Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,143,362 members, 7,780,989 topics. Date: Friday, 29 March 2024 at 07:00 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Business / Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? (11169 Views)
Today's Naira Rate Against Dollar, Pound And Euro / Naira Exchange Rate Against Dollar, Pound And Euro / Ex-bankers Jailed 91 Years Over N114.6m Fraud (Photo) (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by Sagamite(m): 10:17pm On Dec 15, 2009 |
" |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by Sagamite(m): 10:27pm On Dec 15, 2009 |
" |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by Sagamite(m): 10:29pm On Dec 15, 2009 |
No2Atheism: No problem, mate. No2Atheism: Insurance? This na advance warning to all of una. If I hit your car, na kpeme be that o, na "you don hit my car, oyinbo repete" as my insurance company no go pay one dime. The kin lies wey put for that application to bring the price down, una go dey shake. No be me dem go rob when I have not been in accident and I no be crazy driver but yet they would want to charge me highly based on my age, sex and car type. Awon Barawo!!! |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by 4Play(m): 11:43pm On Dec 15, 2009 |
all these things are subjective and they all appeal to some social sentiments that will not thrive under no economic setting except under a regime in China or Korea. I don't see how an obvious observation that an activity could be simultaneously under-regulated and socially useless be deemed an anathema to a capitalist society. I dont know what you mean by what is socialy responsible in the issuance of a CDO but i know a CDO will not exist if there are no underlying asset that is backing it up.Sure, the value of a CDO is derived from the loans that compose it, however, that is besides the point. If I run a gambling firm that allows betting on football games, the fact that each bet is based on something, a football game, doesn't make such gambling socially useful. CDOs and other instruments are tools banks have been using for close to a decade now and why is the noise about the crash getting a lot deeper than it should.It could be the small matter of the catastrophic costs of unregulated speculation using these derivatives - £850bn in Britain's case Are the bankers the only people that witnessed downturns in their activities recently? That's like comparing a major earthquake to a mere thunderstorm. The downturns in these other sectors pale in significance, there's simply no comparison. In fact, in regard to oil, the run up in oil prices in 2007 is partly a result of leveraged speculation in the futures market. Again, blame bankers. Oh i agree, the bankers got bailed out ! Cool, you have to just bail them out or switch totally to a socialist state where the govt becomes the solitary allocator of the damned resources. What we have now is major state intervention in private companies because of bankers' misdeeds, how does that further your argument. If you still trust us to make you rich, if you still wanna ride a car you cant afford, live in a house you cannt pay for, or plan for tomorrow with you lean and meagre resources, then bailing us out can only make sense like the coming again of Jesus! Wetin this one dey talk? We are talking of highly sophisticated financial products in developed countries which do not aid economic growth and a Nigerian banker is talking. I don't know whether they even use Direct Debits in that blighted country. The overall question is to what purpose all these kinds of trading foster economic growth. It's mere gambling, except that unlike people gambling on say football, the consequences of such gambling on derivatives going awry is catastrophic for society at large. In effect, the profits are privatised by the bankers and the losses borne by society. The notional value of the derivatives market at the end of '07 was nearly $600 trillion. This has to be curbed as negative externality as it has little meaningful social value. |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by 4Play(m): 11:56pm On Dec 15, 2009 |
. |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by 4Play(m): 11:58pm On Dec 15, 2009 |
. |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by tkb417(m): 8:38am On Dec 16, 2009 |
hahahahaha 4play shey na me u dey call ordinary Nigerian banker my deals are outside Nigeria usually cos i work with one of the top IBs in the world so dont even think am u dey crase Saga i didnt listen to the prog cos i was in a conference ill check it frm their site |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by 4Play(m): 8:04pm On Dec 16, 2009 |
Chei, triple posting. This spambot is useless. |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by 4Play(m): 1:00am On Jan 10, 2010 |
With banks' earning season kicking off next Friday, it's bonus time! The banking conglomerate, which will on Friday be the first Wall Street bank to report its fourth-quarter results, is on track to offer the record pay-out thanks to a resurgence in investment banking.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/6958528/Record-bonus-pot-at-JP-Morgan.html Imagine if this money was ploughed back into dividends for the long suffering shareholders or used in beefing up capital positions which is necessary in the light of the latest Basel proposals |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by debosky(m): 1:05am On Jan 10, 2010 |
4 Play: The banks will argue that they will lose 'top talent' to other banks if they fail to pay bonuses. You can't simply re-write rules in a single year. The banks are making bumper profits and since their staff have been promised bonuses, they should be paid. Either the banks reform their reward policies (or are forced to) or this will inevitably contiune. |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by 4Play(m): 1:06am On Jan 10, 2010 |
Read and weep: The world's biggest investment banks are expected to pay out more than $65bn (£40bn) in salaries and bonuses in the next two weeks, reinforcing the view that it is business as usual on Wall Street and in the City barely a year since the taxpayer bailout of the banking system. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/08/bonus-time-city-banks |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by 4Play(m): 1:16am On Jan 10, 2010 |
debosky: Their definition of top talent seems to take in a lot of chaff. Let's bear in mind that the most egregious bonuses go to the traders. These traders make a lot of money because they take a lot of risk. There is a pertinent question as to whether banks, who are guaranteed by the Govt, should be engaged in such risky trading. If the implication of stricter regulation of the bank's compensation regime is that they lose their best traders to hedge funds and the rest of the 'shadow banking' system, so be it. At least, these hedge funds do not have to depend on Govt bailout. The banking sector should go back to what it does best; taking deposits and providing loans to entrepreneurs. Leave the bonus culture and the attendant risk taking to the shadow banking system. |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by debosky(m): 1:24am On Jan 10, 2010 |
4 Play: These hedge funds will be part owned by banks or some other arrangement, so it'll simply be moving the problem to a different location waiting to happen. Trading, while risky is still an integral part of how markets work. I don't buy the idea that simply because the banks are currently guaranteed by the Govt that they should be prevented from doing what they do. In any case, the govt expects to make a profit from their investments in the banks - how on earth do they think that will happen if they prevent the banks from participating in these risky (but highly profitable) activities? Counter productive if you ask me.
