Bankers' bonuses squeezed, salaries up

It is nice to see the great Robert Peston realising that not all banks are the same!

As is pointed out the real talented bankers who do work and make profits for the employer and are real stars in the banking world are rare so I still not have a problem with them receiving high salaries and bonuses. My problem are the rest who caused the problems and then went running to governments to solve the problems and are now saying it is all sorted out Do you really need the money back and why do we have to lend it out to the great unwashed.

In any work environment there are not too many real geniuses or real stars so they do deserve reward. If they have to go abroad is this even more tax lost? Who will be left to pay the taxes and give the government money to loan to the banks?

Sounds suspiciously like the start of a "Prices & Incomes" policy. How long before the rules are extended to all?

Hmm, that worked well last time it was done didn't it.

RP wrote:

"They say that their competitors are still handing out guaranteed bonuses to recruit and retain top wealth generators"

'Wealth generators' Robert?

'Wealth skimmers, accumulators and re-distributors' please!

Have you learnt nothing over the last three years?

All BANKS are the same! GREED begets GREED. Its endemic, in all things business where profit is king. The bit that particulary gets me is when some wanabee anounces that such and such company / bank profits are down! HELLO, they made a PROFIT that's a + not a -. But then its all about simply managing peoples expectations....just as they will all do when it comes to big fat turkeys........

Bonus payments should be banned. They encourage individuals to meet their targets, irrespective of any other considerations.

It was bonus payments that caused the property bubble and hence crash - I'm sure the individuals involved wouldn't have made such daft loans if they weren't so focused on meeting targets just so they could get their bonus.

"They say that their competitors are still handing out guaranteed bonuses to recruit and retain top wealth generators," WHAT! Where is this wealth - it is not found in the UK general economy nor in its public sector. These 'wealth' creators are in no small part responsible for the mess in which the western economies find themselves.
With so much disposable bonus funding why dont the bankers increase the supply of 'wealth' creators by providing crash (excuse pun) training courses. There are plenty of good graduates who are driving buses or lap dancing who would leap at a chance to become a wealth creator. Just what does it take to train a wealth creator? Is it more intense and extensive than a top consultant surgeon who enjoys rather more modest salary and bonus and saves lives as a 'fallout'. Where is the apprenticeship for these much demanded careers. Could it be you are a NEET one day and next month you become a wealth creator?

So, inferred by your article, it is possible that HSBC will follow British Industrial giants by moving their HQ to the Far East to avoid EC legislation contaminating their overseas operations? I, for one, would really miss the benefit of their corporate taxes from our rifled coffers. Legislating to enforce the levels and transparency of salary grades to non-European rivals has to be yet another instance of Brussel's ineptitude and suicidal tendencies.

How long must we wait before a British government delivers us from these Brussels-based pestilential parasites?

Erhh ... "wealth creators". Did you mean debt creators? Or bubble inflators, perhaps?

But again, isn't this a bit of smoke and mirrors really?

I mean the employment and remuneration culture in South Asia isn't the same as in the UK or, indeed, most of Europe. My understanding is that many in the financial industries over there are paid so-called 'bonus' payments only and often don't receive an actual salary as such. So their so-called bonus payments aren't necessarily "extra" payments - they're performance pay.

The scandal of the bonus thing here in the UK is that many of those getting these bonus "extra" payments here are also on substantial salaries and they haven't done anything to earn the "extra" payments. It's like getting performance-related pay for no performance.

That's not quite the same as happens everywhere else on the globe.

It just goes to show how arrogant these bankers are when they call themselves 'wealth generators'. Do they generate wealth? or is it infact the people and companies who actually make things that generate wealth?

the_fatcat is apparently ignorant on the wealth that banks generate which is a much needed source of revenue for the Government coffers. If the banks and bankers leave it will be to the detriment of the country as a whole. I am fully in favour of tighter regulations, but if you squeeze the goose it will ultimately fly away and we will have nothing!

Robert, please do not assume in your articles that you know what we all think "(which, I know, some of you think is no bad thing)" and if you do wish to pronounce what "some" think please provide a balanced view, as "some" of us do not think it is good. I am with you Barry White. Thats 2 of us Robert I look forward to a more balanced view on the beeb next time!!

Ah Christmas....a time of yuletide logs and rosey cheeks.....and goodwill to all men.

A time to cherish our bankers and soften our attitude towards these poor migrant workers, who are only trying to earn a crust. St Nicholas would have a tear in his eye our this.

Me personally?

Let them go and swet it out in the backstreets of India, China or Hong Kong. They have wrecked the U.K. economy and as soon as they are deported to some far off corner of the planet....... I think we will all sleep better in our beds.

Pay up bonuses down exactly as predicted when all this nonsense about bonuses started.

The reality is if we truly believe that the disparity between rich and poor is damaging to everyone both rich and poor alike and we have the guts to do anything about it before the streets run with blood then we need to seriously address the equality of outcomes issue.

David Cameron did just that when he came to power - we need a maximum multiple of incomes between rich and poor. So when the rich earn millions the minimum wage rises to (say - David Cameron's figure) one twentieth of the pay of the richest in the country.

(This by the way is exactly the same as my 'cap the rich at twenty times the national minimum wage' proposal.)

None of this matters - the fightback has begun. I was there last night, Regent street.

The banks won't have any renumeration soon, so it won't matter what rules are put in place. The markets don't like to see populations rising up - it's bad for business....and every population is rising as we speak.

There weren't a 'few hundered' troublemakers, there were a few thousand angry protestors. The youth of today have shown they are not going to be enslaved in debt like their parents have been - the robber barrons of the banking world have their days numbered.

The revolution is here.

William Morris recognised that there was a distinction between wealth creation and illth creation - ie many processes might make money but do nothing to better the human condition or the global environment other inventions and processes really improve the world in which we live - we need to start recognising these differences and actively promoting real wealth creation and at the same time discouraging illth creation - By measuring everything in terms of the money generated we have lost the plot - and the results are increasing addiction (which creates illth money) and despair
We value accountants (140000 in the UK more than in the rest of Europe put together) lawyers bankers celebrities etc all of whom generate very little real wealth - one cannot eat what they produce or keep oneself warm with it or widen ones perceptions of the world and stimulate the imagination - quite the opposite -
Their greed and consumption actively prevents the creation of real wealth - a good example is the housing industry - where greed has brought it to a standstill at a time when there is a huge need for housing - we must totally rethink how we reward and stimulate real wealth rather than the professions who are like leeches sucking the resources away from the important values of community, education , care , protection of the environment etc It would appear that our so called health services are to be managed by international corporations - the extreme illth generators - perhaps it should be called the National Illth Service - to recognise this change but also to recognise that in practice it deals with ill health much more than prevention of disease and illness - How for example does the so called health service actively prevent mental illness ? How much money is spent on treatment rather than prevention ? I recall a conference of brain surgeons - speaker after speaker asked for more resources to deal with the rising tide of young motorcyclists suffering devastating brain injury - I suggested that rather than have more brain surgeons we needed more traffic police and school educational programmes - an idea dismissed without discussion -

Can a way not be found to let those of them who want to go abroad go please but don't let them take the money of the british public with them.

Too much of what they do is gambling but unlike other gamblers they are not let personally lose. So much of what they call profit is illusory and of little if any social benefit. Hundreds of thousands of people glued to computer monitors all day who could and should be doing more productive things.

