Lloyds' Daniels to receive £2m bonus

There is a real risk that the no-issue of "bankers' bonuses" diverts the attention and efforts of the Con-Dem administration in the same way that Fox Hunting did for New Labour. Grow up and move on.

It was part of the deal, he gets to take the money and walk away, no knighthood though.

The British Government can order a nuclear submarine to destroy an entire continent.
It then tells us with a straight face it has now power to control the pay of banks that it owns. Although to be fair, Trident is a much cheaper weapon of mass destruction than the banking industry.

The British Government can order a nuclear submarine to destroy an entire continent.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

#2. BobRocket wrote: "no knighthood though"

I think you will find he is American so he couldn't be given one.

Mr Daniels appears to have done a good job for share holders, as he is required to do. It is not his job to look after the interests of taxpayers, that is the government's job. They and the previous government have clearly failed to do so.

It was folly for the government to invest in shares in the banks in order to bail them out. By doing so they only acquired the same control as other shareholders, that is virtually nil. They should have gone for outright national ownership, by buying their viable parts from the administrators if they failed.

The government should sell off its holdings as soon as possible, and make it clear that there will be no bailouts in future, it will be nationalisation or nothing. This should concentrate the minds of bank executives on the need to avoid risk.

Does he still have his Non-Dom tax status?

David Cameron gut reaction is that the pay of bankers is unacceptable. However he is scared to do anything about it? Speculatively - is this because the Tory party needs bankers money (or at least those from Belize)!!!

He returned Lloyds to profitability, making a huge amount of money for the taxpayer, far in excess of £2m. What's the problem?

"Second, Mr Daniels was chief executive when Lloyds agreed to buy HBOS in the autumn of 2008 - which is a deal that has generated spectacular losses for Lloyds and also meant that Lloyds was forced to receive a far bigger injection of funds from taxpayers than would otherwise have been the case."

I think you'll find Robert that Lloyds were given virtually no choice but to buy them..and also no time to do any DD which later req'd the increased injection.

This is simply evidence that the Directors of plcs including those appointed by HM Government are poodles who actively disrespect shareholders.

These directors are failing in their fiduciary responsibility to the Shareholders - owners of the business. These people should be immediately sacked and be stripped of their pensions.

Evidence of corporate senior management incompetence on a grand scale.

6. At 12:18pm on 12th Jan 2011, John_from_Hendon wrote:

#2. BobRocket wrote: "no knighthood though"

I think you will find he is American so he couldn't be given one.


Honourary Knighthoods are given to non nationals remember Bob Geldof?

Are you sure his name aint Paul Daniels?

8. At 12:20pm on 12th Jan 2011, MyVoiceinYrHead wrote:
Does he still have his Non-Dom tax status?

Without any doubt whatsoever

Oh dear another story about bankers bonuses. Yawn!

David Attenborough was right; the BBC needs to be ‘refocused’

Sorry. Returning the bank to profit is not an acceptable reason for awarding a bonus. Not while the taxpayers have provided the funds to bail the bank out in the first place.

And as for the dimwit banker with half a brain who said 'he is leaving Lloyds in March, so why should Eric care if the bonus makes him unpopular?", there's a very simple answer:

Because it is morally wrong to take that much money from an industry that has created financial misery for millions across the world.

This is not about 'rights' and entitlements, it's about doing what's right - irrespective of contracts and the letter of the law.

Mr Daniels gambled and lost when he agreed to buy HBOS. The rest of us even the unborn will be paying for that and similiar actions for a long time. Government needs to split investment gambling from high street banking, so the banks only gamble with their own credit, not mine. Until then I've got to pay for his bonus and his failures.

Dear Robert,

Please assure me you are not doing the governments work and deliberately clouding the issue on bonuses.

Any concerned individual can find out the size of Mr Diamond's or Mr Daniel's bonus as it will be published in the respective annual reports.

How about shining some light on the 3000 below board level bankers at 13 UK banks who will be siphoning off a MILLION POUND PLUS BONANZA EACH. These individuals or "talent" as they often labelled as are so proud of their achievements that:

They refuse to be named - The government is blocking legislation passed to reveal these individuals.

They refuse to make transparent the formula for determining the bonus pool and the individual bonus.

Remember the Tory Led government called for all civil servants earning more than the prime minister to have their salary packages published. Well bailed out banks owned by the taxpayer are de facto civil servants so why not publish the names?

Forget bank teller bonuses and board room bonuses they are a smoke screen. Lets see MILLION PLUS CLUB list. If they are talented and successfully move we can see for ourselves.

4. At 12:16pm on 12th Jan 2011, Chris wrote:
The British Government can order a nuclear submarine to destroy an entire continent.
-----------
You know that for a fact?
----------------
A single Trident missle armed with 16 multiple re-entry investment bankers can devastate the US economy within months

Robery
Let Mr Daniels HAVE his bonus. Let Mr Diamond pay his bonuses out.

After listening to a piece on Radio4 this morning (Youandyours), about the Government removal of the mobility allowance for disabled people living in care homes (because their needs are too complex to live on their own), I really think Mr Diamond is NOW correct.

