Fat Cats Getting Fatter

[ChillDoubt]

...on the cream of failure.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26364715

In these austere times, how is it that a bank that has seen it's biggest losses in 5 years can still award bonuses of over £570 million?
I thought Dodgy Dave was going to put a stop to this sort of thing?

[ToraToraTora]

look on the bright side, 42% of that will go to the Revenue!

[LazyGun]

What seems odd to me is why you get free market champions who seem remarkably sanguine about the prospect of huge bonuses being paid to executives who have presided over the failure of a bank - those losses as a consequence of reckless investment strategies and insurance misselling scams, lets not forget - posting their biggest loss to date after 6 years, having been bailed out by the state and the taxpayer.

We keep being told by the executive that such huge bonuses are needed to attract the cream of the crop - the crop must be pretty sickly then, because they have been using this same excuse every year since we bailed them out to justify the bonuses.

[ChillDoubt]

We keep being told by the executive that such huge bonuses are needed to attract the cream of the crop - the crop must be pretty sickly then, because they have been using this same excuse every year since we bailed them out to justify the bonuses.
-----------
I can only concur with that assessment wholeheartedly.

[Gromit]

RBS was saved from collapse in 2008 with £46billion of taxpayers money for a 81% stake in the company.

Since then, its accumulative losses are over £46billion !!!

The company continues to fail. It is unsaleable. Our 81% is virtually worthless.

This is not free market capitalism, it is a charity, the poor paying for the rich. We should close it down and cut our loses. Too big to fail is the mantra of failed, discredited charlatans.

[ChillDoubt]

Unfortunately Gromit I've already given the best answer so it's unfair to rescind it.
You do however gain parity with LG's winner.

[FredPuli43]

If 'the taxpayer' holds 81 per cent of the voting shares,it is surprising that it cannot stop the bank's employees from getting undeserved or excessive bonuses. Of course, we may have the Fred Goodwin scenario. His lawyers were a lot brighter than the banks' and had his contract written in such a way that he was quids in whatever he did or failed to do

[FredPuli43]

Bouncer, it may be that the employees have favourable terms in their contracts, but there is nothing to stop the government from removing directors, contracts notwithstanding (they might squeal a bit!) and choosing directors more to their liking and more obedient to their will, and who might take a less generous reading of contracts, at any time. Directors have to face reelection anyway, so they could be voted out as each stands. In most public companies the reelection is a matter of form because the institutions (pension funds etc) never object.. Here, we are the institution.