cgksheff Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 http://www.google.co.uk/finance?client=ob&q=LON:RBS On the 1-day or even 5-day scale, you could think it's a fall, but open up to a 1-month view and things take a different perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I'm not sure I understand your logic here..the shares lose £900 million (and I suppose a chunk of dividend) after the political interference in Hester's bonus but you reckon having £1 million more on the bottom line is better? I'm not saying you're right or wrong just wondering how that works.. First, share prices can go up as well as down. As NorthernStar said RBS shares have been very volatile. Ergo, I'm not convinced that this move is wholly due to the discussion on bonusses, especially given the ongoing problems in the eurozone. The somewhat mediocre outcome from euro the summit, which as it happens, was also yesterday, I would think contributed. Second, aren't dividends paid on share numbers as opposed to share value? As in the tax payer owns 80% of RBS we get 80% of the dividend so smaller bonus pool, increased dividend pool, irresepective of company share price value. Third we're in this mess now and if a transitory blip in company value is the price to pay for the message that sends out then so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 If the market react to the government exerting pressure to regulate and control banks, pretty much what most of us want that is what goes with the territory. The high stock prices of banks are a reflection of their largely unregulated money generating capabilities. As those capabilities are gradually removed bank stock prices will discover a price that reflects their true value in a sustainable and more balanced economy. So expect much more of this whining and bleating from bankers and hangers on over the next decade as their ability to wreak havoc is taken away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T 42 Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 I'm not sure I understand your logic here..the shares lose £900 million (and I suppose a chunk of dividend) after the political interference in Hester's bonus but you reckon having £1 million more on the bottom line is better? I'm not saying you're right or wrong just wondering how that works.. I suppose the logical conclusion will come when the investment staff at RBS are due to pick up their own bonuses in line with their contracts. If there is political interference the country may well save £50 million. However if the staff leave en mass and move to one of the overseas investment banks RBSs share price will probably shed £10 billion. I suppose it boils down to whether you think the Wall Street Journal has it all wrong and taking a bet at 200/1 is worth while for your pension fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodStar Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 You should spend some time looking up the formative/academic background of most the "new generation" of investment bankers Asian banks and trading houses are still recruiting by the bucketload at the moment, btw. I know they like their physics / maths / computer nerds to devise and understand ever more complicated trading models but many of the big bonuses go to what are effectively salesman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 We have lost over £45billion with RBS so far......and there's not a hope we will get anything back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernStar Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I suppose the logical conclusion will come when the investment staff at RBS are due to pick up their own bonuses in line with their contracts. If there is political interference the country may well save £50 million. However if the staff leave en mass and move to one of the overseas investment banks RBSs share price will probably shed £10 billion. I suppose it boils down to whether you think the Wall Street Journal has it all wrong and taking a bet at 200/1 is worth while for your pension fund. I'm not convinced that these people are so special, nor do I believe that most of them are eager to be so mobile, I think the frightening nature of this argument for excessive pay is wearing little thin. Personally I'd like to see that gamble take place and I'd put money on it that the truth is very different to the popular argument peddled by these overpaid prima donnas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I suppose the logical conclusion will come when the investment staff at RBS are due to pick up their own bonuses in line with their contracts. If there is political interference the country may well save £50 million. However if the staff leave en mass and move to one of the overseas investment banks RBSs share price will probably shed £10 billion. I suppose it boils down to whether you think the Wall Street Journal has it all wrong and taking a bet at 200/1 is worth while for your pension fund. I'm not sure about the 'in line with their contracts bit' I was listening to something on the radio yesterday, some judge said there was a legal precedent that bonusses are by definition discressionary so there can be little redress. Of course one of Hesters plans is actually to get rid of the investment arm of the bank becuase it makes no money, so them taking jobs at overseas firms might well save the redundancy payments. I'm not totally convinced that the majority of the 'talent' would move abroad anyway. Perhaps we might lose a few high net worth individuals, but the talent pool remaining would be more than enough to fill the gap. The notion that there are only a handful of people capable of running a FTSE100 company is crazy. It's an old boys network. Former RBS chairman Sir Tom McKillop was a chemist, who was formerly CEO of a pharma company, so no talent in banking at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T 42 Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 I'm not convinced that these people are so special, nor do I believe that most of them are eager to be so mobile, I think the frightening nature of this argument for excessive pay is wearing little thin. Personally I'd like to see that gamble take place and I'd put money on it that the truth is very different to the popular argument peddled by these overpaid prima donnas. https://atsv7.wcn.co.uk/search_engine/jobs.cgi?b3duZXI9NTA1NTAyNyZvd25lcnR5cGU9ZmFpciZwb3N0aW5nX2NvZGU9NDkwJnVzZXJjb2RlPTAmJnVybF9rZXk9MGIwYTBiMGExNzBiMDgwMzAzMDIwZTBjMGEwZjAyMTc1ZTAyMGQwYTVjMGUwZTU5MDIwYzAyNTkwMzU4MDk1YzBlMDg1YjViNWMwMzAzMDM1ZjBmMGM1OTA5MGQ1ODU5MGEwODBmMDIwYTViNWM1ZjNh=&owner=5055027&ownertype=fair&posting_code=490&usercode=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I'm not convinced that these people are so special, nor do I believe that most of them are eager to be so mobile, I think the frightening nature of this argument for excessive pay is wearing little thin. Personally I'd like to see that gamble take place and I'd put money on it that the truth is very different to the popular argument peddled by these overpaid prima donnas. I agree. A lot of people in banking are pretty average. Four things are needed: 1. Get into an area of banking where high volume/value trades take place 2. Get into a team with a strong leader 3. Do what they tell 4. Be prepared to keep shut about everything you did You will be rewarded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.