It cannot be right for a woman with severe disabilities, to be denied access to her adapted car and the £50 per week she receives, in order for her to meet all her needs, medical, educational or social, whilst a top-financial worker would earn more than she would lose in the time it takes to SNEEZE!

Mr Diamond is right, the Banks should no longer feel sorry for themselves or apologise any more.

Go forth, Mr Diamond (and the rest) - if banks "fail", we will happily endorse your commitment, that failed banks should be allowed to "go under"! If you do, then so be it on your head be it.

In return for ending the criticism, your terms and conditions should be that you (between all UK based banks) pay the (approximately £150million pounds per annum) "mobility allowances" for ALL disabled people, that allow them to travel about and live their lives, that we "healthy people" take so much for granted!

Do that, and I for one would take my hat off to them!

"The maximum bonus entitlement for Mr Daniels is 225% of his salary of £1.035m.

Those close to Lloyds say that the board is likely to award him around £2m. The announcement will be made in February."


I really hate bankers

""Why on earth should he?" said a banker. "He has returned Lloyds to profit." What all by himself? What about spreading it around especial to those who had to fall on their own tin sword to restore profitability!

"First, Lloyds is 41% owned by taxpayers - and the government has said it does not wish to see what it calls "unacceptable" bonuses, especially in banks where the state has a stake."

...and yet neither the chancellor nor the Prime minister had mentioned this to Bob (as of yesterday)

Someone is lying, is it the bankers, the ministers or both? - and best of all both parties are asking YOU to TRUST THEM to get you out of the hole they have created!!!

Are the people really that stupid?

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

Why did this clown keep his job? Let alone millions of pounds in salary and bonuses!!!

If a senior cvil servant was a tenth as incompetent as this they would be dismissed instantly. And they never get even modest pay when they do things right!

How can we respect these people. They are not giving anything to their shareholders, not repaying the taxpayer, their cutosmer service is appaling.

And yet they still take home 50 or 100 times what everbody else earns, even when they so obviously useless.

Kleptocracy and fascism.

Oh dear, not again. What is the problem? Have our views gone unheard? Are our continuing blogging comments here, meaningless? Do you think we are incapable of understanding that we are all being taken for mugs?

We are powerless and we know it.

ROBERT, STOP RUBBING OUR FACES IN IT! PLEASE, FOR GOD SAKE, STOP IT

"Why on earth should he?" said a banker. "He has returned Lloyds to profit. "

Yes but he has been CEO since 2003 and was there when the bank nearly went bust. So he needs to have responsibility for that and have gratitude for still being in a job. Time for these people to show some responsibility and leadership, rather than caring about their own greed and selfish needs..

According to Mr Cameron in question time today the Government objective is to see Banks paying more tax, increasing lending to UK SMEs and reducing the level of bankers bonuses. Unfortunately Mr Cameron did not say how this was going ot be achieved.

No wonder a government source raced to tell Robert the bonus had not yet been agreed.

Surely he has done his job that what his salary is for. I do not get any extra for just doing my job.

Astonishing comments. There must be a few bankers here! Such short memories. Folks seem to forget that those getting rewards presided over previous losses which were bailed out by the taxpayer. In addition because the economies have been prevented from free falling (not just UK) by taxpayers worldwide the banking sector was able to continue as "normal" ie make obscene amounts of profit.

Daniels did not personally make money for llloyds he was merely present when they did as did every other director of every other other bank! Ooops bit of a coincidence. Could it be that banks are making money despite who runs them!

This is exactly what is happening. The greed is obscene. The reality check totally lacking. This government is and always has been a bankers friend and as such they will do absolutley nothing about it (read a history book!). They can't admit to that though so there will be lots of hot air and I would not be suprised if they say something like "We can't enforce any restraint ....due to the problems created by the previous administration".

Found the discussion on Newsnight last night interesting - the libdem chap from the select committee was getting into a froth about the apathy of shareholders in the issue of Bob Diamond's bonus. He was keen to stoke up anger amongst them so they could force the issue, but was frustrated that they had not even asked about it.

It a shame the presenter never picked him up on the issue that the Government is a MAJORITY shareholder in a number of these institutions but still didn't seem to have the muscle to drive the decisions....

What exactly does he think stoking the anger of a few minority shareholders will achieve??

If I go to the bookies and gamble on a horse that goes down I can not claim my money back , so as buying shares on the market is a gamble, then they should not be able to claim money back if they go down , the government should not support any future banks that go bust, if they go then so be it and the government should make a ruling on this. the same people who were running the banks are now getting big bonuses it is wrong.

I totally agree with nationalisation of any banks which in the future need bailed out and if the powers that be that run them don't like it then tough. Thing is it'll probably never happen as governments will continue to move the goalposts are far as banks are concerned. So much for the Condems "tough on bankers and their bonuses" that they wasted loads of hot air on when they were in opposition. It seems that now they're in power and faced with the true reality of the banking industry and the power it really has they are unable or unwilling to put anything in place to combat this power. Osborne is great at putting the boot into the poor and the public sector but lets face it he's like a little boy lost when he deals with the financial establishment and seems happy to let them self regulate as if that means anything.

