Should bankers be 'ashamed'?

Is banking the only business in this country?

Errr I thought we would probably be blogging about the wonderful Q4 figs with such a ridiculously low growth level (ie we are not out of recession !)

Obvoiusly Robert you are on holiday in Davos or something.

Oh well back to bed then.

If the bankers had been taking risk with their own money no one would bat an eye lid the fact is they are making bonuses with no risk to themselves, and with the whole game stacked in their favour what part do they no understand?
The UK bankers are no longer the centre of the Universe, it has been now proved that it cant continue as the mainstay for the British economy, the public are taking the hit and they get a bonus. They are lucky I am not chancellor I would restrospectively scoop back the bonuses they have made for the past ten years!and the same for the mp's as well, they need to feel some hurt to get it ,it seems

I think you need to clarify what you mean by banking in the context of the article and the bonuses paid out. I am in banking but I am not getting a bonus. I am just one of the ordinary people who are slogging our guts out to ensure the business continues, bringing in a wage to keep our families afloat and pay off the mortgage.
I am getting fed up with the media coverage and tarring all bankers with the same brush which we do not deserve. We are getting on with looking after the normal Joe Bloggs who bank with the various institutions but it is the public who think we are responsible for the current economic mess when it is just a few in the riskier areas that have caused the problems.
Can the media please start supporting us normal folk who work in the banking industry and start to properly identify those reponsible rather than just use the broad brush statements of banks and bankers.
I don't see any negative press about footballers who earn exhorbitant sums for kicking a leather bag around. Perhaps it needs clubs to go out of business and disappear before that happens and then perhaps we will see a degree of normality return in that industry as well.
Thank you

Yes please ask that question that the FT didn't put- amongst a lot of others that they, the FT, have failed to put or follow up in recent months. When are bankers going to recognise the ability to generate huge economic rents is a function of both excessive econmic concentration as one behemoth swallowed another and more fundamentally of the in built leverage in the system of fractional reserve banking that amplifies returns and NOT to the individual brilliance of most bankers. If an idnustrial company lands a $1bn contract the individual does not usually have entitlement to a $10m or more payout. Banks have got to recognise this, they are "special cases" only because of the dire damage that permitted leverage can wreak on the economy. It is high time for a large slice of honesty and yes even shame at the collosal destruction of wealth, misery of unemployment and destroyed fiscal balances. Shame would be a modest admission in the circumstances.

Half a cheer from so-called emergence from the recession. How can the Bank of England and Treasury get this so wrong? The Treasury figure I understand was an optimistic +0.3%, the Bank's even more Quite likely to be adjusted as these figures are never as accurate as purported. And what for Q1 2010 a backward slide again?

Well done, Mr Green.
Some good sense from a top banker.
Can it really be right that less than 1% of the country have 90% of the nations wealth? (which is where we are going).
Have City bank staff really no concept of equality? (considering that they are gambling on everyone elses' labours).
Have bank staff really got the divine right to add one nought, two noughts or three noughts to the end of an average salary?
I am not against well paid City bank staff, but there is a big difference between "well paid", and total plunder of the nations' wealth.
In the end, it all has to come out of the publics' pockets, so is it any wonder that so many in the financial industry are now regarded as leeches?

From yesterdays Share Crazy!!

QUOTE OF THE DAY

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies

Thomas Jefferson

It was the justification given for these huge bonuses that set alarm bells off for me. The kind of banking we (the public) expected the banks to be doing shouldn't require the kind of highly-paid talent the banks have claimed they need to retain - indeed it was these very 'talents' who cause the problems in the first place.

When the casino banking elements are removed and we return to sane (boring) banking, the need for huge salaries and bonuses will disappear. The bankers may not realise it yet, but it will.

In many respects there are obvious connections between the quality of the performance of the financial services sector and the news that what little growth there has been in the last quarter was down to the foreign owned automotive manufacturing sector benefitting from the generosity of the UK taxpayer.

There is no reason for bankers to be ashamed. All one asks is that they be realistic.

The good book tells us that the labourer is worthy of his hire.

My objection to the payola in the City is that the taxpayer is supporting the entire edifice and is given no respect for what is proving to be a very onerous and damaging duty. For as long as the taxpayer is expected to socialise the cost of the bankers' errors then I would expect some respect; although some humility would not go amiss either.

It is the lack of appreciation which hurts. This suggests a selfish demeanour that is not becoming to those who would wish to place themselves above us all.

Robert
Pre-Green, I can't recall any senior banker using the language of guilt and shame to describe bonus practices.
We all remember them struggling and chocking over the word 'Sorry', ever so slightly....

Is it envy?
No. I'd be deeply ashamed of taking home so much money even if the economy wasn't wrecked by my industry. Not seen the desperate poverty around the world, have they? Just how much money can you keep to yourself when a fair number of kids on this earth would jump for joy at not just one, but a pair of flip-flops! Or a young pregnant mum in East Africa who needs medical care but wouldn't be able to pay for it if she toiled in her little patch of field, close to her mud hut complete with tin roof until the end of time!

Imagine a medic offering out a tube to patients as a treatment, when the medic had no idea what was in it. A bit like those fancy, fangled derivatives! We have a label for that: snakeoil salesman. I'll keep my little research salary for a while yet, and sleep easy at night, knowing that at least I do minimal harm.

I'm not a mother. Does that mean I shouldn't abhor this:
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8479364.stm
The number of UK children living in "severe poverty" rose in the four years before the recession, research from a children's charity suggests.
Save the Children says the number of children in homes in this category rose 260,000 to 1.7m from 2004 to 2008.
We are one of the richest countries in the world. How good, how successful has this country allegedly been having it for the past 20 or 30 years? It doesn't seem quite so good when you look at those poverty figures. Are we to really beleive that many children in this country have feckless parents? I do not believe so.

What happened to the alleged wealth creation that was to benefit this country, then?
Obviously, we all know about wealth creation now.
1,000,000 to me 0.001 to you. 1,000,000 to me 0.001 to you....

Let's add to this.
How many single adults of working age with no children in this country are living in severe poverty?
How many pensioners are frightened to keep their homes warm? Or just a single room in their home warm?
How many adults in this country who would like a job don't have one?
How may single adult households are there who would like a job but don't have one?
(Ever noticed how no politician remembers the large number of single people in this country. Not everyone is married. And not everyone is a parent.)
Why are so many newly qualified school teachers in Scotland struggling to find work?
How many of last years graduates have found graduate-level work?
How many people have had their homes repo'd or face that action over the past 18 months?
How many companies have gone bust over the same period?
How many people are without affordable housing who need it? And how long will it take for that affordable housing to become available?
How many academics will face job cuts as a direct result of the government rescue of the banks?
How many elderly are getting the dementia care they need?
How many school-leavers are getting the opportunities they need that will give them the start in adult life they need?
How many young people have delayed starting a family because they can't afford a home?

