RBS Bonus

Joined
2 Oct 2006
Messages
6,655
Reaction score
290
Country
United Kingdom
Robert Peston (whom I believe some see as a Demigod! :roll: ), has just stated that Stephen Hester RBS chief executive, will not take his bonus.

Bit late to announce it in my opinion (not that it's official yet). But he'll simply be accused of bowing to public pressure rather than having 'done the right thing' initially. Damned if he did, damned if he didn't.
 
If I was going to be damned I'd rather do it with a million quid in my pocket.
 
Mean while back at the original point...

Why Hester turned down the bonus.

It was Labour's decision to put Stephen Hester's bonus to a Commons vote that gave the RBS chief executive no option but to say he would not be taking £963,000 in shares.

As an RBS director put it to me, it would have been a great mistake for the semi-nationalised bank to fight parliament to preserve rewards for its chief executive seen by many as excessive.

MPs were expected to vote against the bonus payment - and in those circumstances, it was untenable for him to pocket it. Or at least that was the conclusion that Mr Hester reached tonight in conversation with the bank's chairman, Sir Philip Hampton.

That said, RBS's non-executive directors stand by their decision to award Mr Hester 60% of the maximum bonus he could have earned - because they feel he has strengthened the bank, and they argue that Mr Hester is paid less than his peers.

So in that sense the board feel Mr Hester has made the correct decision in making the financial sacrifice.

His waiving of the bonus lances one boil. But the bank still has to decide what to award Mr Hester under a separate pay scheme, known as the long-term incentive plan - under which he could receive shares worth up to four times his salary of £1.2m.

But the bank's directors will make no decision on that till they see what other banks, especially Barclays, pay their chief executives. RBS will only wish to reward Mr Hester in line with the perceived market rate or a bit less.

Which is why the bank's directors now bitterly regret having brought forward the decision on Mr Hester's bonus by around a month. It accelerated the decision on the bonus because it was asked to do so by the government - with ministers believing that it was a good idea to get the controversy over the bonus out of the way as soon as possible.

RBS's directors now recognise it would have been far better to delay the bonus decision until after the world had seen what Barclays' chief executive, Bob Diamond, is being paid - because Mr Hester's bonus would not look big in comparison.

Damage has been done by the row, not least to the morale of Mr Hester.

Colleagues say he is not angling to leave the bank - even though he feels bruised by the public scrutiny to which he has been subjected. But if an opportunity to go to another big job less in the spotlight were offered to him, the temptation of leaving might well prove irresistible.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16783849
 
Robert Peston (whom I believe some see as a Demigod! :roll: ), has just stated that Stephen Hester RBS chief executive, will not take his bonus.

Bit late to announce it in my opinion (not that it's official yet). But he'll simply be accused of bowing to public pressure rather than having 'done the right thing' initially. Damned if he did, damned if he didn't.
No doubt they will get round it another way out of public eye
 
As RBS is 82% owned by us the taxpayers , via the government. Cameron should have announced that Hester can have his bonus,,, but the government will keep their 82% of that same bonus. :wink: :wink:
 
Simple the guy signed a contract that the government must have been involved with in someway he turns around a 1.6 billion loss the previous year into a 3 month 2 billion profit with all the benefit of tax on it being paid into the public coffers and the raising of the share price .
So the government is in a win win situation but renage on the guys contract does this encourage him to perform better so that the government and the exchequer benefit over the coming years.
I would have took it
 
the government should get the money back now that was put into it and let it go under
 
It was the British tax payer that enabled the bank to carry on trading and also enabled the board and others to maintain or get a job. Hester and co. are only there because of us. They wanted to carry on with RBS and as such should suffer the consequences of working with a bank in a mess that was saved by us not a bunch of bankers. They should only get what they are paid to do.
 
Labour were too dumb and didn't realise that they would have to say "No bonuses or you don't get the bail out". They'd have had to sign their rights away before being saved. The Tories are quite happy about the bonuses.
 
Back
Top