Of course he needs his £2m and his 2m shares because how on earth can one survive with less?
Remember that the 'bonuses' don't just fill his coffers but massage the ego.
This 'bonus' proves that he is one of the 'greats' in our society and I fear for what will happen when he retires......but rest assured that there will be any number of 'bankers' that will be only too willing to serve this country in its time of great need.
Seems strange to me that you can be a hero when serving in Afghanistan, and be paid a pittance with no bonus, whilst this pillar of society can be paid a bonus whilst fighting in the barren wastes of the City of London.

Why are the banks not helping to pay off the UK dept. it was ther poor management of staff which led to the goverment taking on such a dept. Now they are recovering they should be paying off the dept they caused befor paying such astronmic bonsues.

Cable should have been allowed to split the banks up, keeping their casino activities separate and very much be allowed to fail if they messed up again. But I guess that would annoy the bankers, which in turn would annoy the tories, and so would never be allowed to happen.

How long until the election?

10. At 12:31pm on 12th Jan 2011, mattsaintsfan wrote:
He returned Lloyds to profitability, making a huge amount of money for the taxpayer, far in excess of £2m. What's the problem?

When do I get the money though? I'll need it pretty soon - when I've lost my public sector job to pay for the bankers' incompetence.

This is shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. Whether or not you think the banks should have been bailed out is now irrelevant ( I believe they should have been allowed to fail and the Government picked up the profitable bits and moved forward).
The question is by paying bonuses will the top quality employees be lost? Maybe some will move on but there is always new blood waiting for their opportunity to prove themselves. Let those wishing to leave move on and let the new blood build a new and better banking system guided by the principles of a fair and prosperous society for all.

It's a natural phenomenon the old die and are replaced by the young.

Isn't it funny how a Government can apparently 'force' a bank into buying another, without any shareholding - but cannot do the same for excessive bonuses, when they are the majority shareholder.

Clearly the Lloyds PR department deserves a bonus if this idiocy is a popular belief amongst the plebs.

Does anyone know where Eric lives? - I'd like to pop round and ask him for my share of the £2million back.

How predictable - another blogg about the non issue of bankers bonuses.

I read your title as business editor - not banking editor. Any chance of some business stories? Perhaps on the retail sector which is busily reporting results

28. At 12:59pm on 12th Jan 2011, Tim wrote:
"Yes but he has been CEO since 2003 and was there when the bank nearly went bust. So he needs to have responsibility for that and have gratitude for still being in a job. Time for these people to show some responsibility and leadership, rather than caring about their own greed and selfish needs.."

Which is why, as it says in paragraph 2 of the article, he turned down bonuses for the past two years.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

32. At 13:04pm on 12th Jan 2011, Rational Viewpoint wrote:
"It a shame the presenter never picked him up on the issue that the Government is a MAJORITY shareholder in a number of these institutions but still didn't seem to have the muscle to drive the decisions.... "

Just in two insitutions actually; RBS & Lloyds and only in one of those is it a Majotiry shareholder (41% does not make a majority)

"RETURNED THE BANK TO PROFITABILITY" why does someone get a bonus for doing the job they get a salary for?

Sorry - for a dizzy moment I was applying the real world to this scenario.

27. At 12:59pm on 12th Jan 2011, Seer wrote:

"ROBERT, STOP RUBBING OUR FACES IN IT! PLEASE, FOR GOD SAKE, STOP IT"

No this is good - I mean you may understand the problems, but there are a lot of plebian slaves out there who still don't get it.

I suspect Robert will keep bashing out these pieces until these last few are on board.
....and we are not powerless to do anything about it - we just need the correct motivation.

Remember, although part legend, the French Revolution didn't really kick off until Mary decided to tell the poor to 'eat cake'.

...and what started it all in 1776? - that's correct - a financial crisis. However don't be concerned as I have been assured by several capitalists that 'this time it will be different' - and who am I to disagree with their excellent record of being right?

Have you ever thought what would have happened to HBOS clients if LloydsTSB had'nt taken them over? I believe the then goverment was well aware of their situation and 'leaned' on Lloyds to 'do the decent thing'. Up to that point Lloyds was a very well run bank! If I was Mr Daniels I would take it, and I suspect the majority of people would.

7. stanblogger wrote:
Mr Daniels appears to have done a good job for share holders, as he is required to do.

TOSH - as the spouse of a shareholder, I can tell you the shares are worth a fraction of their pre-HBoS takeover value. And will be for a looooong time yet.

10. mattsaintsfan wrote:

He returned Lloyds to profitability, making a huge amount of money for the taxpayer, far in excess of £2m. What's the problem?

What's the problem???? The bank would have been even more profitable if he hadn't 'agreed' the takeover. It would've been one of the few stable and in-profit banks during the recession. Even Barclays wobbled!!! And Lloyds staff today wouldn't be losing their jobs as part of the 'integration' process.

11. jason wrote:

I think you'll find Robert that Lloyds were given virtually no choice but to buy them..and also no time to do any DD which later req'd the increased injection.