Weren't the job requirements for a banker something along the lines of intelligent, creative, common sense, educated, problem solving...?
And they spout out 'Envy'. Really, is that the best they can come up with?
Surely, if they were all so deserving, they'd have generated, redistributed by whatever means, enough cash in the past 20 or 30 years for the entire population of this country to be, well, OK? Even paying the full whack of tax over the years would have been a start, you know their fare share just like the office cleaner who pays a higher proportion of her earnings (hence are kids are probably represented in those dreadful statistics).
Envy? I suppose bankers avoid Iceland these days....might not go down too well, that attitude, over in Dublin either...

rant over
PS - how many banks worth does it take to rebuild Haiti?

With regard to entry 11 by "Stanilic" I am, as a banker, more than aware that the "public purse" staved off winding up various banks and am grateful that I get to keep my job.
However can we please be specific with our comments about who you are attacking especially when you state the "taxpayer is expected to socialise the cost of the bankers errors' "
I appreciate what the public purse has done but please have a go at the guilty parties and not the whole industry, i.e. don't say bankers. It is a small minority within each Bank (less than 1%) that are getting this payoff, not every employee.
I am proud of what I do and am also displeased at what I see as an unfair reward system throughout the industry to a privileged few. After all if we did not look after the ordinary customer then these privileged few would have nothing to speculate with.

The whole WEF thing strikes me as being a bit like the Bilderberg group.
Lot's of bankers and banking regulators, and associated consultants and lawyers and.... etc etc and no-one (...apart from supposedly politicians?) who represent the ordinary Joe.

Is there no way you (the BBC) can take with you a group of, say, five members of the public - maybe a pensioner, someone who works for him/herself, a small business owner, a medium tier business executive, a doctor etc etc - to represent the 'view from Main Street' rather than the 'view from the 23rd floor of Goldman Sachs'?

I know Arthur Scargill once attended, and I'm not advocating anyone pitch in again with the sort of dream he had, but will anyone really be saying 'boo' to the goose?

Hope you manage to get some skiing in....

13. At 10:57am on 26 Jan 2010, andy1960

Couldn't you vote with your feet and find an even more enjoyable career or just go to work in an ethical organisation? I appreciate it isn't always quite so easy, particularly, if like most folk who've been unfortunate enough to face redundancy recently, they've had to take a hit of something like 28% reduction in income...

How easy it is for someone to say "we do not need" when they have spent their lives getting - maybe not from banking, but certinly from other areas.

The build up of the banking cult in full steam. Thank you, Bobby!

Of course these bonuses are outrageous and do not deserve the moderate language used in this blog. We need to be more forensic about how such bonuses can be paid. Shareholders are obviously either a part of the edifice of beneficiaries or asleep on the job. Clearly there is no effective competition and soft cartelism is probably rife. Governments appears to quake at the knees at the thought of radical action such as part or whole public ownership (as a strategic choice), supervision not regulation and legally prescribed governance with jail for offenders. What on earth is a Labour Government up to when appears to be pulling its punches on this economic overhead sector.

Robert

The vast majority of posters on your blog are fed up with this subject - they want the retail banks separated from the "boutique" banks and that would be an end to the subject.

As poster #2 goforit99 says - what about the Q4 GDP figures?

The BBC have spent the last 24 hours hypeing up the end of the recession despite the fact that most of the "man in the street" would tell you it is still ongoing. What is the tolerence on these preliminary figures (they have often changed by =/- 0.2% in the past)? How much of this growth is due to the vast sums being poured into the economy in an unsustainable manner by the Treasury / BOE ? What will happen when the financial stimulus package ends? How much of the growth is due to the reduction in the value of the £ ? What would have happened if we had been in the Euro?

Move on Robert - there is too much else going on to sstay on this subject.

I fail to understand why investment banks are being blamed when the Sub-Prime Mortgage and CDO structure caused the recent credit crunch. I do believe Senior bankers are taking too high a profit for their work in proportion to other organisations. I also believe that if you can't discipline yourselves then others will discipline you. We are talking about different issues within banking and I'm not sure we are targetting the underlying causes of our problems, particularly when it comes to more stringent regulation of the banking systems. All we will do is move the problem of excess and apparantly blatant greed to another area or industry.

Is envy as toxic and unattractive as the pay itself, Robert? I think not.

Put it another way, if you want to live a moderately fulfilled existence in the capital and feel priced out by the bankers in virtually every walk of life from unaffordable housing costs to exorbitant ticket prices (for theatre and the arts, for instance, which most bankers I've met are too gross and frankly too thick to appreciate) is there perhaps another case to answer?

The case that the bankers and other corporate gorgers have diminished the quality of life for the vast amount of their fellow citizens.

19. At 11:16am on 26 Jan 2010, seenitbefore wrote:
"Robert

The vast majority of posters on your blog are fed up with this subject.....
Move on Robert - there is too much else going on to sstay on this subject."

I guess you must be a 'banker'.

I disagree entirely - the resentment and anger with bankers (ok, for clarity, traders and directors) and the banking system is growing daily across the western world. It's now mainsteam and unstoppable. It is the duty of RP to report and comment on this.

> Should bankers be 'ashamed'?

Who gives a hoot about how they feel? Why ask pariahs for thier opinion about themselves? It's our opinion of _them_ that matters. And we have a very low opinion of them now. That gets translated into politics, and a crackdown on bankers.

That's how things are playing out; Obama has failed with his plans for healthcare reform, so he's taking no chances at all with the bankers. They're in line for a bloody good kicking, now, and not before time. It's still hurt the same, whether they are ashamed or not.

This saga about 'bonus payments' will go on forever. But I keep asking myself the stupid question - Why does anyone have to have a a bonus for doing their job well? Why can't bankers, at all levels, simply be employed at a salary - whatever that may be determined as the 'rate for the job' - and get on with what they are being paid to do? If their efforts prove to be outstanding, then give them an increase as with any other job. I accept that that may sound simple, but then I am a simple man!

I work for a bank actually an investment bank, whenever I mention this (which I try to avoid these days!) I dont get massive bonuses (maybe slightly more than average) but I have a mortgage I'm struggling to pay off, we have 1 7 year old car and last year our only overseas holiday was Drive Ferry Drive and Camp, not the lavish lifestyle people expect for an investment banker!!!