They are much too large and should be split up into retail banks dealing with the publics money and investment/ gambling banks who can do it with their own or their shareholders money but not mine thank you..

While we as a country are attempting to extract profits overseas from financial services companies overseas companies are busy buying up our domestic manufacturing industries or their order books and expertise, our utility companies, parts of our infrastructure and the servicing of our proposed new Nest national pension scheme.

When is U K Plc going to wake up ?

Mr Peston, my neighbour is an unemployed London-based Investment Banker. Still single. Doesn't have the heating on until 7pm. Not mega wealthy..but a tin of soup would be far less acceptable than a bottle of Irish Whiskey.

A couple of evenings ago he regaled me with anecdotes about Dublin Bankers, their houses and the property markets in Co Wicklow and Co Dublin. The bankers in question are individuals he has known since chilhood, or student days, who have had middlingly successful careers and are now in their late 30s. From what he tells me many are in negative equity, having borrowed from their own banks.

He also said something I did not expect. That most and possibly all of them, the good and the not so good, are still in their jobs. The virtual Nationalization of the banks in question not having changed their personal circumstances or their ostrich attitude of denial of any responsibility.

#7

"Just what does it take to train a wealth creator?"

Well, it's not like driving a bus. In my experience (having worked within Investment Banking since 2004) these are people whose combination of background, skills, connections and experience just make them more successful at making investment decisions.

The City is no longer a closed shop for public school boys and modern trading floors are among the most culturally diverse environments you will find. The barriers to entry are not high and if you are successful you will flourish.

The fact is that not everyone can do it and the idea that you can just train people to replace those who move to Hong Kong (as many are doing) is sadly deluded.

11. At 09:47am on 10th Dec 2010, jfmax wrote:

"the_fatcat is apparently ignorant on the wealth that banks generate which is a much needed source of revenue for the Government coffers. If the banks and bankers leave it will be to the detriment of the country as a whole. I am fully in favour of tighter regulations, but if you squeeze the goose it will ultimately fly away and we will have nothing!"

Subservient weakling! - clearly you haven't thought through how wealth is actually created nor what it is - or you wouldn't come to such a foolish conclusion.

Mr Peston

People through their own endeavours are starting to understand how the current fractional reserve banking system works.

The bonus system wrapped up inside it is of limited importance.
It’s the method of creating money that has caused the problem.

Perhaps it’s time to look at how the problems created by the debt based monetary system are going to affect business in the coming year.

For example loan to value ratios are still too high to trigger a significant uplift in the demand for houses from first time buyers.

In any event until such time as people actually get a grasp of how the system works, discussing bonuses is more politics than business.

@watriler (9.39am): There are plenty of internships/placement years/graduate schemes at the banks. I wouldn't be surprised if they are one of the biggest graduate recruiters at this moment in time.

> But I have to tell you that those who run those banks acknowledge to me that
> around each star sit competent but not outstanding bankers, who are paid far
> too much relative to their genuine wealth-creating skills. So bank bosses insist
> they would dearly love to find a way to pay these journeymen considerably less.

This is very encouraging news. Pay cuts all round are in the offing. Keep up the good work, folks.

@ 21. At 10:11am on 10th Dec 2010, ColinN wrote:

> banks. I wouldn't be surprised if they are one of the biggest graduate
> recruiters at this moment in time.

Would any responsible parent still advise his kids to work at a bank? No, I thought not.

18. At 10:08am on 10th Dec 2010, Zanzare

If you're really working in investment banking - then I can only assume you never every think carefully about what you're actually doing and where the profit is generated from.

...it doesn't just come from the numbers on your computer screen you know - there is activity that creates profit - activity which you have no part in, but in which you extract a portion of in the form of profit.

Still, thinking about what your doing is never very high on the list of bankers 'abilities'.

This is is the same as shifting the deckchairs around on the Titanic. It doesn't change a darn thing. We've been betrayed again.

#13

"we need a maximum multiple of incomes between rich and poor"

It won't work. In point of fact Cameron has advocated linking civil service *salaries* according to this principle, which is not at all the same thing as income. Most wealthy individuals derive significant income from their investment portfolios, equity dividends and property holdings etc. so using salary as a basis would be ineffective. If you set the minimum wage to 1/20 of the *gross income* of the most wealthy individual in the country you would precipitate an inflationary collapse of sterling.

Hi Robert could you give a layman a couple of examples of wizardry that these stars have performed to justify their exalted position in the banking galaxy or is it the case that they can take whatever gambles they want and know they can't lose

13. At 09:50am on 10th Dec 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

> we need to seriously address the equality of outcomes issue.

We do need a pay bankers a few quid more than some jobs, because they are working in a despised profession, and it would be hard to recruit for below average wages.

I was learning about "nightsoilmen" at MOSI yesterday. Before sewers, they took away the city's "human manure" in buckets and spread it on the fields. The wages were higher than average, because nobody wanted to do it.

Likewise, bankers should get at least average wages, but no more.

The problem with the banking industry is not bonuses per se, but guaranteed bonuses. Everyone wants to get a bonus but when the bonus is guaranteed rather than earnt through results the banker bonuses will never have anything other than a bad reputation.

18. At 10:08am on 10th Dec 2010, Zanzare wrote:

> The fact is that not everyone can do it and the idea that you can just
> train people to replace those who move to Hong Kong (as many are
> doing) is sadly deluded.

Nonsense - we have far too many spivs already in this country. If they need more spivs in Hing Kong, they are more than welcome to go. Don't worry about us for a moment - Britons can cope without a few computer button pushers.

7. At 09:39am on 10th Dec 2010, watriler wrote:

> the supply of 'wealth' creators

They're bonkers. You can't "create wealth" by pushing buttons on computers! It's a zero-sum equation, watriler, but they are too dim to figure out things like that.

@ 3. At 09:26am on 10th Dec 2010, yam yzf wrote:

> Sounds suspiciously like the start of a "Prices & Incomes" policy.

Like I always say, hit bankers where it hurts _them_ the most - in the pocket!

One of the big problems with bonus payments is that very companies operate a demonstrably objective based assessment regime. In too many cases the performance assessment is heavily subjective. The bonus pot also tends to be parcelled around depending on how the sector boss has fared. This means that you could have two subordinates in different sectors having performed much the same but one gets a large bonus and the other gets a small one.

Paying the rate for the job is the best way to remunerate people and bonus payments should only be made in the rare cases of exceptional performance. Rewards for others should be a pay rise.

8. At 09:39am on 10th Dec 2010, fastbowler wrote:
How long must we wait before a British government delivers us from these Brussels-based pestilential parasites?
----------------------------------------------------

Not just the Brussels-based ones I hope. What about the City ones?

14. At 10:04am on 10th Dec 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:
None of this matters - the fightback has begun. I was there last night, Regent street
===============================================================

How did the Pinhead of Wales react when the paint was thrown?

The only disappointment was that due to my obligation in ensuring hard working public sector workers receive remuneration for services rendered in hospitals (mainly), I was unable to attend and join in said protests.

I would like to say thanks to jfmax for their sensible statement about revenue.

It's important you separate this topic into 3 distinct areas.