I can't believe I'm reading this nonsense. Lloyds and Daniels had EVERY choice. It was Daniels' avowed aim to make Lloyds the biggest bank in the UK. He saw his chance and leapt to it. Staff were furious at the implications. Big shareholders like Standard Life later admitted they'd got it wrong (Today programme's business slot with Adam) - remember, shareholders had a vote!! Institutionals went with it, small holders and staff shareholders went against and...lost. So, there was clearly a choice. Some folks read it (correctly) as a mess and others...didn't. As for no time for DD, no professional finance person should EVER do anything without doing DD first. They owe it to the shareholders. Daniels should have been and should still be SACKED with no compensation - more or less like the Lloyds staff who are paying the price for his blunder and hubris.

31. At 13:04pm on 12th Jan 2011, mar39241 wrote:

"This government is and always has been a bankers friend and as such they will do absolutley nothing about it (read a history book!)."

I'm sorry to inform you that Capitalists' history books start in 1986 and features a gap between 1990 and 1992 - when apparently there was a time shift. This is how it can be supported as a system so vehemently.
There haven't been many updates in the recent editions - other than the story of how the Government and the people made the banks nearly fail, and how they are 'working hard' to correct the mistakes of others!

Robert,

Could you post a map of where Planet Big Bank Boss is?

(It's clearly not the same planet as most of us are living on.)

"The maximum bonus entitlement for Mr Daniels is 225% of his salary of £1.035m."

225% of salary!

To ALL British bosses: now that is what a bonus really is! And this is not unique. It seems to be the "Going rate!!"

Next time you give me, or anyone in your company, a bonus try not to give me a payment of 3.5% and call it a "bonus." At least have the guts to tell the truth and call it a "slap in the face" or something.

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

Another day, yet another Bonus/Banking blog.
get over it.

This is a well respected 'business' blog, dealing almost exclusively with issues related to Investment Banking and concerned with the effects of the banking collapse on the UK and world economy. So where are all the well-respected Investment Bankers explaining what they do, why they do it and why the country needs them so badly? I address you directly Robert: where are they?! The pro-banking posts are poor quality and seem not to come from bankers. The anti-bonus posts seem heartfelt and are generally well written. What's going on? The financial 'community' are invisible. Any ideas as to why this is the case would be most welcome.

#41. have you ever paid taxes? you seem to spend all your time blogging here. i cant believe someone employs you to waster your time

42. At 13:14pm on 12th Jan 2011, Decentjohn wrote:
How predictable - another blogg about the non issue of bankers bonuses.

Ever thought you might not be totally in tune with the Zeiteist Johnno ?

The answer to the bonus problem is quite simple. Those Banks which go against the governments wishes should display an health warning: "This bank and it`s depositors are not covered by any government support in the event of any problems and the bank would be allowed to fail if it got into serious dificulties".
The people of this country would have to decide if they minded losing the revenue of these banks if they went offshore.

36. At 13:08pm on 12th Jan 2011, julianh

I think you're getting confused with a 'fair society' - in this society we reward the rich - no matter what they do and we punish the poor - simply for having the temerity to be poor.

Signs of fascism - number 13 (unlucky for some)

" 13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population."

https://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4113.htm

Wakey wakey Britain!

Comment on an earlier blog

"A PROFITABLE BANKER IS WORTH HIS WEIGHT IN GOLD!"

All I can say is most of them must be really overweight, to get the current level of bonus!!!!!

44. At 13:16pm on 12th Jan 2011, baudolino wrote:

"And lets not forget that part of the reason Lloyds bank has returned to profitablity is by slashing 20,000 jobs. Just sayin."

Very good baudolino - and who picks up the tab for that?

THE TAXPAYER

Not satisifed with being mugged once, the government has just sent the taxpayer back down the dark alley to retrieve his wallet!

Time to refuse methinks.

`...Mr Daniels was chief executive when Lloyds agreed to buy HBOS in the autumn of 2008.'

So when you break the bank you get a GBP 2,000,000 bonus? Is this what the bankers mean by risk-taking? Take a risk, break the bank, do not pass GO but collect two million.

It is all a game to them isn't it? They don't have to earn their money, they just print it.

Aw this guy's had a rough deal (althoug escaping prison) - the western Governments are running the world biggest Ponzi scheme and nobody cares, the banks are running several and they are totally ignored.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12171107

I guess it all depends on who you know....or rather who you can afford to buy!

Mr Beige,

I support your earlier idea.

"any b....anker can play Russian roulette and appear invincible if he knows there are no bullets in the chamber. Stick one in and he points it at the duffers in the crowd. Point it back and see if he wants to review his position or investment strategy then?"
This just about sums up our leading business leaders.

45. At 13:17pm on 12th Jan 2011, yam yzf wrote:
32. At 13:04pm on 12th Jan 2011, Rational Viewpoint wrote:
"It a shame the presenter never picked him up on the issue that the Government is a MAJORITY shareholder in a number of these institutions but still didn't seem to have the muscle to drive the decisions.... "

Just in two insitutions actually; RBS & Lloyds and only in one of those is it a Majotiry shareholder (41% does not make a majority)

-----
Point taken, but the comment still stands - whether majority in one or 'just' 41% in the other, it doesn't seem to have given the Government any leverage to influence behavior.
So much for these organisations playing to the tune of shareholders demands... Thats assuming the Government is actually exercising its power as the rhetoric suggests!