What most people dont understand is the vast majority of people who work in an investment bank do not get these masive bonuses. Those are primarily reserved for the sort of people who would otherwise be setting their own Hedge Fund/Private Equity Firm or be headhunted by them. These firms can pay what they like as they have no shareholders to worry about. So the banks end up competing against them with big bonuses.

13 andy1960

I am afraid I cannot be specific unless names are named and that is not valid within the context of free comment.

I can recall in the days when British Leyland were also sucking at the taxpayers teat that people talked disparaging about `car workers', although most were no doubt kind to children and animals.

I did refer to `payola in the City' and trust you can see my comments within that context.

However, as copperDolomite does rightly point out that one should apply a moral dimension to the selection of your career or choice of employment. I chose never to work for the government or a large corporation: my income has suffered as a consequence. Despite that I have been fortunate in the integrity of my role although I dislike the fact that this also now involves importing goods which I would much rather be made in the UK. However grand we may consider ourselves we do not always control our own lives so one must sadly take the rough with the smooth.

# 24. At 11:34am on 26 Jan 2010, Geoff Heath wrote:

> This saga about 'bonus payments' will go on forever. But I keep asking
> myself the stupid question - Why does anyone have to have a bonus for
> doing their job well?

One answer is that banks believe that a "bonus" makes
bankers behave in a way that they would not otherwise behave in.

Possible behaviours are
1) Morally dubious behaviours
2) Physically or mentally extreme behaviours
3) Excessively risky behaviours
4)Socially useless behaviours
5)Illegal behaviours
6)Unethical behaviours

etc. There must be many more. One thing is certain – it isn't to encourage altruistic behaviour! Thus, bonuses are bad, unless you are one of those who benefits. Most of us don't, so they have to go, now. Why? Because we say so!

Re comment 13 andy1960,
Nice comment from a banker, we need more bankers on here giving their views.
Even andy1960 is not happy with "big finance".
I made a flippant comment the other day that "banks have become more powerful than governments".
On reflection, this seems to have more sense than I originally thought.
It's time for governments (together) to take back the power.
The concept of "shame" amongst bankers will not lose them any sleep....people have been "getting away with what they can" since the beginning of time.
All controls were removed, and the rest is history.
But now everything is under review....
The operations and size of retail, commercial and investment banks (and hedge funds),
What will be guaranteed by the public and what will not,
Bank levies and taxes,
And remuneration in the financial sector.
Let's hope it's a good outcome, as this sort of damage to our economies, our societies, and our children and grand children must not be repeated.

Did anyone hear the one about the UK is out of recession.

I find it hilarious that so many people say it's obvious that speculative city trading and the huge salaries that accompany it are unsustainable and won't continue to form such a major part of Britain's future economy.

Who do you think is going to change this?

Labour won't, they're toothless. The Tories won't either. The banks won't reform themselves whilst there's massive profit to be had and frankly the only reason taxpayers were used as moneyboxes was because the whole government structure thinks that investment banking is a highly important part of the economy.

So suck it up, this will continue much the same after a couple of years of hand wringing and public dissent. Then we'll forget about them again.

#20

It is because people are looking for the underlying causes of the problems that the target has moved from the misselling of subprime mortgages to investment banking.

The issue is not the subprime crisis - the issue is the fact that something apparently focused on the US housing market triggered a global financial meltdown, that risked destroying the retail banking sector in most Western countries.

The link between US subprime and the failure of UK high street banks is seen to be too much interconnectivity between institutions and poor management of risk accross the whole sector.

I agree that investment banker's bonuses are not the underlying cause - but the supposed best minds in the universe are still looking for the underlying cause, and in the meantime the politicians need some ducks to shoot at.

OAPs turning down their heating to save £1 to give to the needy or to work unpaid at charity shops are making sacrifices. NOT haing to make do with £1 million or tycoons congratulating themselves as philanthropists on raising hundreds of thousands of pounds for charity. Many of them probably saved many millions or billions in taxes by being ex-doms or placing their companies in tax havens.

What we have seen is the results of people going all out to get as much as they can, for as long as they can, with as little risks as possible and from as many people as possible, with as many scheme and disguises as possible.

# 30. At 11:56am on 26 Jan 2010, Gothnet wrote:

> I find it hilarious that so many people say it's obvious that speculative
> city trading and the huge salaries that accompany it are unsustainable
> and won't continue to form such a major part of Britain's future economy.
> Who do you think is going to change this?

Get up to Internet Speed, gothnet - the Prez has already said that big banks will be broken up, and all banks will have to pay up front for the right to taxpayer support. Didn't you see the market slump? If they don't pay, they don't operate. There's no mystery here about who will change things.

The British Government should direct all banks and similiar institutions that operate in the UK that no bonuses should be paid in 2010 at all. This is not a matter of envy - its the reality that public finances have underpinned this sector to a massive extent - in part thereby preserving jobs on a scale that has not been seen in other parts of the economy.

I applaud Stephen Green - he is a very intelligent, honest and commercially astute executive. If there were more like him around the banks would sort this out themselves. The problem is that they are all frightened of taking action that might damage their businesses at the expense of competitors. This is why the Government needs to do much more than Alastair Darling has done thus far.

That said, it will be interesting to see what HSBC does on this matter.

30. At 11:56am on 26 Jan 2010, Gothnet

Of course it is unsustainable - the earth and all the resources on it are finite, unless of course, the bankers have decided to follow my suggestion and move off, to the moon. ASAP, please.
You don't think they'd earn a bonus for trading on an earth with no more resources do you... there wouldn't be any humans to trade with.

The vast rewards are supposed to reflect skill. This is clearly not true as the market risks were removed in 2009 by HM Treasurey/tax payers and yet the rewards increased and pushing treasurey paper around is something my mother could do profitably in the last year.

I think it is time for a little customer and shareholder power to be deployed. Please contact me and my mum if you want any MnA or bond sale handled in the next year, I promise to halve whatvever fee you are already quoted. Mum is really good at telesales too so we can also handle your private equity financing and I also have no idea how to value assets so just as good as your current service provider.

If this recession becomes a double dipper (as I believe it will) it would be interesting to know how big a dip would need to occur before the banks' liquidity returned to crisis levels?

How much bad debt can they afford?

How big a dip in asset prices?

Against this analysis it would then be interesting to consider whether these bonuses were prudent protection of their most important asset (staff/customers) or reckless payouts that endanger their future?