Firstly, in order to prevent financial armageddon - banks must pay into an insurance fund for the state so that when the proverbial hits the fan, they don't have to come to the tax payer to lend them money. I think no one would really care how much bankers got paid if they didn't come crawling to tax payers to ask them for a loan in 2008. That's why people are so narked.

Secondly, if the first part isn't implemented and tax payers choose to lend money again to bail the banks out then there needs to be a few more conditions attached. What the previous government failed to do was to create a repayment schedule for the money, it's a bit like borrowing money from a bank for a mortgage and paying it back when you feel like it. Also it's not tough for banks to make a profit at the moment, they borrow money at between 0.5% - 1.5% and they lend it for 5% to most people (yes those with mortgage of 80% LTV plus). It doesn't take a genius to work out howe to make money using that method. Whilst I don't agree with a government making all decisions about a banks risk policy, if the Bank of England are going to offer to lend money at such a cheap rate, there should be a cap on how much the bank can charge the end consumer to borrow.

Thirdly, all these extremely stupid people that often get air play ont he news and question time who say that we gave money to the banks so thgey could pay salaries and bonuses etc... are frankly contemptible. We provided funds to purchase equity in failing institutions and made money avaialble to be lent. It is paramount for all taxpayers that banks make huge profits over the next few years - the higher the profits, the more the equity is worth and we may actually make money out of this. Anything we need to do to help the banks make money we shoudl, even if that means people get paid ridiculous bonuses if they do genuinely make money for the bank. bank talent leaving could become a problem and I guarantee it's no good for the average tax payer.

And finally - tax revenue. Everytime a banker gets paid a £10 million bonus the positive effects on the UK economy are wonderfully brilliant. Not only does HMRC collect about £5 million directly in tax revenue (enough to pay for about 100 teachers including their fat pensions) - you get the indirect benefit of this lucky individual spending most of the money throughout the economy. they eat at nice restaurants, buys cars, buy yachts, buy plane tickets, go to the theatre, put their kids through fee paying schools - the list is endless. Most people who receive a bonus like this will spend money like water - if they don't live in the UK then not only don't we get the tax revenue, we don't get the added benefits either.

The financial services sector provides about 25% of this countries tax revenue (i would argue it's too higher portion, but the actual numbe ris not too high an aggregate). Like it or not, if the banks stopped making money and paying it to thier staff, we would have fewer teachers, fewer doctors, fewer nurses, fewer benefits etc.. wake up and smell the rose - we need bankers on higher salaries and bonuses. my only criticism with previous payments were that it wasn't only the bankers that did well were being remunerated well - it should definitely be a performance related pay rather than anything else.

For all thsoe who are still reading, you may think why shoudl a banker get paid mor ethan a doctor or a teacher - the simple answer is becasue they create wealth, they aide in creating jobs and do play an important role in society. of course doctors and teachers do too, maybe even more so - but people who go into this profession don't enter it to make a fortune - they do it because they want to. It then seems like sour grapes just to whinge further down the line when they're not as wealthy.

Please britain, stop bashing the banker - we need them.

Writingsonthewall wrote...

Subservient weakling! - clearly you haven't thought through how wealth is actually created nor what it is - or you wouldn't come to such a foolish conclusion.

Err...exactly how is that an argument in any sense of the word? On what basis do you decide that he's come to a foolish conclusion? Just saying something is foolish doesn't make it true unless you actually back it up.

The banks should be properly regulated, but this idea of kicking all the bankers out etc is just utter nonsense. As is the term 'bankers' to describe a single entity as if it acts with a single mind. There's plenty of good bankers out there and I have no problem with them being rewarded.

Just because you don't make something physical doesn't mean you don't create wealth. We are a service economy.

For all those saying lets cap 'other' peoples salaries and bonuses, how about we cap yours too? Why not cap everyone's at the minimum wage?

I've no problem with a clear argument about banks etc, but most of the people who bash the bankers have literally no clue about economics or how the country works.

You can be anti-banker, that's fine, but at least provide some logic to your arguments.

14. At 10:04am on 10th Dec 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:
None of this matters - the fightback has begun. I was there last night, Regent street.

The banks won't have any renumeration soon, so it won't matter what rules are put in place. The markets don't like to see populations rising up - it's bad for business....and every population is rising as we speak.

There weren't a 'few hundered' troublemakers, there were a few thousand angry protestors. The youth of today have shown they are not going to be enslaved in debt like their parents have been - the robber barrons of the banking world have their days numbered.

The revolution is here


The late Joe Strummer of the Clash had a natural loathing of bands who trashed hotel rooms, He quite rightly pointed out 'who cleans it up ?' not the management, not the owners, it's the low paid cleaners who have a enough work to do on low pay. Joe was right and the students and plastic Marxist's proved that yesterday. Nick Clegg ain't out there with a broom this morning, Dave Cameron ain't cleaning graffiti off Churchills statue ( the man who led our fight against fascism) it's the working man as usual. As the plastic Marxists head home to their parents in their country retreats for Christmas, for mince pies and lashings of ginger beer. The working people of London have to clear up their mess...some revolution..

Writingsonthewall wrote...

If you're really working in investment banking - then I can only assume you never every think carefully about what you're actually doing and where the profit is generated from.

...it doesn't just come from the numbers on your computer screen you know - there is activity that creates profit - activity which you have no part in, but in which you extract a portion of in the form of profit.

Still, thinking about what your doing is never very high on the list of bankers 'abilities'.


Do you even know what investment banking is? Do you know anyone who works in an investment bank? Or do you just sit back and generalise?

This lumping of all bankers together (and no I'm not one for the record) is actually pretty offensive, especially when you make derogatory comments about them.

It's like suggesting all Catholic priests are paedophiles. Seriously warped thinking and logic.

We need as a society to have good arguments against the banks and their practices in order to create intellectual balance, but just spouting generalised drivel backed with no facts weakens that argument.

WEALTH ..... CREATOR ....

At least allow us the dignity of our intelligence whilst we're being shafted.

28. At 10:38am on 10th Dec 2010, Jacques Cartier wrote:

"Likewise, bankers should get at least average wages, but no more."

Jacques - sorry but bankers don't need to be paid anything. I could replace them all with a simple lender / borrower computer system. Bankers are not required - they are clinging on to their archaic practices by being secretive and projecting the essence of 'skill' within their jobs.

...now how would I get funding for that? Ah you see, this will never happen because they hold the keys to the door and they wouldn't allow me to replace their industry.
The allocation of resources can be done to and from the resource provider to the resource requirer - there is absolutely no need for these middle men.

On my political soap box again.

Maximum salary multiples are core to the manifesto my party is drawing up, there will be a minimum wage and the maximum will be ten times the minimum. You are free to earn more than the maximum but it will be taxed at 100% with the income ringfenced to be reinvested in the source infrastructure, your are therefore working for the benefit of your profession as a whole. You won't be able to earn from private equity portfolio's because there won't be any.

If you don't like it you're welcome to leave bearing in mind for these policies to come into effect the populace would have to either elect them or enforce them willingly. Our research is showing a considerable swing in our direction from people sick of neo-liberal rule so by implication it would be populist reform. Oh, if you leave, you won't be able to take your all money with you - sorry - capital export restrictions will be applied.

• 14. At 10:04am on 10th Dec 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:

"The revolution is here."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11969030

'The peasants are revolting your majesty'

37. At 10:51am on 10th Dec 2010, BobbySands wrote:

Just because you don't make something physical doesn't mean you don't create wealth. We are a service economy.