I suspect the only demand any shareholder really has is to ensure the share price goes up and dividends keep rolling in. And the Government, ultimately, is no different. If that means big bonuses... so be it. Why kill the goose that keeps giving.

All this fuss about bankers' bonuses is getting really tedious. The guy is a top flight businessman doing a high profile and high pressure job. He agreed a contract with his employer/shareholders and it shoudl be honoured. If people want to keep bashing banks they should direct their fire at the government, and not this one. If you leave the top of the biscut tin, the kids are going to help themselves, it's natural in a competitive world that any business will operate to the limit of the regulations. It was Brown as Chancellor who allowed this to happen.
This country's only chance of surviving as a major trading nation is through banking and financial services. Time for the whingers to shut up and get behind them. (I'm not a banker by the way).

42. At 13:14pm on 12th Jan 2011, Decentjohn wrote:
How predictable - another blogg about the non issue of bankers bonuses.

I read your title as business editor - not banking editor. Any chance of some business stories? Perhaps on the retail sector which is busily reporting results

-----------

Go to another blog then! Non-issue of banks - you've got to be taking the p...! The banks and their arrogance, greed and inefficiencies (including customer complaints) is the issue of the century for me - living on a fixed income BEFORE TAX of £7,500 with my "income" diminishing at every blink.

Once the banks have been shamed and paid back the support (all banks got support in one way or the other) then Robert, as Business Editor, can graciously and rapidly go on to the big business leeches with their arrogance, greed and inefficiencies (including customer complaints). Wonder how much the tax payer paid the the shrimp sandwiches and champagne at No 10 the other day~!

Talking of customer complaints - on a low income, you generally buy the same things week in and week out, if their is anything left of your income after paying the exhorbitant gas/electricity bills, which are just going up and up. I keep a spreadsheet on my costs and at Sainsbury's before Christmas, I complained at the "service" desk at the obvious profiteering on a Quorn Roast which was marked as "25% down". (No response from Sainsbury's yet - too busy counting their profits!). The roast was 25% down on the RRP price displayed but that was 18% more than I had paid for it two weeks before and was 89pence higher than I eventually bought it at Morrisons. No wonder Sainsbury's results are good. By the way, I am now travelling across town (at a cost in fuel) to buy from the Co-op.

Why should Daniels receive a bonus when through his management,shareholders are not allowed to receive Dividends before 2012

@47. At 13:19pm on 12th Jan 2011, writingsonthewall wrote:
"...and what started it all in 1776? - that's correct - a financial crisis."

But what fuelled that financial crisis in the first place? The situation was thus: the colonies were using their own currency, issued by the government of the time, for the benefit of the people and to facilitate trade. The British, or more specifically the BoE, didn't like the way things were panning out: it would result in a private central bank having no clout other than being just that - a bank. So through mostly foul means the BoE conspired to remove the colonies' right to issue and have control of their own currency.

That said, I have no confidence in either the financial industry or the government of this country to do what might be considered as "moral" or "just". Give it a couple of years and it will fizzle out: we'll be back to a similar status as in 2003 or 2004, with higher fuel prices though, and looking forward to the next recession in the so-called, entirely artificial "business cycle". Regardless of whether the bonuses are right or wrong the law is pretty specific as regards employment contracts. If you don't like it, unfortunately it's tough. Deal with it, or seek professional help if you can't. We've had 400 years to overthrow the current situation and put in place a different system and it hasn't happened yet and to envisage substantial change is sheer wishful thinking, if not outright insanity (as much as I would wholeheartedly support the change).

If you can't simultaneously root out the corrupt elements present in the City - stockmarket trading, banking, government, bureaucracy, the media, multinational corporations, law - then you will never get the change you want. All you can do is ensure you have a job to go to. Having said that if the rest of the UK could "divorce" itself from London that would be a good start.

