RBS Chief to get £963,000 Bonus

[Cobbydaler]

On top of his £1.2 million salary...

RBS announced on Thursday that Mr Hester is to get £963,000 in shares based on the bank's closing share price on Wednesday 25 January 2012.

The bank said the bonus was for "substantial progress in making RBS safer, rebuilding performance in many businesses and improving customer service and support".

RBS is 82% owned by the taxpayer.

BBC business editor Robert Peston has learnt that the bonus came due to fear about resignations on the RBS board.

"I am reliably told that they feared Mr Hester and much of the board would have quit, if the payment had been vetoed by the government as the majority shareholder," said our business editor.

So basically, blackmail!

Link

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Cobbydaler

On top of his £1.2 million salary...


So basically, blackmail!

Link

They should have said QUIT then.

[papa smurf]

i would say when the bank is 0% owned by the tax payer you can have bonus

[martyh]

In fairness it has been deferred for 3 years

Mr Hester's share bonus was valued on the bank's Wednesday's closing share price and will be deferred for three years.

http://news.sky.com/home/business/article/16157101

[Cobbydaler]

Originally Posted by martyh

In fairness it has been deferred for 3 years



http://news.sky.com/home/business/article/16157101

But even if the share price is static over the next 3 years he will still get that payout.

Plus it appears it was obtained by threats of mass resignations from the board...

[Damien]

Not only that but it's relatively minor compared to other people in his position.

Blackmail? No, it's just someone who can get compensated better elsewhere and needs RBS less than RBS need him. He has no obligation to stick around as Chef Executive.

[Cobbydaler]

Originally Posted by Damien

Not only that but it's relatively minor compared to other people in his position.

Blackmail? No, it's just someone who can get compensated better elsewhere and needs RBS less than RBS need him. He has no obligation to stick around as Chef Executive.

Bearing in mind he doesn't cook meals for the staff restaurant...

Other people are not in his position of being in charge of a bank in the majority ownership of the State.

Leaving aside the moral arguments against massive corporate pay, this bank is 82% owned by the taxpayer.

If he thought he could get a better recompensed job elsewhere just leave. Don't threaten to leave unless you get your bonus. For heck's sake, he's getting paid £1.2 million to do the job anyway!

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

In fairness it has been deferred for 3 years



http://news.sky.com/home/business/article/16157101

That' ll be the "we're all in this together aspect then"

[martyh]

Originally Posted by danielf

That' ll be the "we're all in this together aspect then"

indeed ,i suppose it's an incentive to keep the bank in the black ,if the share price falls so does his bonus

[Damien]

Originally Posted by Cobbydaler

Bearing in mind he doesn't cook meals for the staff restaurant...

Other people are not in his position of being in charge of a bank in the majority ownership of the State.

No, but it's the same job. The state can't get away with paying well below the market rate for positions otherwise they will only get the people that were not qualified to work in the private sector. What's the point in that? It's a false economy. Better to have competitive pay than the wrong people in charge.

If he thought he could get a better recompensed job elsewhere just leave. Don't threaten to leave unless you get your bonus. For heck's sake, he's getting paid £1.2 million to do the job anyway!

Which means nothing if other people are getting paid far more. The fact he could just leave is what has persuaded them to give him this bonus, they clearly value his talents enough to justify it.

If I was being paid well below my peers in other companies then it wouldn't be blackmail if I asked to paid more to stop me going to those other companies.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

No, but it's the same job. The state can't get away with paying well below the market rate for positions otherwise they will only get the people that were not qualified to work in the private sector. What's the point in that? It's a false economy. Better to have competitive pay than the wrong people in charge.



Which means nothing if other people are getting paid far more. The fact he could just leave is what has persuaded them to give him this bonus, they clearly value his talents enough to justify it.

If I was being paid well below my peers in other companies then it wouldn't be blackmail if I asked to paid more to stop me going to those other companies.

I can see your point, but he started in 2008. You'd imagine that part of the negotiations would have centred around the fact that 'competitive' bonuses would not be paid for the foreseeable future, or at least while the state has a substantial interest in RBS?

[Cobbydaler]

Originally Posted by Damien

No, but it's the same job. The state can't get away with paying well below the market rate for positions otherwise they will only get the people that were not qualified to work in the private sector. What's the point in that? It's a false economy. Better to have competitive pay than the wrong people in charge.



Which means nothing if other people are getting paid far more. The fact he could just leave is what has persuaded them to give him this bonus, they clearly value his talents enough to justify it.

If I was being paid well below my peers in other companies then it wouldn't be blackmail if I asked to paid more to stop me going to those other companies.

You just can't see that the circumstances in this case are different. Market forces shouldn't apply in a company that's been bailed out to the tune of £45 billion, that's £45,000,000,000.

IMHO any bonus should be paid on a sliding scale related to how much of that sum has been repaid to the Treasury.

I can't seem to find how much of the proceeds of the sale of their aviation leasing arm (£4.7bn) will be used towards the write off of that sum.

[martyh]

Originally Posted by Cobbydaler

You just can't see that the circumstances in this case are different. Market forces shouldn't apply in a company that's been bailed out to the tune of £45 billion, that's £45,000,000,000.

IMHO any bonus should be paid on a sliding scale related to how much of that sum has been repaid to the Treasury.

I can't seem to find how much of the proceeds of the sale of their aviation leasing arm (£4.7bn) will be used towards the write off of that sum.

I can see your point to an extent but i would sooner the bank be run by someone who is competent enough to justify a bonus and will give us a return for the bailout instead of our money being swallowed into a black hole of banking incompetence

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Damien

Better to have competitive pay than the wrong people in charge.

He is the wrong person, he was told unequivocally to increase lending to small business and hasn't, threatened to quit, he should've been sacked.

[Maggy J]

I'm still leaning towards the Mattress bank.No bonus to anyone then..