Of course their ultimate protection is us (the taxpayer/government) but I wonder if we (as a country) can afford to repeat the bail outs again?

[Please note that I abhor these pay levels anyhow I'm just trying to look at it from another more business based viewpoint - in much the same way as a normal company would consider the payment of bonuses]

27. At 11:47am on 26 Jan 2010, Jacques Cartier wrote:
# 24. At 11:34am on 26 Jan 2010, Geoff Heath wrote:

> This saga about 'bonus payments' will go on forever. But I keep asking
> myself the stupid question - Why does anyone have to have a bonus for
> doing their job well?

When I 1st started working in the city I should have been paid overtime, but was told that as I was in the front office I would not be paid overtime, that was what the bonus was for. Then a few years later most in our firm were told that you will no longer get pay-rises as that increases the fixed cost to the company which means if we have a bad year we are stuck with that high fixed cost. Therefore we will pay very good bonuses in the years we make money and only minimal bonuses in years we dont make money. That all seemed fair, back in those days people tended to stick to the same firm for much of their careers, then as people became more job mobile though the 90's and hedge-funds and private equity became more prevalent firms increasingly felt that to retain talent they still had to pay the big bucks to the lucky few regardless of how much profit.

Us minions working on the coalface however just lose out either way!!! Not bitter :-(

33. At 12:08pm on 26 Jan 2010, Jacques Cartier wrote:
# 30. At 11:56am on 26 Jan 2010, Gothnet wrote:

> I find it hilarious that so many people say it's obvious that speculative
> city trading and the huge salaries that accompany it are unsustainable
> and won't continue to form such a major part of Britain's future economy.
> Who do you think is going to change this?

Get up to Internet Speed, gothnet - the Prez has already said that big banks will be broken up, and all banks will have to pay up front for the right to taxpayer support. Didn't you see the market slump? If they don't pay, they don't operate. There's no mystery here about who will change things.

You really think that is likely to go though like it has been proposed?

Our problem in the UK is that we have been in thrall to the financial sector so much that one wonders if there acually are any other industries in this country. (I wonder myself!!) Successive governments (Tory as well as Labour) have behaved like silly teens advertising a house party on Facebook. Coachloads of financial yobs have gatecrashed, smashing up the economy whilst the 'host' is too weak and frightened to tell them to rein in their behaviour or pack their bags and leave. Our leaders are guilty of allowing them to run amok, plundering our money and assets. They have ignored other industry, allowing it to collapse or be hived off to overseas buyers. So desperate to keep their financial friends, they have overlooked the most shocking behaviour for so long it's unsurprising that many in the financial sector think that this sort of behaviour is the norm. Just like the silly teenager, it seems that if we lose these abusive 'friends' we'll have no-one. So we just let them carry on. Predicating our entire economy on financial services? Priceless.

Well we all need somebody to blame.
If the bonuses are about performance then why not pay, but as a business a shareholder could and should have a return.
After all thats what shares are all about?

But customers? who really gives a.... when you are a banker the customer is all about giving you money lets be honest. A better return? less charges? open more hours? instant transfer of funds? (between banks)

A long way to go to regain any of my respect or trust.

As a 'bank employee' (i.e. not a banker) it seems to me the problem is the word 'bank' here. If we only allow the 'boring' side of banking to be called and operate as a bank then the problem goes away.

If we passed a law to seperate and rename the investment banks and trading arms (and make them accountable for their own losses) then this wouldn't be an issue.

Of course this is precisely what the current mega-banks don't want as it would take the public safety net away - and can you blame them? I'd love a highly paid job job where I can gamble with no risk.

And here's a simple idea - scoop up all the 'bank' bonuses over £1 millon last year and donate them to Haiti to help the rebuilding effort. How many billons would that yield I wonder?

25. Andy
'What most people dont understand is the vast majority of people who work in an investment bank do not get these masive bonuses. Those are primarily reserved for the sort of people who would otherwise be setting their own Hedge Fund/Private Equity Firm or be headhunted by them. These firms can pay what they like as they have no shareholders to worry about. So the banks end up competing against them with big bonuses.'

I'm sure you're right. But as a minimum these people should certainly not be working in institutions supported by state guarantees on deposits, on reserves and ultimately on capital. If they become illiquid or insolvent, then they and their clients must take the hit.

As to why Hedge Fund/Private Equity Firms can pay what they do, that is another issue. Why does society allow anyone to get that rich? Can it really benefit the rest of us?

"should bankers feel ashamed"

Well no - because in order to do so they would need to:-

a) Have feelings of guilt
b) Understand why, what they do, causes misery for millions

...and they simply don't.

You can convince yourself you are doing 'Gods work' fairly easily - just as Hitler did in 1939 when he attempted Genocide.

In fact it's for the benefit of society that they don't feel ashamed as the public will cotton on to the absence of respect people in powerful positions have for them - whether it be prop trader or parlimentarian.

37. At 12:15pm on 26 Jan 2010, GRIMUPNORTH77

I agree that a double dip is likely - what else could come of government employee redundancies?
Less taxation, more claims for benefits and increasing numbers of older people needing care.
I don't see how we can, as a nation afford it. I'd be surprised if the west could. What will save us? Wind and tidal energy - I remain to be convinced. We can barely feed our population - we import so much food. Biotech has been the promised dream for 20 years or so. We've got the educated population for that, but nowhere near enough jobs to soak them up. A knowledge economy? What like the rest of the world aren't quite so smart - no everywhere will have their knowledge and most of it will be free on the internet.
We are dreading the next 20 years, absolutely dreading it. I'm too upset to see past a future consisting of myself and hubby busking to top up our meagre pensions, burning our books and degrees for warmth...

Jacques, smack a banker and cheer me up - I can't sing!

@27

> This saga about 'bonus payments' will go on forever. But I keep asking
> myself the stupid question - Why does anyone have to have a bonus for
> doing their job well?

It is simply a way of ensuring that your staff costs remain flexible. Staff costs are huge in a service industry, so by minimising the fixed element you reduce operational leverage (fixed vs variable costs). It is also a way to incentivise people to work beyond their contractural obligations (cos you can't always promote everybody and overtime doesn't exist).

In theory it is a great tool. But can have side effects that are discussed at great length here so I won't repeat them. Personally I think they make less sense as you get higher in an org and work becomes more strategic.

Plenty more feeding trough's and certainly not confined to banking! Yes indeed I need my very own at risk annual bonus (1 month salary), simply because there is debt payments incurred over an extremely modest living going back several years.....these huge hernia causing other type bonus are alone morally unjustified, and simply wrong!