I always say, "If you're going to cave-in, do it all the way so that no one gets confused by any rules."
Well...actually I've just started to say that.
It started the moment I realized that The Coalition Government is caving to bankers. As near as I can make out (at this point) we have: £7B bonuses
As for The Coalition Government - no where in sight; I guess it got buried under the cave-in.
Investment Banks too big to fail are set to hand out £7B to traders over the next two months. Do I hear a voice beneath the rubble, and is that voice squeaking: "We will tackle unacceptable bonuses”.
The Coalition Government must have known from the start that big bonuses could not be reined in; what are you going to do, turn up at night and rob the banks?
I'll tell you what should have been done (and it's not too late to do it):
Impose a transaction tax on all foreign investments; this will affect the huge investment banks too big to fail, while barely skimming the little community banks because foreign transaction are the meat & potatoes of investment banks too big to fail. It will provide an audit trail for nefarious trading (e.g. credit default swaps, bundled derivatives), and may even provide forensic evidence for legal action.
This should have been, and can still be a prime item on the next EU Financial Summit. You can't stop bonuses, but you can raise billions in Foreign Transaction Tax, reduce the austerity on the people, and reduce the money available for this elephantine bonuses.
I forget where I read this, but it was said by an investment banker: “It’s well known that the pay of investment bankers has been re-weighted towards salaries and away from bonuses. So even if bonuses are cut, the total pay of many won’t fall.”
Where are the people? Is your blood not up? Where are the voices screaming for A Foreign Transaction Tax while you struggle under pay freezes, job losses, soaring food bills and the recent VAT increase?
Business Secretary Vince Cable:
“We have to take robust action on unacceptable bonuses. Both parties are fully signed up to that.”
Chancellor George Osborne:
“It would be inexcusable for banks to pay big bonuses when there are so many businesses that need that cash.”
Well, gentleman, another year's gone and what have you done?
Even the publicly-owned Royal Bank of Scotland is set to hand out £1B in bonuses – down from £1.3B last year.
While the people slug, profits of the UK’s top five banks soared in 2010 to £40B and are likely to hit £55B this year.
Where is Gordon Brown; I want Gordon Brown with his austere, no-nonsence financial approach to head a task team and get us a Foreign Transaction Tax.

Since the bailout, Lloyds also increased penalty charges which helped significantly in bringing in cashflow.
So if you are poor not only did your tax go towards bailing out Lloyds but then they came back when you went overdrawn for a special move called the “double kick in the teeth we are absolutely taking liberties with you, laughing and we will continue to do so, what are you going to do about it”
But revolutions come in many varients.
There is a huge increase in people using credit unions. And some have introduced current accounts with all the usuall facilities (atm card etc). Over the next few years more and more credit unions will roll out current accounts so you wont have to be involved with the likes of Lloyds anymore.
https://www.findyourcreditunion.co.uk/home
There are already specialist ethically driven banks (although not perfect).

This is a total disgarce how dare these Imbeciles take such a vast payout when we are all being told by the government we have to make sacrifices what sacfifices are these idiots enduring as we are all having to endure. Looking at this there are no scrifices made by them at all. We have to get on with it with LESS money but OH NO not these.

If I was Eric Daniels, I would not worry much about negative reaction.
The man leaves in March. He won't have to work again in the UK if he doesn't want to and he'll be able to live in luxury for many years if he looks after his cash.
George Osborne has kept his hand in his pockets (or maybe on his own wallet) so there'll be no real attempt to stop this.
Only 3+ years ago I worked for LTSB on less than £13,500 per year so the occasional £100 or so annual bonus was welcome though I'd rather have had it as part of my regular salary. People should get a decent wage and not need bonuses if they do their jobs properly.
I don't see how LTSB can justify this bonus to Mr Daniels when they haven't repaid what they owe the taxpayer.

'40. At 13:12pm on 12th Jan 2011, writingsonthewall wrote:
Isn't it funny how a Government can apparently 'force' a bank into buying another, without any shareholding - but cannot do the same for excessive bonuses, when they are the majority shareholder.'

I find it amazing that we can refuse to enforce international law in some parts of the world (Palestine), we can just write laws to create crimes whenever we wish (well, the government can), we can change laws to sell off assets like the electricity infrastructre (well the government can) etc, yet we are apparently surrounded by an environment of impossibility when it comes to banks.

I take it that if we 'can not' do something, then what that really means is we 'will not' to do something.

Last night I had a dig around for some more history.

There's an interview with Ralph Nader predicting a 'set-up for tax payer bailouts' way back in 1999!

Last 20 minutes of this hour long broadcast - https://www.democracynow.org/1999/10/27/congress_takes_up_overhaul_of_u

The Latinos have a bit more practice. They write the laws the people want and nationalise companies. If the bosses/owners don't like it, they just send the army round to seize the company.

There are two points which I have not see addressed by the press. Their focus is cemented on bonuses, and neither why such bonuses are able to be paid out or how those in charge of banks pay for their mistakes seems to grabbed the headlines.

Surely the quick turn around of Lloyds's fortunes is exactly the sort of thing that should be analysed and explained properly. What part of reported results are cash profits and what part accounting - simple movements on the balance sheet? Are these from tangibly generated wealth or cash extracted from market movements? Basically, how are banks able to make such huge profits to reward their staff so handsomely? Where are the free market forces? Where is competition? Is it a matter of high stakes reaping high rewards, then how can they win so consistently and who is monitoring the risks to warn against the next big loss? If these banks are the winners, who are the losers - whether directly or indirectly?

On the second point - what is the downside when banks get it wrong? Who is it that pays for their losses and how? The 'fat cats', as the highly rewarded leaders of industry used to be collectively known, argued that their high paid was in part recognition of the risks they had responsibilities for. That seems to be accepted as reasonable, however what does actually happen when those risks crystalise; and who determines whether that is as a result of bad luck or bad management and what the repercusions should be? In reality, those in charge are not risking anything other than their position on the rich list - although no doubt some have benefited from their failures. It is possibly those least empowered to have a impact of the decisions leading to failure or how these may impact on them that are affected the most.

