also likely to receive parcels of shares alongside their salaries in the coming months.

The details are still being hammered out with shareholders but it is thought the bankers will need to hold on to the shares for at least three years – or five in the case of Barclays – before they can be sold. The plans will be put to investors at annual general meetings in the spring.

Among ideas being discussed are monthly or quarterly payments in shares, although investors are expected to demand that in return for the additional payments the total earning capacity of top bankers will be reduced.

Bonuses for 2013 are not affected by the cap and RBS is next week expected to pay out bonuses of around £500m despite reporting losses of £8bn and a huge restructuring of its operations which are 81% owned by the taxpayer.

The bonus cap is forcing radical revisions to the way pay deals are structured, moving away from the complex three-pronged structure of salary, annual bonus and long-term incentive plans to schemes that are expected to comprise salaries, share allowances and bonuses.

Under their current pay deals, bank bosses have the potential to earn as much as 700% of their salaries in bonuses and their employers have been scrambling to find ways to keep their potential pay deals at such levels following the introduction of the cap on 1 January this year.

The government is opposed to the bonus limit and the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, has said he does not back a "crude bonus cap". Andrew Bailey, the head of the Bank of England's Prudential Regulation Authority, has warned it could lead to a £500m rise in fixed salary costs at the big banks.

The share awards are an alternative to straightforward rises in salaries but could face scrutiny by the European Banking Authority which is creating the guidelines for how the new regime, which comes into effect for bonuses paid in a year's time, will operate. A review is expected in the second half of 2014.

The restrictions on bonuses affect individuals who are regarded as taking and managing risks and, according to the EBA, anyone who earns more than €750,000 (£620,000) a year could be included.

Barclays has told those staff affected by the cap that they will receive these payments, called role-based allowances, each month alongside their salaries. HSBC, which has previously admitted it might increase salaries, is expected to make quarterly payments of shares to 1,000 of its top staff.

On Monday HSBC bank is also expected to reveal how many of its staff were paid more than £1m – some 204 received that sum in 2012.

None of the banks would comment.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/feb/21/britains-bank-bosses-share-payments-eu-bonus-cap

Is this was they mean by the Big Society, big bonuses for bloody bankers?

And?

Oh Lor, you're a real cap doffer. Do you like being walked over and taken advantage of then?

how about wayne rooney being paid £300.000 A WEEK that is disgusting.

I agree, it's quite sick.

And?

Got a stutter? You can get help for that.

You have an envy problem thats for sure.
Rooney will pay more tax in a month than most do in a lifetime.

they do deserve it, they are doing a great job, our banks were failing and they are back on their feet again, they deserve bonuses for good work.

heavenly father wrote:they do deserve it, they are doing a great job, our banks were failing and they are back on their feet again, they deserve bonuses for good work.

The lefty creeps forget just how much tax people have to pay on these big salaries. They drown in their own bile. It's sickening to watch them constantly moan that someone is earning too much. It isn't against the law but you would think it was.

Sassy wrote:Oh Lor, you're a real cap doffer.   Do you like being walked over and taken advantage of then?  

Please explain taken adavantage of. I am fairly sure when they cash the shares they will attract income tax.

56kevins wrote:

heavenly father wrote:they do deserve it, they are doing a great job, our banks were failing and they are back on their feet again, they deserve bonuses for good work.

The lefty creeps forget just how much tax people have to pay on these big salaries. They drown in their own bile. It's sickening to watch them constantly moan that someone is earning too much. It isn't against the law but you would think it was.

You far right creeps are too thick to know what you're talking about, scum.

Catman wrote:

56kevins wrote:

The lefty creeps forget just how much tax people have to pay on these big salaries. They drown in their own bile. It's sickening to watch them constantly moan that someone is earning too much. It isn't against the law but you would think it was.

You far right creeps are too thick to know what you're talking about, scum.

Very erudite I can't call you names you cry too easily and run off to Ben. I've been warned you are protected.

WUSS!!!

56kevins wrote:

Catman wrote:

You far right creeps are too thick to know what you're talking about, scum.

Very erudite I can't call you names you cry too easily and run off to Ben. I've been warned you are protected.

WUSS!!!

Ben doesn't protect anyone, every one is treated the same, he just isn't Dean, the fat fuck, where the RW could go running to him to get the people that they didn't like banned.
Wanker.

Catman wrote:

56kevins wrote:
Very erudite I can't call you names you cry too easily and run off to Ben. I've been warned you are protected.

WUSS!!!

Ben doesn't protect anyone, every one is treated the same, he just isn't Dean, the fat fuck, where the RW could go running to him to get the people that they didn't like banned.
Wanker.