Playing devils advocate, what would happen if all the public on say for example April 1st made arrangements to remove all their savings, in cash from lets say RBS or any of the other tax payer funded extortion schemes ..... and placed that money in their local building society.

Would this hurt the banks ??? would bonus's be affected for next year ??? it would be interesting to see. at least i know that my meagre savings are going in the main towards local people and local wages, rather than wholesale worldwide gambling schemes, as devised by the large banks, and regulated by the inept.

Robert

Some of your questions are hilarious.

Banking remuneration criminals do not feel shame otherwise their sophisticated theft of profits which should go back to shareholders and customers would not be on their excessive bonus statements.

Executive Bankers do not feel any shame because they are sophisticated manipulative devious opportunists who have managed to convince themselves, the City, politicians and media that they have earned and have a right to the excess monies when really any excess payment is and should be a 'privilege'.

The only reason the bankers get the excessive bonuses and high payments is because they have easy access to the funds and most of the payments are determined by those running the business.

Rights -v- privileges?

Hi "writingsonthewall",

You've an interesting take on things, though I confess that I do find your tone quite abrasive.

Just wondering what your solution/suggestion would be. As whilst most of us are dismayed at the state of affairs, I haven't seen/heard anyone (especially the main political parties) suggest anything that offers real hope.

# 39. At 12:26pm on 26 Jan 2010, Andy wrote:

>> 33. At 12:08pm on 26 Jan 2010, Jacques Cartier wrote:
>> Get up to Internet Speed, gothnet - the Prez has already said that big banks
>> will be broken up, and all banks will have to pay up front for the right
> > to taxpayer support.

> You really think that is likely to go though like it has been proposed?

Once they are small and weak, there is nothing to stop us going further. I'd
like to auction the operator rights of banks to the highest bidder, i.e.
only the banks that bring the biggest benefits to the UK get the chance to do
business here.

46. At 12:49pm on 26 Jan 2010, malcom wrote:
It is also a way to incentivise people to work beyond their contractural obligations (cos you can't always promote everybody and overtime doesn't exist).

Didn't we get rid of all that carry on along with maids, footmen and butlers?

From a financial report I received today:

"Official figures released today indicated that Britain's GDP expanded by a meagre 0.1% in the final three months of 2009, suggesting that the embattled economy only barely managed to exit the recession after six consecutive quarters of contraction.

The latest data was a real disappointment, trailing the 0.4% rise expected by the majority of economists surveyed by Bloomberg. In my opinion, this weak result resurrects the prospect of additional quantitative easing, which in turn heightens the possibility of a downgrade in the country's sovereign rating."

So...more QE, which was only required due to bankers' recklessness in the first place. And now they are still getting big bonuses? I would laugh except it's MY pension that is going down the toilet. I've just had to pay a fortune in back taxes which had been 're-assessed' by HMRC, so, considering that the banks are still being underwritten by MY taxes, this whole thing is so rotten it stinks to the point that it would be declared an environmental disaster if you could actually touch it.

At the risk of being boring - we need a Nation Maximum Wage!

The way we are going we will have discontent on the streets directly caused by the absurdity of multi-million pound salaries of bakers being supported by the poor and destitute. We cannot allow this to continue. Bankers must be made to realise that they are part of a wider society and their absurdities of monopoly exploitation will have to cease.

It is not an issue of 'proportion' or 'disproportion', it is a matter of what is morally and ethically tolerable.

What the financial services sector has clearly demonstrated is lack of moral fibre amongst those in the most advantageous and privileged positions. Regardless of their individual and personal wealth, they continue demonstrate nothing greater than greed, avarice, a lack of social responsibility and a despicable degree self-aggrandisement.

What moral justification can these individuals have for considering themselves to be so superior to the rest of society that they believe they are perfectly justified is rewarding themselves at totally disproportionate levels? I would suggest absolutely and unequivocally, none. We are constantly having impressed upon us that they have special skills and expertise which have to be appropriately rewarded. Well, many of us can demonstrate special skills and expertise but, without embarking upon detail, few of us can boast rewards commensurate with the contributions we make, or have made, throughout our careers. Certainly, most of us have never been in the fortunate situation of determining our own 'worth' and remuneration packages.

The fact is that, by their gross incompetence and greed, these individuals brought the economies of most nations to near collapse but they have neither paid a price for that nor even been modestly reprimanded. Indeed, often their malpractices are rewarded by elevation to peerages. We have a status quo, the same charlatans are in the driving seat and they have absolutely no intention of relinquishing the reins. As for Lord Myners, of course he has refused to pass judgement. He and his privileged crony friends will continue to slither and slide away from their responsibilities to the rest of us, not least because they are part of the 'system' and they too have their noses in what is a very lucrative and exclusive trough. Politics is an insecure business and those at the top who could make a difference well know how short their tenures can be. To offset that 'insecurity', they simply insure their futures by courting the City and the lucrative directorships and consultancies with which they will be rewarded for not making waves when they were in a position to do so.

Should bankers be ashamed? The question should have been, 'are bankers capable of being ashamed?' The answer is plainly NO. They lack the moral decency and responsibility for being ashamed of the fiasco they have brought about for everyone. This is specially so for those loyal, lower level, employees, many of whom who were cajoled by promises and mendacity into investing their meagre bonuses in the firms by which they were employed and, of course, many of whom have now lost their jobs too.

Of course, we have the general election looming and all political sides are starting to make their noises and exude perceived vote capturing platitudes. What are the choices on offer? Stick with what we know? Run with the lack-lustre Tories? Take a chance on Lib-Dems who, as usual, say everything and anything in the confident knowledge they are unlikely be called upon to actually DO anything! The reality is that although voters will possibly perceive a need for change, regardless of the electoral results, there will be no change. There isn't a Rizla paper of choice between any of the main parties and who ever may end up with the 'power', the fact is that the domination of the City will continue to prevail upon the government of the day which will simply acquiesce to assure the future well-being and incomes of the most senior politicians.

# 45. At 12:45pm on 26 Jan 2010, copperDolomite wrote:

> Jacques, smack a banker and cheer me up - I can't sing!

I don't need to smack them - The Prez is doing it for us:

> We have to get this done .. if these folks want a fight, it's
> a fight I'm ready to have... we've come through a terrible crisis .. the
> American people have paid a very high price. ...
> that's why we're going to rein in the excess and abuse that
> nearly brought down our financial system.

So there you have it. They have been hoist with thier own petard. They made
themselves conspicuous by being so greedy, and now they will suffer
years of frugality and humility in far smaller organsations, humbled
by their huge public debts and subject to all manner of regulations.