So, let's forget about the bonuses and focus on answering why banking is allowed to be the spoilt child of the business world.

"Why on earth should he?" said a banker. "He has returned Lloyds to profit. And also, he is leaving Lloyds in March, so why should Eric care if the bonus makes him unpopular?"

As he is leaving in March why on earth is it in the shareholders interest (obv inc the 42% we own) to pay him a penny more than he is contractually entitled to. He shouldn't be getting any part of any discretionary bonus or else the board aren't fulfilling their duty.

41. At 13:14pm on 12th Jan 2011, writingsonthewall wrote:
Does anyone know where Eric lives? - I'd like to pop round and ask him for my share of the £2million back.

...or 1/65 millionth of the 41% of £2million?

The 1.2p is all yours.

And why not? I'm sick of people blaming the bankers. No personal responsibility whatsoever and this is clearly an education issue. No-one in the media (inc. the honourable Mr Peston) has a clue about finance, no-one outside of financial services has the faintest idea (just like those in financial services don't know anything about operating on people) so just leave us to get on with it.

#55 Mark Rushton

How can the banksters justify what they do, you won't see them on here defending themseleves. Their to busy creaming and skimming off the rest of us.
The whole ethos is wrong, try a Credit Union for a change.

50. At 13:24pm on 12th Jan 2011, writingsonthewall wrote:

I'm looking for some decent data on the missing years, in fact the past 100.

Chomsky always talks about how workers had low income for yonks, it got better after the Depression, then from the time of Thatcher and Reagan it went down while the rich got more and more.... Got a ref for the UK equivalent data WOTW?

Woud be handy to shove under people's faces...

At 13:29pm on 12th Jan 2011, EconomicsStudent wrote:
42. At 13:14pm on 12th Jan 2011, Decentjohn wrote:
How predictable - another blogg about the non issue of bankers bonuses.

Ever thought you might not be totally in tune with the Zeiteist Johnno ?

Perhaps if you read a little more widely you would find that there are many business stories in the big bad world beyond bankers bonuses. Pergaps a little too scary for you! Or perhaps like Robert you cannot see beyond banking. Such a pity when there are so many business stories to be covered

Lloyds group share price is about a tenth of what it was a couple of years ago and shareholders have not had a dividend for two years. Aren't these the true measures of management success? Isn't the "profit" just an accounting fudge of the true situation, which is a huge debt still to be paid off. So why should any bonus be paid?

I have a problem with the kid [and that is what he is ] that has been put in prison for chucking a fire extinguisher at the police. He is totally out of order but I think prison will scar him , cost us a fortune and alienate the student population. What happened to the community service scheme. Bankers are far more out of order but they know how to work the rules.
Any banker that thinks I have joined in this conversation because I am jealous and has the cheek to suggest that I join the merry band in the city is more deluded than I thought. I have met lots of city types the one that sticks in my mind was an investment baker who lived next door. He used to come over on a sat afternoon to chill out with my ex husband a self made business man. They were both happiest pottering around the garden in their wellies total cost £20 a pair plus mud which is free. Jenny Jones

#66 Bassett1

"This country's only chance of surviving as a major trading nation is through banking and financial services. Time for the whingers to shut up and get behind them. (I'm not a banker by the way)."

As wotw has pointed out that what the slave traders were saying,

Now its us that are the slaves to the financial services sector, being blackmailed by let us pay bonus or we go abroad.

we've put all our eggs in one basket with financial services and were paying the price.

We should be diversifying, reducing our dependence on any one sector.

By the way I do work in finance.

65. At 13:46pm on 12th Jan 2011, Rational Viewpoint wrote:
Point taken, but the comment still stands - whether majority in one or 'just' 41% in the other, it doesn't seem to have given the Government any leverage to influence behavior.

Ridiculous! Do you have any idea what power is given ( yes given) to a bank when it is licensed (yes licensed) by the Government (yes Government) to accept deposits and also to create loans/deposits.

Everybody keeps referring to banks as private businesses. Well they are not. The only way they can generate the obscene profits that finance the obscene bonuses is by using this 'power' that ultimately belongs to the people of this country.

Stop apologising for these parasites

Robert please whisper in Mr. Cameron's ear that we the masses are sick and tired of the bankers raiding our savings, ISAS, pension funds etc in order to bolster their bonuses.

Instead of wasting his breath trying to talk sense to the masters of the universe, he can accomplish more by taking LLOYDS, RBS and Norther rock and turning them into old fashioned "peoples" banks. They will be government controlled offering current accounts, savings accounts, credit cards, Isas, paying decent interest rates to savers, offering affordable mortgages, insurance and loans to small businesses.
Employ people to run them on fixed salaries with a small bonus relating to customer satisfaction.

Then tell the downtrotten people of this country to stop bashing the bankers and instead transfer their money into these banks and rest easy in the thought that the government will only guarantee the deposits in these "peoples" banks.

Then sit back and watch the stampede!