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

And banking profit comes from where exactly? I'll give you a clue and eliminate the usual wrong answer, it aint interest on loans, that only represents between 3% - 8% of banking profit.

35. At 10:51am on 10th Dec 2010, M_T_Wallet wrote:

"How did the Pinhead of Wales react when the paint was thrown?"

I missed the paint throwing, it must have happened afterwards - I was rather concerned that his guards might be armed - however the students did not appear to be concerned about that - especially the one who threw a bin through the back window of the following police car.

"The only disappointment was that due to my obligation in ensuring hard working public sector workers receive remuneration for services rendered in hospitals (mainly), I was unable to attend and join in said protests."

Not to worry - there will be many, many more opportunities. The students I saw last night were clearly not going to give up so easily - I admit myself I have underestimated the youth of today, as has the Government. They are not the lazy and feckless people the media make them out to be - they are showing the rest of us the way....

37. At 10:51am on 10th Dec 2010, BobbySands wrote:

"Err...exactly how is that an argument in any sense of the word? On what basis do you decide that he's come to a foolish conclusion? Just saying something is foolish doesn't make it true unless you actually back it up."

Go and read the book called "the new golden age" by Ravi Batra, I don't have time to explain life to you or your clueless associates.

"Just because you don't make something physical doesn't mean you don't create wealth. We are a service economy."

...oh you definitely need to read it.

"I've no problem with a clear argument about banks etc, but most of the people who bash the bankers have literally no clue about economics or how the country works."

....I work in finance - bit of a dilemma for you there.

"You can be anti-banker, that's fine, but at least provide some logic to your arguments."

Why? - you claim that banks 'create wealth' and cannot provide logic to explain why, how or when - why do I need to provide evidence when you can make such claims unchallenged?

Please read the book - you might actually learn something (and not be so quick to defend banks or economists in the future)

38. At 10:56am on 10th Dec 2010, AudenGrey

Auden - who cleaned up (and paid for) the mess the banks created?

It seems you are a little hypocritical in your argument.

Who cares whether the state is bankrupted by the banks or the people? - I'd rather it was the people as they will be expected to pay for it all - not the banks who will 'fly away' as several have already pointed out.

...and by the way, Churchill didn't actually fight anybody, the army, navy and air force did - he was having 9 course dinners while the people of London survived on rations. Please research you heroes before idolising them.

39. At 10:58am on 10th Dec 2010, BobbySands

Please don't lecture me on something I have first hand experience of - I will only make you look silly.

You keep supporting bankers on 'what you have heard about them' and I'll continue to expose them for the frauds they are with my first hand experience.

One of us will be right - the other one will be wrong.

Surely if a bonus is guaranteed then it is no longer a bonus but part of salary?

43. At 11:12am on 10th Dec 2010, Remantled

When Cameron says the protestors must be "dealt with by the full force of the law" - you know he's scared.
Looks like the prison population is about to explode - I mean there must have been 3000 'criminals' there last night at least - can't lock them all up Dave!

23. At 10:34am on 10th Dec 2010, Jacques Cartier wrote:
@ 21. At 10:11am on 10th Dec 2010, ColinN wrote:


Would any responsible parent still advise his kids to work at a bank? No, I thought not.


Not true. We get about 300 applications for every graduate place. The numbers have continued to increase throughout the 10 years or so that I have been involved in graduate recruitment for banking. Unfortunately the biggest increase in applications is from students taking Noddy degrees at toytown universities (presumbly the same students with enough time on their hands to smash up phone boxes and throw bricks at the police). The quality students that we look for, Comp Sci, Physics, electronic engineering etc (2.1 or 1sts only) have not increased in the same proportions, forcing us to spread the search further abroad. This year we visited Warsaw and Moscow and the results are very encouraging. We would prefer to recruit more UK students but unlike UK Higher Education we wont compromise on quality, so all those Media Studies CVs just keep the departmental shredders working overtime. oh and the grads we recruit have no worries about paying off their student loans in double quick time.

Writingsonthewall wrote...

Jacques - sorry but bankers don't need to be paid anything. I could replace them all with a simple lender / borrower computer system. Bankers are not required



Absolutely priceless...please explain in more detail.

1. Presumably you'd charge interest on these loans? How would you account for risk?

2. How would you use this little computer programme to advise on IPO's etc? Do you know what an IPO is?

3. I'll ask again do you know what investment banking actually is? Wikipedia is your friend.


I was on the streets protesting about the Iraq war, I consider myself politically pretty far to the left. But to hear people like you spouting this nonsense makes me embarrassed quite simply.

Society has a great history of leftist argument based on intellectual logic and rigour, people like you are doing everything you can to destroy it. Revolution? In the last 10 years the only 'revolutionaries' as they like to term themselves have been largely posh kids on an adventure. Seriously look at yourself in the mirror.

Real revolutionaries like Dr King and Aung San Suu Kyi put their lives on the line to bring about change with solid arguments. You have no idea what a revolutionary even is.

Like I said, priceless.

50. At 11:27am on 10th Dec 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:
43. At 11:12am on 10th Dec 2010, Remantled

When Cameron says the protestors must be "dealt with by the full force of the law" - you know he's scared.
Looks like the prison population is about to explode - I mean there must have been 3000 'criminals' there last night at least - can't lock them all up Dave!
================================================================

And you wouldn't want to contradict and undermine his Justice Secretary recent comments re not sending so many people to jail.

Those companies and individuals which do not pay there fair share of tax as well as the bankers should be the next targets of direct action. It is simple - reform, pay your fair share.

Unfortunately what the youths have realised (and my generation of the last 15-20 years were lazy in this respect) is why bother with Peaceful Protest as per the pleas of the political and media elite? We did that in 2003 prior to an illegal war. 1 million people - didn't see anyone marching in favour of said war. It still went ahead and liar who lead us into it still got re-elected because the opposition in political and media elite didn't ask any questions.

NorthSeaHalibut wrote...


And banking profit comes from where exactly? I'll give you a clue and eliminate the usual wrong answer, it aint interest on loans, that only represents between 3% - 8% of banking profit.


Did I say it did? But seen as you're being so patronising I'll give you a clue also. If your little company that 'makes something' gets to a certain size and you decide to float it...who will you turn to? Who will sort your corporate finance?

Like I said above for anyone like Halibut (and there's clearly lots) who doesn't understand investment banking, just go to wikipedia or google it and try and get things clear in your head before posting nonsense about it.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Mr Peston....would it not be an idea to limit the number of contributions to your blog any blogger could make in a day...? Whilst I like the idea of 'free' speech, the fact that some names appear so very frequently spoils, at least for me, the enjoyment of Peston's Picks.

51. At 11:31am on 10th Dec 2010, CityITGeek wrote:
23. At 10:34am on 10th Dec 2010, Jacques Cartier wrote:
@ 21. At 10:11am on 10th Dec 2010, ColinN wrote:


Would any responsible parent still advise his kids to work at a bank? No, I thought not.