So sing - it couldn't happen to a better bunch of guys!

At last, you are getting to the real point about bonuses. If you look at the operating profit margins of banks (of all sorts) against those of other financial institutions (say general or life insurance companies) you will see that banks make two or three times the amount of operating profit from the same turnover. Surprise, surprise, that then results in mega-pay for the bankers. Profits of such a scale show that there is not enough competition between the banks......If that is deliberate, I think there is another word for it? Cartel? Increase competition and customers win, banks profits are reduced and bankers earn a more normal wage.

I know it will upset a few of the gloom and doom merchants, but being out of recession is the main story of the day.

Given banks accounts for c 9%age of GDP should banking account for about the same %age of a business blog.

I'm intrigued that these supposedly very smart bankers still pay bonuses at all, given all the evidence that bonuses produce poorer performance. (e.g. https://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_pink_on_motivation.html). Paying higher salaries and no bonuses would seem the better choice.

SHOULD BANKERS ‘BE ASHAMED’?

Oh Robert are a wag!...you know perfectly well that bankers are incapable of feeling shame. They tend to exhibit Personality Disorder.

The hallmark of the Axis II Cluster B Personality Disorders is omission. Psychopaths (Anti-social Personality Disorder - APD) share half their Factor Structure with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), they lack conscience or empathy. They almost exclusively care about themselves (their own kids are parts of them note). It is an identity disorder. It is a problem of omission. This is why it is so hard to deal with them. They don't see that what they are doing is wrong or hurtful to others. It is predatory, and it does work, and they can't be held responsible in terms of conscience. This is why psychopathy is untreatable and yet not a mental illness on Axis I. Unfortunately, it’s why they tend to rise to positions of power - as they are ruthless. As they can't see it, they are prone to describe their critical treatment by others as persecution. Most prisoners are classified with Personality Disorder (Axis II, Cluster B). They can't, in the end, help the way they are. In an odd way, they are like children. They have an infantile disorder which cannot be treated; but children need to be managed, in their own and in others' interests.

Narcissism and celebritism dominate Liberal-Democracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui9C6xVpVf0

A question for the better informed. If, as suggested, banks, as opposed to the Government, now control the money supply (through the creation of debt) then are they just "creating" the money they are paying themselves - as opposed to earning it?

A further question. In a bygone age Monarchs jealously guarded their prerogative to mint "money" because this gave them control: have we ceded control to the banks?

If so (in either or both cases) is it not time to wrest control back?

> Is the public's distaste for the magnitude of what bankers' earn simply
> an example of envy - which some would say is as toxic and unattractive
> as the pay itself?

Why should envy be "toxic and unattractive"? It's not "toxic and
unattractive" to want our children to have shelter and enough to eat.
If anyone gets more than thier fair share, there's less for my kids.

Life really is that simple, and that's why the bankers have to pay up - now.

Lets not forget where Gordon got his billions from to squander on a wasteful NHS, an illegal war in Iraq,MPs expenses & gold plated pension scheme, to name four. He was happy to take the tax on these bonuses from the individual & bank to fund all these.He didn't complain about the amount being paid then.

Referring to MaxW - if a salesman in an industrial company lands a $1BN deal I suspect the individual will be well rewarded for so doing. Not forgetting the back-handers to the buyer to make the deal 'sweet'.

They should most certainly be "ashamed" of their actions that was instrumental in causing the worst recession since the 30's. Their irresponsible actions which could easily have caused the collapse of the banking system cannot be defended nor condoned.

If these people are so reliant on the massive bonuses to get by they should negotiate a proper salary with their employers!!

#63 - ha ha ha ha ha!

The difference is that an individual in a real industry has virtually no chance of landing a one billion deal whereas the bankers are shuffling one billion dollar pieces of paper all the time.

48. At 12:55pm on 26 Jan 2010, AqualungCumbria wrote:
Playing devils advocate, what would happen if all the public on say for example April 1st made arrangements to remove all their savings, in cash from lets say RBS or any of the other tax payer funded extortion schemes ..... and placed that money in their local building society.

Then RBS woudl collapse (well it would with out a lot more Gov support cause that's it's funding gone!!!)

51. At 1:04pm on 26 Jan 2010, Jacques Cartier wrote:
# 39. At 12:26pm on 26 Jan 2010, Andy wrote:

>> 33. At 12:08pm on 26 Jan 2010, Jacques Cartier wrote:
>> Get up to Internet Speed, gothnet - the Prez has already said that big banks
>> will be broken up, and all banks will have to pay up front for the right
> > to taxpayer support.

> You really think that is likely to go though like it has been proposed?

Once they are small and weak, there is nothing to stop us going further. I'd
like to auction the operator rights of banks to the highest bidder, i.e.
only the banks that bring the biggest benefits to the UK get the chance to do
business here.

What and take us back to 3rd world status!!! It was only our stong financial system that lead to the Industrial revolution, the British Empire the continued 'General' prosperity of the UK (Although Gordon and co seem to be doing their best to screw that up).

freemarketanarchy #60

I say old chap, that's one of JJ's posts from a bit back. Are you just an admirer or is there something more sinister here?

68. At 1:48pm on 26 Jan 2010, NewFazerMk2 wrote:
freemarketanarchy #60

I say old chap, that's one of JJ's posts from a bit back. Are you just an admirer or is there something more sinister here?

--------------------------

More than an admirer....a believer!

freemarketanarchy #69

Welcome to the club!

56. At 1:15pm on 26 Jan 2010, Jacques Cartier wrote:
So sing - it couldn't happen to a better bunch of guys!

Yeah!
I'll sing, record it and send it to the 'so-called banking talent'. Trust me they way I sing, couldn't give dreadful earache to a better bunch of guys, and that, just after the Pres had smacked them would be the perfect chaser...


Is there a bonus defence today - must have missed it.

Moderators
Do you realise this page is full of bugs (Internal - 500)?

We all seem to agree that some bankers are ‘bad types’ and are guilty of something.

I’ll ask some questions to the bankers who consider themselves innocent or at least less guilty.

Do you consider banking a profession like ‘medicine’ or just a generic name like ‘industry’? If it is a profession, why is there no self regulation – and I mean of individuals, not organisations?

Even if there is no professional body or self regulation, people who work in banking and finance are, or should be, the experts in banking and finance. Do you accept that? If so, do you accept that a person with expertise has a position of responsibility towards those without that expertise – for example, doctors should discourage smoking rather than promote it.