As a LLoyds customer, I fail to see what this man has done to deserve/earn any bonus. Before the bank got into bed with "Prudence" Brown, it was good and had no need of tax payer assistance until he and his then chairman took over HBOS without looking into th etoxity of it. NOw service in branches, due to reducing staff (not those that are actually left they do the best with what they are given) where you actually need them, not twits in glass towers dreaming up many impracticalites, and who appear clueless as to peoples actual banking needs. Along with "services" provided to business, especially a small charity like I work for, has got worse and only appears to take in the banks needs and not its customers. Complaints are treated with contempt, and repetative complaints about any "service" shortfall, are answerered often contradicting what the previous respondant, about the same shortfall!

78. At 14:04pm on 12th Jan 2011, RelentlessForce wrote:
And why not? I'm sick of people blaming the bankers. No personal responsibility whatsoever and this is clearly an education issue

I refer you to my answer #85.
Who are you actually blaming in the UK then ? Go on. Name them.

Bankers have to put a hold on their greed to provide, at the very minimum, a stable financial system. If they are unable to manage that, then they are of no use to us.

Too be quite honest I don't much care how the banks have turned this around now although this is a step in the right direction, we still need to think of the mess they have got us into and the sacrifices we are now having to endure when they are not enduring as they are still getting obscene bonuses.

Well, well, well - have MP's just inched above bankers at the bottom of the moralistic barrel?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12174117

I took what I did not deserve and therefore I shall quit.

I wonder what the difference between these Eric's are?

I wonder just what exactly Mr Daniels has to do earn 'just' his basic salary of a miserly £1.035m? Get out of bed in the morning perhaps, or have a good follow through on the fairway?

Normally if people don't perform to targets set within their job, they will likely lose the job. If they excel beyond expected performance, they may be up for a bonus. Do any of these qualify Mr Daniels for a £2m bonus?

225% of flat salary. At what point does a bonus not become a bonus by virtue of it being so grossly over value of a basic salary as to make an onlooker's eyes water? It's as if by not being paid a bonus he's being cheated, or been hard done to! It really is laughable.

To put it into perspective, the 0.035 of his BASIC million pound salary would be a dream job earning for the majority of people in this country. The man doesn't need a bonus, he needs a reality check.

Robert Peston rightly identifies notes the second key issue of the bonuses scandal in his addendum - the position of the conspiracy government in this.

This whole bonuses debacle is shining a spotlight on the impotence of a government trying to deal with business affairs when that same government is so blatantly in the pocket of those businesses.

When our esteemed leader, allegedly the prime minister of a democratic nation, summons the bankers for an emergency meeting, who gives the orders to who?

84. At 14:14pm on 12th Jan 2011, creditunionhero
We should be diversifying, reducing our dependence on any one sector.
==================

Agreed - change the rules, let some go if they want.

It remains to be seen how many would actually leave.

It would be a potentially POSITIVE thing in the long term if we could re-balance our economy to be less dependent on this one sector.

#78 "so just leave us to get on with it."

We did leave you to get on with it, thats why we had, and continue, to bail out the whole banking system. Thats why Lloyds TSB shares are still virtually worthless, just ask their employees who took bonus in the form of shares, and in addition supported their employer with their own money by taking up share options they were offered.When I speak of employees I refer mainly to rank and file staff.

I for one am fed up with this now. No one complains about the ludicrous pay of Wayne Rooney and all the rest, or the second rate pop singers like Bono and Sting, or even the millions that a nonentity like Katie Price has amassed somehow.

I don't like banks but I don't see why their CEOs shouldn't expect to be in a similar bracket to any of those I have mentioned above, and thousands of others.

So what if Mr Daniels returned Lloyds to profitability faster than was expected, and did whatever other good thing he did? THAT'S HIS JOB!! - which he did very badly over HBOS and was not penalised for; and has now made amends for and is collecting handsomely.

So is he being paid £1m plus for just turning up in the morning and a bonus for doing his job, or what? Either way, if people can't manage on £1m a year and need 225% of that figure to survive with a few perks, do we really want them managing our banks?

The same inescapable logic applies to the constantly reiterated threat that if top bankers don't get their bonuses they'll go abroad. If you were a bank abroad, and someone suggested that you employ someone who'd fouled up his previous job so spectacularly, would YOU want to employ him? I sure as hell wouldn't; but then, I'm a housewife-then-single-parent-of-two with a history of balancing budgets, not a top banker.

Is there no 'hugely talented' person out there who already has more money than he/she could possibly spend, who might be willing to do the job for a salary in line with that earned by the rest of the workforce? It seems that greed is the only motivation. Will Robert Peston please ask Mr Daniels what he needs this lottery win for, and what he intends to do with it? As a shareholder in Lloyds TSB I consider this to be nothing more than theft.

#84. creditunionhero wrote:

By the way I do work in finance.

That's a bit like someone who helps out at the Oxfam shop saying they work in retail.

How politicians can call for anyone to refuse money, that is part of an agreed contract is beyond me .Especially as about 10 of there "Brothers" will be going to jail for fraud

LOL....

Only one question - where does this £2 million come from? It has not been conjured out of thin air. Maybe some pension fund somewhere is £2 milion less well of than it would otherwise have been!