Not true. We get about 300 applications for every graduate place. The numbers have continued to increase throughout the 10 years or so that I have been involved in graduate recruitment for banking. Unfortunately the biggest increase in applications is from students taking Noddy degrees at toytown universities (presumbly the same students with enough time on their hands to smash up phone boxes and throw bricks at the police). The quality students that we look for, Comp Sci, Physics, electronic engineering etc (2.1 or 1sts only) have not increased in the same proportions, forcing us to spread the search further abroad. This year we visited Warsaw and Moscow and the results are very encouraging. We would prefer to recruit more UK students but unlike UK Higher Education we wont compromise on quality, so all those Media Studies CVs just keep the departmental shredders working overtime. oh and the grads we recruit have no worries about paying off their student loans in double quick time.

**********************************************************

Right on, couldn't agree with you more. Truth about bankers is that most people are jealous of them, hence the whining. University is no longer funded by the state because too many people go there - most of whom go to essentially get boozed, get laid and pick up a useless degree. I don't mind them doing this, in fact I would say I encourage it, but as a tax payer, I'd sooner they pay for it than me.

"An extra pound of permanent salary is worth considerably more than a one-off pound of bonus."

Robert, I find it very hard to agree with that analysis. It may be true in other industries, but less so in banking. The Front Office staff (and I think you could be clearer in your blog that by "wealth creators" you mean a small section of bank staff) routinely receive bonuses that are a multiple of their salary. Therefore, putting a greater emphasis on salary is much more transparent and effective way of differentiating based on performance.

What I think you are implying is that, as we all know, there are some bankers who just get paid far too much for taking too many risks with money that doesn't belong to them.

• 36. At 10:51am on 10th Dec 2010, practicaldave wrote:
“Secondly, if the first part isn't implemented and tax payers choose to lend money again to bail the banks out then there needs to be a few more conditions attached”

Thank you for the comedy – at what point did we ‘choose’?


“We provided funds to purchase equity in failing institutions and made money avaialble to be lent. It is paramount for all taxpayers that banks make huge profits over the next few years - the higher the profits, the more the equity is worth and we may actually make money out of this. Anything we need to do to help the banks make money we shoudl, even if that means people get paid ridiculous bonuses if they do genuinely make money for the bank. bank talent leaving could become a problem and I guarantee it's no good for the average tax payer.”

Please, no, stop. I can hardly breathe – These high profits you make mention of. Where do you think they come from? Answer = me and you. The more ‘talented’ the banker the more money they extort from you and I.


“And finally - tax revenue. Everytime a banker gets paid a £10 million bonus the positive effects on the UK economy are wonderfully brilliant.”


Or they employ an accountant to ensure as much tax is avoided as possible.


“For all thsoe who are still reading, you may think why shoudl a banker get paid mor ethan a doctor or a teacher - the simple answer is becasue they create wealth, they aide in creating jobs and do play an important role in society.”

My sides hurt - post of the day in humble opinion

51. At 11:31am on 10th Dec 2010, CityITGeek wrote:
23. At 10:34am on 10th Dec 2010, Jacques Cartier wrote:
@ 21. At 10:11am on 10th Dec 2010, ColinN wrote:


Would any responsible parent still advise his kids to work at a bank? No, I thought not.


Not true. We get about 300 applications for every graduate place. The numbers have continued to increase throughout the 10 years or so that I have been involved in graduate recruitment for banking. Unfortunately the biggest increase in applications is from students taking Noddy degrees at toytown universities (presumbly the same students with enough time on their hands to smash up phone boxes and throw bricks at the police). The quality students that we look for, Comp Sci, Physics, electronic engineering etc (2.1 or 1sts only) have not increased in the same proportions, forcing us to spread the search further abroad. This year we visited Warsaw and Moscow and the results are very encouraging. We would prefer to recruit more UK students but unlike UK Higher Education we wont compromise on quality, so all those Media Studies CVs just keep the departmental shredders working overtime. oh and the grads we recruit have no worries about paying off their student loans in double quick time.

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

My neice is doing one of those "Noddy degrees" at one of those "Toy town universities" and she's just got on a graduate scheme - at a bank. Maybe not all banks are so selective.

Good idea to have foreign graduates working for you, they can teach you the language when you leave, just close the doors behind you.

Go and read the book called "the new golden age" by Ravi Batra, I don't have time to explain life to you or your clueless associates.

Who are my clueless associates?

Batra is an economist. Many disagree with him. His predictions for about the last 15 years have been wrong. But working in finance I would think you'd know that no one economist is ever completely right.

But you keep picking only the literature that backs up your own views if that makes you happy.

I'm no great supporter of banks. I'm a supporter of logical argument. Of which you don't appear to have. I guess you're to busy on that revolution of yours.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Another example of unintended consequences. This should have been aligned with maximum salary level based on multiple of average earnings in the company.

It is an example of poor shareholder governance where the shareholders, the real owners of the business, are treated as serfs by management. This situation needs reversing and fast. Management should be the serfs of the shareholders who own the business.

A 20 fold salary range will never be effective, a company would simply set-up three of more subsidiaries that supply staff.

The first company let's call them Cleese would employ all the high earners, the next company lets call them Barker would employ all the middle earners and of course Corbett the low earners.

So if the minimum wage in Corbett was £4,000 the top would be up to £80,000, even if Barker started at 50,000 its top could be 1,000,000 so Cleese could have a range of 1,000,000 to 20,000,000 and if you need a bigger range, just add more subsidiaries.

53. At 11:38am on 10th Dec 2010, M_T_Wallet wrote:
Those companies and individuals which do not pay there fair share of tax as well as the bankers should be the next targets of direct action. It is simple - reform, pay your fair share.
------------------------------------------------------------

It is a shame that it is not as simple as throwing the fare dodger off the bus (hopefully in the middle of a wilderness). Or is it.....

52. At 11:36am on 10th Dec 2010, U14718784 wrote:
Writingsonthewall wrote...

Jacques - sorry but bankers don't need to be paid anything. I could replace them all with a simple lender / borrower computer system. Bankers are not required



Absolutely priceless...please explain in more detail.

1. Presumably you'd charge interest on these loans? How would you account for risk?

2. How would you use this little computer programme to advise on IPO's etc? Do you know what an IPO is?

3. I'll ask again do you know what investment banking actually is? Wikipedia is your friend.

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

Err,

1) Done by computer already
2) A computer can guess just as good as anyone, better possibly.
3) A fraudulent enterprise based on devious manipulation of confidence. A con trick in simple terms.

Wealth generators?? Parasitic charlatans more like!

It is the ordinary jobs that provide for a better quality of life for society that are the real wealth generators. This wealth may be financial, but sometimes it isn't monetary - for instance if you help someone for free this has benefited that persons life, and thus society at large, but from a banking (and Tory government) point of view no event has actually taken place as no money has changed hands.

That is not to say money doesn't form a part of society, or isn't important, as it is. The trouble is money exists now in 'real' form in 'twisted' form and in 'imaginary' form. This imaginary form is what seems to me to be what banks use to generate wealth from, and thus the exorbitant, disgusting, levels of pay and bonuses they receive.

In the real world you get paid a set amount which employers try to cut to as little as they can get away with. Also if you are not as good at a certain job as someone else, you either get paid less or get moved to different duties, or get sacked. Neither of these do I have a problem with. Normally you are expected to meet ever increasing targets for this pay, without any bonus incentive whatsoever - the incentive is keeping your job. If you do happen to have a bonus scheme, it is only paid at the end of the year and only on performance, with the criteria for this sometimes so tight that it is almost impossible to achieve anyway. It seems strange to me that as the pinnacle of capitalism, banks should do the exact opposite of what every capitalist (and Tory) has ever told you, and pay huge salaries to workers they know are useless, then top it up with disgusting levels of bonuses, in advance of the worker achieving anything for the bank. What do you think the answer of the CBI or the Con-dem government would be if a union went on strike because they wanted such a pay contract?