There are always criminals and those who will bend the system to the extreme to take an unfair advantage or profit. We’ll take Madoff as an example. If an individual from outside the world of finance invested in Madoff, you may say “Too bad, should have realised, how sad, never mind.” If a bank invests its own money in Madoff, should it be regarded as unfortunate, incompetent, or criminally incompetent? If the bank is a retail bank with depositors and invests in Madoff, is that criminal incompetence?

A lot of people in banking and finance must have realised what Madoff was doing, why did they neither stop him nor make the situation public?

61. tFoth

'If, as suggested, banks, as opposed to the Government, now control the money supply (through the creation of debt) then are they just "creating" the money they are paying themselves - as opposed to earning it?'

Well, yes and no! At present, probably mainly yes! But see https://www.diarmidweirphotography.co.uk/wealth_without_money/2010/01/understanding-money for the whole story.

'If so (in either or both cases) is it not time to wrest control back?'

Of course!

# 67. At 1:45pm on 26 Jan 2010, Andy wrote:


> It was only our stong financial system that lead to the
> Industrial revolution, the British Empire the continued 'General'
> prosperity of the UK

What "strong financial system" would that be? The one I bailed out
last year? The one that can't survive unless I prop it up with
my taxes?

# 67. At 1:45pm on 26 Jan 2010, Andy wrote:

> The British Empire

PS: since when did "The British Empire" become a good thing?!?

67. Andy
'It was only our stong financial system that lead to the Industrial revolution, the British Empire the continued 'General' prosperity of the UK'

Wot? Nothing to do with the steam engine, Brunel, military and naval power, stable government, being on the right side in WW2, North Sea oil, Keynesian demand management, the universities...

And what do you mean by strong? Well-capitalised, lending for genuine innovation and development...? What happened to that, then?

Referred to the moderators for saying I'll sing to the bankers after Obama has done what others have repeatedly said he'll do!
I might be a rotten singer, but not bad enough to be moderated - honest!

72. At 2:17pm on 26 Jan 2010, WolfiePeters wrote:

There was a chap called Markopolos who reported Madoff to the SEC 6 times between 2000 and 2008 and not once did they do anything.

They claim to have found nothing untoward despite the fact that Markopolos, who also ran a hedge fund, was able to prove via simulations that the returns Madoff was claiming were not physically possible.
Yet the SEC says they found nothing, despite the fact that it has now come to light that Madoff wasnt even actually buying shares.

Not too difficult for the SEC to figure that one out but they didnt despite it being reported to them SIX times.

78. At 2:46pm on 26 Jan 2010, VinChainSaw

And just further to my comments above - Harry Markopolos also contacted the Wall Street Journal regarding the claims and they ignored him...

So much for responsible media...

If SEC couldn't see through a fraud, shouldn't they get shot?

What I was trying to work to @72 is the idea of 'collective responsibility' that should exist and control individuals in a professional group. It should act before a state regulator and that in turn before things end in court.

And what happened to Harry Markopolos? I fear that he might have been forced out and be one of those unfortunates now living in a tent.

Shouldn't he be put in charge of SEC?

74. At 2:25pm on 26 Jan 2010, Jacques Cartier wrote:
# 67. At 1:45pm on 26 Jan 2010, Andy wrote:


> It was only our stong financial system that lead to the
> Industrial revolution, the British Empire the continued 'General'
> prosperity of the UK

What "strong financial system" would that be? The one I bailed out
last year? The one that can't survive unless I prop it up with
my taxes?

The 1 that has propped up the UK economy for the last 15+ years, both directly through 100's of millions paid in corporation tax, income tax and in-directly through all the other business that have benefited, look at all the construction work that has been going on over the last 15-20 years in the city mostly paid for buy the banks. All the retail shops, when I first started working in the City 20 years ago about the only shops you had in the city were the odd sandwich bar and a number of pubs. Now there are shops everywhere.

Also, how do you think the public deficit is paid for, just maybe through selling gilts into the financial markets. So good idea lets get rid of the banks that allow the gov to borrow money and see what happens next time they need to re-finance a maturing gilt.

Or how about the next time a large corporate needs to raise some cash either through issuing some bonds or via and IPO or other financing vehicle.

Just because a small number of institutions messed up dont tar them all. Northern Rock went under due to a lack of liquidity not because of taking any silly bets, just getting market sentiment wrong. RBS and HBOS are another story altogether though.

"Many of those who write to me have an intuitive sense that bankers' lavish pay is the result of an absence of proper competition and transparency in financial markets and also in the market for so-called banking talent" ...
Absence of proper competition?! Do you actually know what you are writing about? Clearly not. Why don't you try to cut it in banking Robert ... you would fail miserably. There are certainly problems with pay structures, but saying these are due to lack of competition betrays your utter ignorance on this subject matter. I would argue that it is your job that lacks proper competition. If there was, you would have been booted off by a more insightful journalist !

81. At 3:15pm on 26 Jan 2010, WolfiePeters wrote:

He's a fraud investigator now as I understand it. Interesting chap.

Funnily enough his 21 page dossier to the SEC in 2005 was entitled something like "The world's biggest hedge fund is a fraud"... and they still did nothing about it.

Bottom line is the SEC couldnt even be bothered to send out a few letters to some of the funds Madoff claimed he was invested in.

#83 namuncura

Just possessing a large pair of golden testicles does not bestow you with talent!

All this erudite bloggery bewilders me, let's have a silly suggestion. Government to bankers: get yourselves big, big bonuses this year, bigger the better. Then, as a philanthropic act, give 75% of it to specified areas of mental health provision, thus aiding those in our society least able to help themselves. All independently audited and in the public domain, and you'll feel good and still have a bit more left over than the average fireman, nurse or care worker.

Or, we take you for 85%. Ridiculous idea, I know.....

83. namuncura

'Absence of proper competition?! Do you actually know what you are writing about?'

Your fear blinds you to the words. Peston was talking about the intuition of others, rather than offering his own opinion.

But let's have a think about this. Under 'perfect' competition, bankers would be paid their 'reservation wage' - they would be paid the minimum required to get them to do the job. So it seems unlikely that we're dealing with perfect competition here! 'Proper competition' isn't really a technical term, but I think it would exclude a market where the prices are determined by the rich in a money whose supply they control, and where payment comes from the rest of us one way or another!

It's good that some banking folk are contributing, as it gives the non bankers a better perspective on things.

I think we are all slowly getting the picture, that the banks aren't the problem per-see, but are rather a contributor.