A lying little wuss to boot. I've read the threads you've had Drinky banned and call for others to be banned regularly. You are a dick I can read you know as vcan everyone else here. I've even seen a thread where you asked Drinky why he hasn't done his recipe. I must find it you actually ask him to do it then scream like

You are a wuss and always were. The mardiest bloke (and I use the term bloke loosely) I have met on these forums.

56kevins wrote:

Catman wrote:

Ben doesn't protect anyone, every one is treated the same, he just isn't Dean, the fat fuck, where the RW could go running to him to get the people that they didn't like banned.
Wanker.

A lying little wuss to boot. I've read the threads you've had Drinky banned and call for others to be banned regularly. You are a dick I can read you know as vcan everyone else here. I've even seen a thread where you asked Drinky why he hasn't done his recipe. I must find it you actually ask him to do it then scream like

You are a wuss and always were. The mardiest bloke (and I use the term bloke loosely) I have met on these forums.

Ben banned Drinky, that had nothing to do with me, he broke the rules pure and simple.

I've said that putrid should be banned, he hasn't been, so you will see that i have no control over what goes on here.

Nothing will change the fact that you are far right scum.

Violet you don't half lie for England.

56kevins wrote:Violet you don't half lie for England.

Who the fuck is violet.

Be aware that homophobic slurs aren't allowed here.

I don't think Violet is a homophobic slur you idiot. It is a reference to the character from Just William. She says I'll sqeem and sqeem and sqeem as she has a lisp. I think 56kevins is saying you are a screamer and he is right.

I agree with him and I'll bet so do many others.

Phoenix wrote:I don't think Violet is a homophobic slur you idiot. It is a reference to the character from Just William. She says I'll sqeem and sqeem and sqeem as she has a lisp. I think 56kevins is saying you are a screamer and he is right.

I agree with him and I'll bet so do many others.

You went screaming to Dean, you fucking RW, impotent scum hypocrite.

Northern fucking prick.

This whole argument is just such bullshit; it seems the majority of the conservative attitude is built on the same. This one in particular -- the left get upset about bankers (and other elite capitalists) getting huge bonuses because we want those bonuses, because we're envious of them.

If I wanted to sell my soul and become a kiss-ass who earned this kind of money and pigged it all to myself while millions of people go without food, shelter, education, etc., I could. I'd just never be able to look myself in the mirror.

I'm not angry at people like Bill Gates or JK Rowling, who got really rich and generously give back to many, many people in need. I admire people like that. I am angry at the selfish rich who want to hoard their money, but I'm certainly not envious of them.

Ben_Reilly wrote:This whole argument is just such bullshit; it seems the majority of the conservative attitude is built on the same. This one in particular -- the left get upset about bankers (and other elite capitalists) getting huge bonuses because we want those bonuses, because we're envious of them.

If I wanted to sell my soul and become a kiss-ass who earned this kind of money and pigged it all to myself while millions of people go without food, shelter, education, etc., I could. I'd just never be able to look myself in the mirror.

I'm not angry at people like Bill Gates or JK Rowling, who got really rich and generously give back to many, many people in need. I admire people like that. I am angry at the selfish rich who want to hoard their money, but I'm certainly not envious of them.

I can't see the point of hoarding a fortune but then, I get a lot of pleasure out giving. I'm lucky I don't have the financial pressures of some, I've been fortunate enough to always work but you never know what is around the next corner.

You can't take it with you, I'd rather help people where I can when I can make a difference   x

That's why I'll never be rich  

I believe they pay more tax than the rest of us by a big margin which is right and after that its their business.

It is unhealthy to wish others ill who earn more than we do.

Catman wrote:

Phoenix wrote:I don't think Violet is a homophobic slur you idiot. It is a reference to the character from Just William. She says I'll sqeem and sqeem and sqeem as she has a lisp. I think 56kevins is saying you are a screamer and he is right.

I agree with him and I'll bet so do many others.

You went screaming to Dean, you fucking RW, impotent scum hypocrite.

About what??????
I have nothing that concerns me on here other than your foulmouth.

Phoenix wrote:

Catman wrote:

You went screaming to Dean, you fucking RW, impotent scum hypocrite.

About what??????
I have nothing that concerns me on here other than your foulmouth.

What concerns you is of no importance here, you are like the scullery maid here.   

feelthelove wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:This whole argument is just such bullshit; it seems the majority of the conservative attitude is built on the same. This one in particular -- the left get upset about bankers (and other elite capitalists) getting huge bonuses because we want those bonuses, because we're envious of them.

If I wanted to sell my soul and become a kiss-ass who earned this kind of money and pigged it all to myself while millions of people go without food, shelter, education, etc., I could. I'd just never be able to look myself in the mirror.

I'm not angry at people like Bill Gates or JK Rowling, who got really rich and generously give back to many, many people in need. I admire people like that. I am angry at the selfish rich who want to hoard their money, but I'm certainly not envious of them.

