banks

[mollykins]

shouldn't they have and in the future save their money for when they are in financial trouble rather than giving it out.

ps. would it be enough considering how much they give in bonuses and how often they need financial help?

[tamborine]

dont shareholders get a financial share? Where's mine?

[factor-fiction]

They lend it out in order to make a profit on it. The whole economy would collapse if the banks kept our savings and didn't allow borrowing

[mollykins]

No they'd lend money out, but instead of giving out huge bonuses to their top people, saved that money for when they got into financial trouble. But i'm aksing fi that would be feasable considering how much they would save, how much debt they get into and how often they get into that debt.

[mollykins]

I'm not in the sixth form.

[sumo19]

Some banks may have continguency funds for when they are in financial trouble.

As someone has said, banks must pay out the big bonuses to attract the top traders, managers and executives that make the bank perform optimally.

So without bonuses (RBS board threatened to strike the other day at the thought of losing their bonuses) certainn employees would be obliged to move to other banks where there are larger bonuses, or, if bonuses are reduced dramatically, employees may strike.

They have high bargain power as they are very powerful people, who make huge amounts of money. Bonuses are therefore necessary and should not be saved (to an extent).

Even if bonuses were save, there would be high opportunity cost, as the money saved with annoy bankers, and would not even be nearly enough to bail out banks that have been effected by the recent financial crisis, which cost hundreds of billions of £s