The problem stems from the human greed and power madness that exists in large multinational corporations (& governments?). They are too big, and have too much power, distorting human life for their own benefit. Banks of course, are one of the largest multinational corporations, who infect our daily life, so perhaps its natural for us to blame them first.

The level of anger towards one body of people is unprecedented (barring a politican or estate agent or two), and frankly completely understandable. Much of the public have taken a hammering over the last couple of years, and for many years to come in terms of pathetic returns on pensions and savings. Soaring asset prices and fairly static salary levels had exacerbated all this in the build up.

It appeared that financiers streaked ahead while non-finance sector employees trod water or fell behind, and the justifications now seem pretty thin. In fact, there is no reasonable argument as to why they should get many multiples of salary, leaving others to struggle in the wake of the mess they have caused. Most people do live sensibly and frugally and it feels like a complete betrayal of trust and haughty arrogance that while they struggle, for bankers nothing should change.

Shame on them.

I think it is fantastic that Mr Green is ashamed and embarrassed. I don't see the question about how much he earns?

While we are bashing "bankers", I think we should also bash all government employees for effectively busting the country. Long before the banks got into trouble the coutry was running at a huge loss. DEar oh dear, seems easy to blame the banks for everything

Robert,

You ask the question yet you know the truth, shame on you.

65

British industry cannot land £1BN+ deals, now maybe that is the problem then, maybe its just as well bankers can otherwise this country would have been bust years ago.

HMG seem to be very good at spending £BNs they (and we) haven't got so who really fueled this debt laden ideology ? Who had to come up with the deals to generate the tax revenue to allow Gordon to pledge UK PLC income for the next 50 years in interest payments & debt repayment.

At the time Gordon was not bothered who did the business just as long as they paid the bills. You reap what you sow.

Why just bankers?

I can think of a legion of large companies that should be 'ashamed' too. Oil and chemical companies that pollute, seed companies who want their products to wipe out biodiversity, manufacturing industries who move production where labour is cheap, slave labour industrial zones in Vietnam or Bangladesh... the list is enormous.

Company ethics are not healthy for the planet.

# 82 At 3:25pm on 26 Jan 2010, Andy wrote:

>> JC: What "strong financial system" would that be? The one I bailed out
>> last year? The one that can't survive unless I prop it up with
>> my taxes?

> The 1 that has propped up the UK economy for the last 15+ years.

I should not have to tell you this, as you work with money. But,
shocking as it may seem, money is just bits of paper with promises
written on them, Andy. And you can't prop up anything for long with bits
of paper (as we all found out over the last year or two).

Anybody can write an IOU, for goodness sake. And bluff and bluster doesn't
amount to a hill of beans now, as we _all_ know how banks are short on money.
We're never going back to those days, so get over it.

> Also, how do you think the public deficit is paid for, just maybe
> through selling gilts into the financial markets. So good idea
> lets get rid of the banks that allow the gov to borrow money and see
> what happens next time they need to re-finance a maturing gilt.
> Or how about the next time a large corporate needs to raise some cash
> either through issuing some bonds or via and IPO or other financing vehicle.

Flog them on e-bay, Andy - it's a total no-brainer. Look, if you don't go
out of business now, it'll be in a year or two anyway. Who needs
money-shufflers when we can do it ourselves? We are breaking
things up now, not making them bigger. Get with the programme, will you?
All banks will be virtualized away in 10 years anyway.

> Northern Rock went under due to a lack of liquidity not because of
> taking any silly bets, just getting market sentiment wrong.

Northern Rock went under because the boss was simple minded.

67

>What and take us back to 3rd world status!!! It was only our stong
>financial system that lead to the Industrial revolution, the British
>Empire the continued 'General' prosperity of the UK (Although Gordon and
>co seem to be doing their best to screw that up).

Humm I always assumed that Banking was a service to industry and existed to support it. In the 70's it lost confidence in home grown industry and caused untold damage as it went overseas to invest.

Cost of manufacture is often as low as 10% of sale price. To strip cost out of this 10% we have destroyed jobs on an epic scale. For the other 90% of sale cost you only need to look at the huge shopping palaces the goods are sold form. Having worked in manufacturing I can tell you it can take up to 100 times more manpower to sell a unit of something at an over inflated price backed by over promotion and branding than it ever did to produce it.

Sold a pup - You have been

Bankers are a trendy herd driven mob with no idea of the true cost of manufacture and a China fixation.

I'm quite happy with a banker's million quid "bonus" for doing a few minutes "work" a week but on one condition...

The million quid attracts a 95% income tax levy. That still leaves 50 grand for the "worker" - well above the average working wage for an average "worker".

And if they don't like it they can move to the USA to "work" - a place where their incredible skills will be increasingly rewarded properly, I'm sure.

I was always under the impression that money represented work, and at the minimum wage, about six pounds an hour, that is one hundred and sixty six thousand hours. So how can anyone, without being the most greedy person on the planet, even think that they are worth a bonus of a million pounds.
Small wonder that there is an outcry against such Greed.
I suppose that due to the fact that we are but a better mammal, and there is some debate on that,we have reached where we are by being greedy, but it seems to me that greed has got out at hand.

You make the point that customers should pay less and that shareholders should get more. Excellent as it takes up the point I made the other day. Can you go a small step further and suggest that the banks charge too much?

This could reduce the cost for entrepreneurial business start-ups and therefore speed our way out of recession.

bankers where do you start ,it has been said that what do you call 200 solicitors dead in a ravine =a good start,same can be said of bankers ,
Once respected ,but only because we did not know what they were upto
now days we have the net [untill they sell it ]to keep us informed .
there was a nice young couple with 2 young children and all they needed was
A house with plenty of garden for the children ,as first time buyers they needed a mortgage and the company they chose was big,how could it go wrong, so as the point of sale came the bank with no warning at all pulled the rug out from under,later it was revealed they sacked 10,000 on short notice,
the couple and their children,were devistated, the couple who were selling them a much loved house ended up loosing the £17000 they spent on the house and sold it for what they paid for it ,living of the interest on your savings went out of the window ,as money was not worth anything ,our whole way of life was changed ,we had to find new ways of making and saving money
but now it would all be off the radar as we were betrayed by the government and the banks ,how many more of us done the same [dont know]
lots we hope ,

so yes i remember bankers leaving their credit cards behind the bar,
getting a bonus so big ,even if you lost your job it did not matter
you could still have a year off,and holiday in the south of france
bankers driving brand new porche,s mercs/big block beamers ,
And having a nice place in canary warfe,
and thinking of the personal carnage they caused millions of hard working men/women /and familays i want to see them at the bottom of the ravene: