Thursday, 3 December 2009

Business, bonuses and bloody banks

Day 11, I think, of the daily post.

A slight digression as I am back in the working world. Or maybe not (digression, that is) as the case may be, guess it depends on where you are coming from.

Anyway, just a brief post as the debate comes to the fore, once again, about bankers' bonuses and whether we should/should not be paying them in light of the state the people the taxpayers owning 70% of one much loathed institution and parts of others.
Opinion as ever is divided on who should get what or if anyone should get anything.

I can offer only two pieces of insight on this as a former IB*:

1. the notion that if "the directors ... were prevented by the chancellor from fulfilling their duty (their fiduciary duty) by providing the rewards commensurate with preserving the wealth of the shareholders, they would have to quit" is a joke. If they are that fickle, then I dare them to (they won't)

2. those who work in the industry do it out of choice. As a very good friend of mine said recently, "You work in the City for the remuneration, not the glory".

There. Have said my bit.

*Investment Banker, just in case you were thinking of something else


  1. Yes, and what about the argument that goes "we need to pay top whack to get the best people". I say "try offering less, and seeing if the second best people are any good - I guess they might just be."

  2. I'm writing something about this at mine.. as another IB I wish I could say that I just did it for the money but with no bonuses I work to cover my childcare and tights costs and because it saves my sanity ... well sometimes


Life is too important to be taken seriously (Oscar Wilde).
Leave me a comment. I may consider the alternative (LCM).

Yadda yadda yadda...