I wouldn't cap anyone's pay at all, for any job - it's good socialism to work hard and achieve for yourself. However bonuses for everyone should only be paid yearly, and never in advance. I know it is naive to believe this will solve much but at least it would be a start.

The two main focuses of this government to help get us out of the mess should be firstly to ensure everyone pays their tax (see https://38degrees.org.uk/%29 and secondly encourage a greater diversity of business types within the economy. Of course chasing people away from university education isn't a great start.

What's the likely reality though? More smoke and mirrors from the 'wealth generators'.

54. At 11:42am on 10th Dec 2010, BobbySands wrote:
NorthSeaHalibut wrote...


And banking profit comes from where exactly? I'll give you a clue and eliminate the usual wrong answer, it aint interest on loans, that only represents between 3% - 8% of banking profit.


Did I say it did? But seen as you're being so patronising I'll give you a clue also. If your little company that 'makes something' gets to a certain size and you decide to float it...who will you turn to? Who will sort your corporate finance?

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

You're going in the right direction, now explain how this makes the bankers a profit, where does the profit come from? Come on you can work it out.

By the way, I was a banker for 22 years, both retail and investment.

Let the banking shysters leave the UK if they wish. The constant whinging and attempts at some sort of blackmail ought to called, as its become both tedious and less effective each time attempted. They might find the situation in the far-east less to their liking than imagined, where execution for large-scale fraudsters is not unknown.

Surprised last comment didn't pass the moderator. Maybe the BBC really is a mouth piece for the left. This blog certainly feels like it most days. Anyway, the bit that I assume is inoffensive (hopefully) is this bit:

"As for HSBC and Standard Chartered, the EU rules if ratified will see these banks re-domicile in HK or Singapore as sure as eggs are eggs. You see the rest of the world, outside the over pampered "world owes me a living" numpties in Western Europe are getting on with the rat race I'm afraid, and there is no way on earth these banks are going to be able to compete if they're constantly losing employees to competitors. You lot may like that fact, I think driving out businesses from this country with sticks is not a very good idea in the long term. Still, I'm sure the anarchists have a wonderful plan for how we're all going to get by........"

The bit that I assume was deemed offensive was my rant at violent protestors (and their supporters), but I thought the person who pointed out that it is the ordinary people who have to literally clear up the mess afterwards made the point more eloquently anyway, so well done to him / her.....

I keep hearing this word " star" applied to banking, could someone please define the term and what they are doing or have done to be held in such esteem ???

Is it for example being able to wrap up junk investments in such a way that other people like them didnt realise they were worthless ???

Or perhaps buying and selling shares on the back of information gleaned from your network of friends before its mainstream knowledge ???

I honestly have no idea what you are referring to as a "Star" Robert, perhaps you could do a "month in the life of " piece on one of these stars ,many of us would then be in a better position to understand just what it is that these people do and we might actually say they are worth every last penny they get.

I have a feeling though that we are going to be completely underwhelmed to yet again find out that they may indeed on the surface appear to be making huge amounts of money for their employer but when you dig deeper you find that it is to the detriment of the tax payer as a whole and is just for example :relocating money from tax payer and company pension funds into those of themselves and there friends ,with a cut for their employer and the government, after all we are too thick to understand these things and 70 year olds dont tend to be militant when they find they have been led up the garden path.

The threat that keeps coming out is relocation, well Robert, it is happening daily all types of firms are heading for the cheapest source of labour, but this wont of course last for ever, and many of these places have far better ways than us to deal with people who they think are basically robbing them.

The only reason they are staying is due to the guarantee from the tax payer of cheap money at a laughable rate of interest and the depositor guarantee that prevents the masses from withdrawing the only real tangible asset there balance sheets actually have.

We could always legislate to prevent access to cheap funding and safety nets to only those banks who are registered here for tax i suppose.

Remantled, I'm glad I provided you with some entertainment, even if you think it's at my expense. I will counter your points below.

59. At 11:51am on 10th Dec 2010, Remantled wrote:
• 36. At 10:51am on 10th Dec 2010, practicaldave wrote:
“Secondly, if the first part isn't implemented and tax payers choose to lend money again to bail the banks out then there needs to be a few more conditions attached”

Thank you for the comedy – at what point did we ‘choose’?

As members of a democratic society, we appoint people (parliamentarians) to make decisions on our behalf. Therefore by proxy, we chose the people who make the rules. I'm sure you'll agree that it's better to let intelligent, studied professionals to make decisions of this importance rather than many who simply don't understand the system.

Furthermore, letting these banks fail would have been catastrophic - hence, we (by proxy) made the right choice.


“We provided funds to purchase equity in failing institutions and made money avaialble to be lent. It is paramount for all taxpayers that banks make huge profits over the next few years - the higher the profits, the more the equity is worth and we may actually make money out of this. Anything we need to do to help the banks make money we shoudl, even if that means people get paid ridiculous bonuses if they do genuinely make money for the bank. bank talent leaving could become a problem and I guarantee it's no good for the average tax payer.”

Please, no, stop. I can hardly breathe – These high profits you make mention of. Where do you think they come from? Answer = me and you. The more ‘talented’ the banker the more money they extort from you and I.


It's true that much of this profit does come from our pocket, but the bank has to take a risk to make it. People have this un-wavering belief that they have a right to borrow money to purchase things (mortgages, cars, business loans etc...) - this isn't true. Banks take a risk by lending us this money, and profit when we pay it back. The truth of the matter is though that us (homeowners especially) as a collective group have made far more profit than the banks over the last 10 years. If the bank lent you money at 5% and your house goes up by 10%, who's making more money? - The bank takes the risk, and you profit too, that sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

“And finally - tax revenue. Everytime a banker gets paid a £10 million bonus the positive effects on the UK economy are wonderfully brilliant.”


Or they employ an accountant to ensure as much tax is avoided as possible.

Ok, so they may be able to avoid paying some of this tax through clever accounting. This however employs large accoutancy firms, puts more money int heir pocket which they spend in our economy. i don't blame them for trying to avoid a bit of tax - you probably do, i do and so do my neighbours - whilst there are loop holes in the law, people will take advantage of them. Therefore the problem is the tax law, rather than the individual who benefits from them. I agree this needs to be addressed, but surely you can't blame this on the banker too.


“For all thsoe who are still reading, you may think why shoudl a banker get paid mor ethan a doctor or a teacher - the simple answer is becasue they create wealth, they aide in creating jobs and do play an important role in society.”

My sides hurt - post of the day in humble opinion.

As I said, they do play an important role in society - if there weren't banks around, how would people ever buy houses, start businesses, etc...? My personal view is that Doctors and teachers play a more noble role in society and probably have more job staisfaction than bankers (many of whom die early due to heart complaints, stress, suicide etc..) - therefore whilst bankers may be wealthy, they're not always happy. I know I'd rather be happy than wealthy. Understand though that a lof things in life that you enjoy are directly or indirectly as a result of banks, bankers and financial services sector as a whole.

If you still find my reasoning humourous, fair enough - but please do consider that what I say may actually be fairly close to the mark.

52. At 11:36am on 10th Dec 2010, BobbySands wrote:

"Absolutely priceless...please explain in more detail."

Why should I - you don't understand how the current system works - what chance do you have of a new one?

"1. Presumably you'd charge interest on these loans? How would you account for risk?"

How did the banks 'account for risk' when charging interest on CDO's? - details please?

"2. How would you use this little computer programme to advise on IPO's etc? Do you know what an IPO is?"

How do bankers currently advise on IPO's? - and who bears all the risk? You think it's the banks, their customers, or the Government - think carefully now, things have changed since you were 'taught'!

"3. I'll ask again do you know what investment banking actually is? Wikipedia is your friend."

Having worked in the industry for over 10 years - yes I do - what is your qualification? Got my IMC mate - which means I qualify as a 'fund manager' - what can you claim to know oh wise one?

"I was on the streets protesting about the Iraq war, I consider myself politically pretty far to the left. But to hear people like you spouting this nonsense makes me embarrassed quite simply."

I'm sure embarrassment is something your quite used to by now....

"Society has a great history of leftist argument based on intellectual logic and rigour, people like you are doing everything you can to destroy it. Revolution? In the last 10 years the only 'revolutionaries' as they like to term themselves have been largely posh kids on an adventure. Seriously look at yourself in the mirror."

Maybe you need to re-assess your prejudicial idea of a revolutionary - we don't all look and act like Che Guevara you know!

"Real revolutionaries like Dr King and Aung San Suu Kyi put their lives on the line to bring about change with solid arguments. You have no idea what a revolutionary even is."

Really? - well for me revolutionaries are people who actually can defeat the state - how are Dr King and Aung San Suu Kyi getting along with that? - I hear the Americans are still figthing about famers reparations and the other one is locked up!

"Like I said, priceless."

...typical - knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.

54. At 11:42am on 10th Dec 2010, BobbySands wrote:

"Like I said above for anyone like Halibut (and there's clearly lots) who doesn't understand investment banking, just go to wikipedia or google it and try and get things clear in your head before posting nonsense about it"

Sorry - is that how you present a 'logical and reasoned' argument? You go to Wikipedia?

Oh now that's a classic - usually it takes a lot more postings before the 'tripping over your own arguments' begins...

56. At 11:44am on 10th Dec 2010, Amused2Death wrote:


"Mr Peston....would it not be an idea to limit the number of contributions to your blog any blogger could make in a day...? Whilst I like the idea of 'free' speech, the fact that some names appear so very frequently spoils, at least for me, the enjoyment of Peston's Picks."

yes - we should keep the 'free speech' to a minimum - so only those who can sum up their ideology in 2 quick soundbites can get on the blog.

Maybe some of us need more space because we have so much more to offer? If you want quick quips and catchphrases then I suggest you watch SKY, they can sum up the complicated issues that hurt your brain in a couple of words - then you can go back to whatever you were doing that was soooooo important.

54. At 11:42am on 10th Dec 2010, BobbySands wrote:

"If your little company that 'makes something' gets to a certain size and you decide to float it...who will you turn to? Who will sort your corporate finance?"

So, let's imagine a scenario for a moment there are no 'little companies' making anything that people want to buy, where, exactly, in that situation does your investment bank make its money?

Go on - do tell us?


If, on the other hand, you accept that your investment bank can only make money because there are 'little companies' making things, then you have to accept that your bank is merely 'skimming' the proceeds of managing capital invested in factors of production.

Unfortunately I think you'll find that banks like yours have tried to cut out the middleman (ie the tiresome need to invest in productive industries and the grubby little companies that actually produce things) and go straight for the gravity-defying trick of making money out of money: M = M+

How exactly does that work then?

(You don't need to answer that - it's a rhetorical question.)

61. At 11:56am on 10th Dec 2010, BobbySands wrote:

"Batra is an economist. Many disagree with him. His predictions for about the last 15 years have been wrong."

I think you need to research better
"Batra's reputation rose in Europe on account of his correct prediction for the downfall of communism when he was awarded the Medal of the Italian Senate that year."
Maybe you haven't read his book - published in 2006 which accurately predicted the crisis of 2008 / 09.

...or maybe you don't let facts get in the way - right?

"But working in finance I would think you'd know that no one economist is ever completely right."

Well not those who have a vested interest - they don't want to be right, they just want to be rich.

"But you keep picking only the literature that backs up your own views if that makes you happy."

Why - what literature have you 'picked' that backs up yours?

"I'm no great supporter of banks. I'm a supporter of logical argument. Of which you don't appear to have. I guess you're to busy on that revolution of yours."

Oh I have more logic and reason than your tiny brain can handle - maybe if you stick around you might learn something....

66. At 12:01pm on 10th Dec 2010, NorthSeaHalibut wrote:

"1) Done by computer already
2) A computer can guess just as good as anyone, better possibly.
3) A fraudulent enterprise based on devious manipulation of confidence. A con trick in simple terms."

PLEASE DISSIST FROM USING LOGIC AND REASON (unless authorised)

Sadly those who come on here and support bankers and distrust technology are dinosaurs struggling to survive.
Isn't is funny how people don't see bankers like they did miners - surplus to requirements - replaced by technology.

mmmmmmm - wonder why?

NorthSeaHalibut wrote...

1) Done by computer already
2) A computer can guess just as good as anyone, better possibly.

Again, absolutely priceless. So what investment bank did you work for and in what area?

Your point fails on one key thing...investment banks use computers to do lots of automatic trading of course, but you're arguing they can do EVERYTHING.

If this was true then the banks themselves would solely use computers and get rid of all their bankers. It's called logic. It would maximise profit so if it worked they'd have done it already.

Good one though.

70. At 12:11pm on 10th Dec 2010, a_sensible_comment wrote:
Surprised last comment didn't pass the moderator. Maybe the BBC really is a mouth piece for the left.
================================================================

Not my experience - coverage on News 24, Today and 5live on the 'attack' on the Prince's vehicle suggested he had suffered a similar fate to his old friend Ceausescu - though contrary he managed to 'laugh it off' at the same time - and basically anyone who showed dissent (as per post Diana's death) was immediately subdued or patronised.
As for Sky (Fox) News well they were as usual telling everyone what their opionion should be - pro government - as opposed to report objectively on the facts. Mind you that won't happen. Ever.

37. At 10:51am on 10th Dec 2010, BobbySands wrote:

> Just because you don't make something physical doesn't mean you
> don't create wealth. We are a service economy.

What rot! This fellow thinks imaginery wealth is the same as the real thing. Try driving your "imaginery wealth" to work and see how far you get! Or try to eat your "services" and see if you get thin!!!

While you're busy counting your services, see if they can keep you warm in the winter or whether they can bring fresh water into your house.

What a load of rubbish people talk about "wealth". They really don't have a clue.

'Wealth creators' is simply a PC way of referring to 'fat cats' they are one in the same. People who are staggeringly over-paid for doing very little. If these people want to head overseas for undeserved pots of money - they are welcome it. I think there will be plenty of people left behind willing to do the same job for a lot less, that is: a wage in just proportion to the job and responsibilities it holds.

47. At 11:22am on 10th Dec 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:

"...and by the way, Churchill didn't actually fight anybody, the army, navy and air force did - he was having 9 course dinners while the people of London survived on rations. Please research you heroes before idolising them"

Please research your history before disparaging others:

During his army career, Churchill saw military action in British India, the Sudan and the Second Boer War. He gained fame and notoriety as a war correspondent and through contemporary books he wrote describing the campaigns. He also served briefly in the British Army on the Western Front in the First World War (WWI), commanding the 6th Battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers.

I liked this Robert. Especially you imagining most of your loyal readers would have bankers as a neighbour. Knowlingly I mean. But then - I mused on whether one of the soup companys has taken to putting "gruel" into tin form? What a statement that would make - one tin of gruel as a companion to a rather itchy on the skin. But that is rather unseasonal of me I guess? Con-some-eh? it is then. Allegedly

Disappointed I was grabbed by 'the moderators' If WOTW is allowed the freedom to copy and paste, surely we must be allowed the freedom of speech to reply. Otherwise WOTW will be seen as a mere ranter with a Don Quixote complex.

Writingsonthewall wrote...

Sorry - is that how you present a 'logical and reasoned' argument? You go to Wikipedia?

Oh now that's a classic - usually it takes a lot more postings before the 'tripping over your own arguments' begins...


Lol, you misunderstand but I'll explain. Me saying go to wikipedia isn't me making an argument. It's me saying go to wikipedia to find out what investment banking is.

If I go to a forum discussing quantum physics I wouldn't be offended if someone said to me 'go and google quantum physics' and understand what it is before posting.

Hope that helps.

36. At 10:51am on 10th Dec 2010, practicaldave
'The financial services sector provides about 25% of this countries tax revenue'

After skimming it off of somewhere else. How, for example, do the expected/demanded returns on inductrial capital investment in the UK compare to those in Germany or Japan?

75. At 12:30pm on 10th Dec 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:

"yes - we should keep the 'free speech' to a minimum - so only those who can sum up their ideology in 2 quick soundbites can get on the blog."

Funnily enough, the ideology has never been summed up, whether in 2 soundbites or many hundreds of postings. In fact, when anyone asks, the general response is "if you have to ask then you are clearly too stupid to understand". Sounds rather narcisstic to me :-)

39. At 10:58am on 10th Dec 2010, BobbySands wrote:

> and no I'm not one for the record

It's odd how banking toadies are so quick to tell us about thier little soft spot for bankers!

> This lumping of all bankers together is actually pretty offensive
> especially when you make derogatory comments about them.

Yes, it's offensive in a very good way, isn't it? It causes anger, displeasure, resentment and affront, like bankers have dished over the last 3 years. Now they get it back in spades - that's called moral hazard, if you didn't know already.

As I always say - if you don't want to be treated as a pariah, don't act like one.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

14. At 10:04am on 10th Dec 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:
"I was there last night, Regent street."
-
I was in Parliament Square.

Most people approve of what Robert discusses in this blog article, I suggest.

61. At 11:56am on 10th Dec 2010, BobbySands
'I'm no great supporter of banks. I'm a supporter of logical argument.'

Good.

So is it still the case that the UK investment process for industrial capital still expects a greater or quicker ROI than for many of our potential competitors? Did this change in recent years or would it still be cheaper to get an investment of business capital in Germany than it would generally be in the UK?

Does the UK financial capital system still insist on a far higher level of liquidity that that of Japan or Germany?

fatcat wrote...

So, let's imagine a scenario for a moment there are no 'little companies' making anything that people want to buy, where, exactly, in that situation does your investment bank make its money?

Go on - do tell us?



It doesn't. Because investment banks exist for that reason (among others). I don't think anyone would suggest that banks don't make money from providing a service to other businesses. But we'd be nowhere without businesses and therefore investment banks exist. Every business is to some extent skimming money. Buy some cornflakes and you'll pay a margin of about 3000pc compared to the production cost.

Vast numbers of businesses other than investment banks make money by providing 'services'. My friend is a financial adviser, makes about 20k a year advising people on what to invest in. I don't understand your problem with this...i.e. not bankers but the whole idea of providing services instead of actual goods.

I'm completely open to an argument about removing all this from society and I don't mean that sarcastically, I'd genuinely love to hear it or be pointed in the direction of it. I just don't see how it would work that's all.

Never mind the bankers for a moment. What about the IT staff who make sure banking operations run smoothly ? I understand at this very moment the Royal bank of Scotland is moving two thirds of its' IT jobs from the UK to India. Imagine what these hard working people feel like who are losing their jobs through no fault of their own and just before Christmas ! It is one thing to shuffle money around. It is another to be able to draw cash from a machine, know your direct debits are happening, for example. We have high calibre IT staff who are perhaps considered the 'back-room boys' Lose their knowledge and efficiency and your business won't work.

79. At 12:39pm on 10th Dec 2010, BobbySands wrote:
NorthSeaHalibut wrote...

1) Done by computer already
2) A computer can guess just as good as anyone, better possibly.

Again, absolutely priceless. So what investment bank did you work for and in what area?

If this was true then the banks themselves would solely use computers and get rid of all their bankers.
================================================================

It is called Social Darwinism my friend - very popular in 1930s in a large European country. The collection of individuals in most senior of positions ensure their own survival and normally ensure the masses are lead on a merry course to, in this case financial, destruction.

Writingsonthewall wrote...

I think you need to research better
"Batra's reputation rose in Europe on account of his correct prediction for the downfall of communism when he was awarded the Medal of the Italian Senate that year."
Maybe you haven't read his book - published in 2006 which accurately predicted the crisis of 2008 / 09.


Yep I think you'll find I said in the last 15 years. When did communism fall exactly? lol

Lets say that Batra completely predicted everything that happened in 08/09. The point you miss is that Batra had been making such predictions for years.

If I predicted a house price crash (as some did) every year from 2000 onwards, when it happened in 2008 would I then be some sort of genius in your eyes?

Try insulting people less and making more logical arguments. As I said to Hallibut, if his system of computers actually worked, logic would suggest the banks would have done it already wouldn't it? I.e. got rid of all the bankers, do everything by computer, maximise profits to an even greater extent.

I don't think it's fair to suggest I only have one brain cell...but if that's how you roll then I understand.

79. At 12:39pm on 10th Dec 2010, BobbySands wrote:

"If this was true then the banks themselves would solely use computers and get rid of all their bankers. It's called logic. It would maximise profit so if it worked they'd have done it already."

Logic? - Do turkeys vote for Christmas? Where is the logic in allowing something to be implemented which will replace you?

...or did you think bankers and CEO's of banks are a different breed?

83. At 12:50pm on 10th Dec 2010, yam yzf wrote:

"He gained fame and notoriety as a war correspondent and through contemporary books he wrote describing the campaigns."

Ther pen is mightier than the sword?

Once more, the UK's finger hovers over the self-destruct button.

88. At 12:55pm on 10th Dec 2010, yam yzf wrote:

"Funnily enough, the ideology has never been summed up, whether in 2 soundbites or many hundreds of postings. In fact, when anyone asks, the general response is "if you have to ask then you are clearly too stupid to understand". Sounds rather narcisstic to me :-)"

That's odd - because I seem to recall explaining much to you at length - which you summirarily dismissed because it didn't suit your self interested view.

It was only after you kept making the same claims (which I took apart) that I assumed you were not really up to the job of understanding complex concepts.