I can't see the point of hoarding a fortune but then, I get a lot of pleasure out giving. I'm lucky I don't have the financial pressures of some, I've been fortunate enough to always work but you never know what is around the next corner.

You can't take it with you, I'd rather help people where I can when I can make a difference   x

That's why I'll never be rich  

Yeah, I've got everything I could reasonably want or need; I just think people who have this compulsive urge to earn more and more money for themselves have something wrong with them -- competing against their friends and neighbors over who's got the biggest house, the most expensive car -- just makes me nauseous.

I love this quote about the true nature of envy from Cory Doctorow's novel For the Win:

Now, as he watched the value of his virtual assets climb and climb and climb, climb higher than his Equations predicted, higher than any sane person should be willing to spend on them, he understood.

The emotion that had driven them in that experimenter's lab, that was driving the unseen bidders around the world: it wasn't greed.

It was envy.

Greed was predictable: if one slice of pizza is good, it makes sense that your intuition will tell you that five or ten slices would be even better.

But envy wasn't about what was good: it was about what someone else thought was good. It was the devil who whispered in your ear about your neighbor's car, his salary, his clothes, his girlfriend -- better than yours, more expensive than yours, more beautiful than yours. It was the dagger through your heart that could drive you from happiness to misery in a second without changing a single thing about your circumstances. It could turn your perfect life into a perfect mess, just by comparing it to someone who had more/better/prettier.

If you pay your fair dues at the point of earning it you have less than half the headline figure. Give that we all pay purchase taxes with our re aining income I just wonder how many times you want to tax people.

Without high earners I know I would be paying even more so far from being envious I say thanks alot.

The socialist view here is I dont think you should earn that much therefore im taking it off you.

Doesnt work never will. We were not created equal.

56kevins wrote:If you pay your fair dues at the point of earning it you have less than half the headline figure. Give  that we all pay purchase taxes with our re aining income I just wonder how many times you want to tax people.

Without high earners I know I would be paying even more so far from being envious I say thanks alot.

The socialist view here is I dont think you should earn that much therefore im taking it off you.

Doesnt work never will. We were not created equal.

We weren't created, period, and the market doesn't reward talent fairly -- you can't possibly make the argument that it's just for a top neurosurgeon to earn less than someone who can kick a soccer ball well.

The fact is that societies in which the gap between the rich and the poor is smaller are happier societies for everyone, including the rich. Hoarding money is harmful to society and a drain on the global economy.

Its not for you to decide what someone earns or me for that matter. Its not for Socialist to decide either. I think footballers are overpaid so what others who pay them dont.

Ffs they have paid tax its their money its not for you to tell them what to do with the remaining 45%. You are boss on here not the world

56kevins wrote:Its not for you to decide what someone earns or me for that matter. Its not for Socialist to decide either. I think footballers are overpaid so what others who pay them dont.

(Latin) socius m (feminine socia, neuter socium); first/second declension:
sharing, joining in, partaking, associated
kindred, related, akin
leagued, allied, united, confederate
(substantive) partner, sharer, associate
(substantive) companion, comrade
(substantive) ally; confederate

"Socius" gives us words like "society" and "socialism." Who should control society besides society itself? That is what socialism is -- the idea that society is run by society.

That means that certain members of society don't have undo power or influence. It tempers the power of the wealthy elite so that they can't leave the rest of society out in the cold.

Most modern socialists don't believe in the unattainable and undesirable of equal outcomes, but argue that opportunity isn't equal, either. I don't have the opportunity to inherit a large amount of family wealth; I wasn't born with the same opportunities as rich heirs.

Thus a certain amount of wealth redistribution levels the playing field and provides for human dignity. This is moral, humane and just. What is immoral, inhuman and unjust is to have a stratified society with a tiny wealthy elite that got to where it is almost purely by good luck, and a large disadvantage poor that got to where it is almost purely by bad luck.

Semantics my friend.
In the end there sre some in the world who can really earn and the rest of us get by. Some can't earn at all. Thank the Lord for those that earn enough for those of us that are ordinary.

I'm noty a cap doffer as Sassy likes to insult us with. I'm a realist. Sassy can't stand the thought of people doing well I simply wish people well and it comes back to you in the end.

56kevins wrote:Semantics my friend.
In the end there sre some in the world who can really earn and the rest of us get by. Some can't earn at all. Thank the Lord for those that earn enough for those of us that are ordinary.

I'm noty a cap doffer as Sassy likes to insult us with. I'm a realist. Sassy can't stand the thought of people doing well I simply wish people well and it comes back to you in the end.

And ... I favor a robust social safety net that helps those who, as you put it, "can't earn at all," live lives of dignity. Fuck me, right?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

56kevins wrote:Semantics my friend.
In the end there sre some in the world who can really earn and the rest of us get by. Some can't earn at all. Thank the Lord for those that earn enough for those of us that are ordinary.

I'm noty a cap doffer as Sassy likes to insult us with. I'm a realist. Sassy can't stand the thought of people doing well I simply wish people well and it comes back to you in the end.

And ... I favor a robust social safety net that helps those who, as you put it, "can't earn at all," live lives of dignity. Fuck me, right?

To generate the wealth you need well functioning capitalism not the hate filled politics of envy so beloved by the sassys of this world. The left drive out the wealth creators in an attempt to tax them to death thereby hurting the most vulnerable. Do they really Care? Not likely they are too busy sating their envy genes.

56kevins wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

56kevins wrote:Semantics my friend.
In the end there sre some in the world who can really earn and the rest of us get by. Some can't earn at all. Thank the Lord for those that earn enough for those of us that are ordinary.

I'm noty a cap doffer as Sassy likes to insult us with. I'm a realist. Sassy can't stand the thought of people doing well I simply wish people well and it comes back to you in the end.

And ... I favor a robust social safety net that helps those who, as you put it, "can't earn at all," live lives of dignity. Fuck me, right?

To generate the wealth you need well functioning capitalism not the hate filled politics of envy so beloved by the sassys of this world. The left drive out the wealth creators in an attempt to tax them to death thereby hurting the most vulnerable. Do they really Care? Not likely they are too busy sating their envy genes.

More bullshit. The U.S. had some of its most prosperous years when the top tax rate was between 75 and 90 percent.

It's amazing how Kevin56 sounds just like Drinky. Kevin was never obsessed about what I thought and was a bit left leaning in some things although he supported the EDL. I don't think this is Kevin at all.

As far as the bankers are concerned, the people who are the most annoyed about this are shareholders, who are not impressed that their share dividend has gone down while the bonuses have gone up again, and the employees who are going to loose their jobs while watching there bosses raking it in. I doubt whether many of them are 'lefty'. Then of course, the taxpaying owns a large part of RBS, whose profits have gone down while bonuses are being paid out. Commercially, a disaster.

Perhaps someone could ask Kevin on Flap if he is Kevin here?

Sassy wrote:It's amazing how Kevin56 sounds just like Drinky.   Kevin was never obsessed about what I thought and was a bit left leaning in some things although he supported the EDL.    I don't think this is Kevin at all.

As far as the bankers are concerned, the people who are the most annoyed about this are shareholders, who are not impressed that their share dividend has gone down while the bonuses have gone up again, and the employees who are going to loose their jobs while watching there bosses raking it in.   I doubt whether many of them are 'lefty'.   Then of course, the taxpaying owns a large part of RBS, whose profits have gone down while bonuses are being paid out.   Commercially, a disaster.

I agree, he's been posting that stupid picture all over the shop, that's something that Drinky used to do.
Set out to cause disruption as soon as it arrived, nothing but a RW troll imo.

Can't stay, will have a look later to see if I am right or not.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

56kevins wrote:

To generate the wealth you need well functioning capitalism not the hate filled politics of envy so beloved by the sassys of this world. The left drive out the wealth creators in an attempt to tax them to death thereby hurting the most vulnerable. Do they really Care? Not likely they are too busy sating their envy genes.

More bullshit. The U.S. had some of its most prosperous years when the top tax rate was between 75 and 90 percent.

Are you saying Ben that US taxpayers took home 15 cents in the dollar and were delighted? I doubt very much tax was ever at 90% in the USofA. I'll go and check I think you are taking the piss.

Sassy is there something wrong with my posts???? Have I used racist or abusive language? WTF to debate is wrong on here????????????????????????????????????????

Is Ben really Irn Bru?????? Saying us tax rates were 90% is definitely something he might make up.

Yes its a piss take itsnever  even been as high as 50%

Evening Drinky.

Sassy wrote:Evening Drinky.

I repeat have I posted racist or homophobic remarks. Im thinking you want me banned because I fell out with sqeemer.

56kevins wrote:Is Ben really Irn Bru?????? Saying us tax rates were 90% is definitely something he might make up.

Here ya go, dumbass!!

http://www.cch.com/wbot2013/029IncomeTaxRates.asp

And that is the top marginal tax rate. You might want to educate yourself on the progressive tax system, which the U.S. has only had for a century or so ...  ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: 

56kevins wrote:

Sassy wrote:Evening Drinky.

I repeat have I posted racist or homophobic remarks. Im thinking you want me banned because I fell out with sqeemer.

Now I know you are Drinky. I never mentioned banning, I just said you don't post as Kevin always did, so I don't believe you are Kevin.

Yourtax rates Ben have never been as high as the uk the chart you show and that I referenced showed anincome tax rate of 43%.

The US citizens would not pay 90% tax on income not in a million years!
You are taking the piss poor form

You can read I take it? Read the link.