Banking is a lot more than that - you can't possibly draw those distinctions at the moment, so till the regulations are changed to enforce the demarcations you speak of, bonuses will continue. |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by 4Play(m): 1:34am On Jan 10, 2010 |
debosky: Each hedgie is unique but most are not owned by banks. The idea is not to eradicate the problem but to move it somewhere else, the shadow banking system, where its negative effects are contained. It's one thing if MAN Group implodes, it's quite another where RBS implodes. In the latter, the taxpayer foots the bill. Trading is not an integral of a banking system. The question is not whether to engage in risky trading but whether banks should engage in risky trading. In any case, the govt expects to make a profit from their investments in the banks - how on earth do they think that will happen if they prevent the banks from participating in these risky (but highly profitable) activities? Counter productive if you ask me. The gross losses of the implosion of banking system in '08 far exceeds the expected profits the Govt will make from their stakes in the various banks. Banking is a lot more than that - you can't possibly draw those distinctions at the moment, so till the regulations are changed to enforce the demarcations you speak of, bonuses will continue. Banking has always been essentially as I described it. This stampede into casino banking is a relatively new thing. The world was doing quite well with traditional banking. |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by No2Atheism(m): 3:22am On Jan 10, 2010 |
4 Play: Exactly it is Casino banking . . . hence why they are able to pay Investment Bankers outrageous salaries and bonuses simply for shifting other people's money around and gambling with it . . . while the public is made to take the loss when it happens. Thats why personally, I don't envy investment bankers cus in reality its like selling your soul cus u know u are playing with the live savings of many . . . My suspicion is that the reason no one seems to be capable of explaining the so called "Complex Products" is because its an open secret that it is gambling . . .hence no one wants to rock the boat . . . |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by 4Play(m): 11:11pm On Jan 21, 2010 |
Obama has today proposed restrictions on banks engaging in prop trading, owning hedge funds and private equity firms. About time the riskier aspects of modern banking is hived off so that banks can concentrate on what they do best. Shame he announced on a day I was holding Barclays shares. |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by Sagamite(m): 2:37am On Feb 27, 2010 |
Just reading this article in the Financial times, they gave exactly my point on the dichotomy of values that exist between Banking/High Finance and Medicine/Law. It seems MBA professors have also spotted this and are working on it. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2978dc3c-f880-11de-beb8-00144feab49a.html [size=18pt]Risk and returns of the MBA diploma[/size] Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach. But in business and finance it turned out that many of those who did, couldn’t. That has left their teachers – the world’s business schools, especially the most prestigious ones – under fire. Business schools count many protagonists of the crisis among their alumni, and untold numbers of financial sector foot soldiers sport MBA diplomas. But however righteous the public’s ire over the financial meltdown, is it not a little unfair to direct it at the schools that taught the financiers? The crisis was a systemic event – the aggregate result of individual choices, not single acts of wrongdoing. Bernard Madoff’s fraud and Raj Rajaratnam’s alleged insider trading did not cause the financial collapse. If it is too simple to blame the crisis on individuals, it seems a stretch to tarnish their schools with guilt by association. (Besides, Mr Madoff never went to business school.) Still, the spotlight on management schools reveals a dilemma. Do they, like schools of law or medicine, pass on a body of knowledge and know-how defining a profession? Or do they, in a world of rampant degree inflation, merely offer the latest must-have qualification, valued only for proving its holders smart enough to get in but not for anything gained (except contacts) by the time they get out? The former would be preferable – including for the schools themselves, which would much rather admit that they have done their job badly than suggest that they have no influence on how business and finance are practised. So as the Financial Times reports on Monday, business schools have started to do some soul-searching, asking what responsibility they have for what happened and how to reform their curricula. About time too. In two important ways business schools have exacerbated what is wrong in business and finance. They can do better if they want to be shapers of the commercial world, not just expensive talent screening devices. First, business schools – the academic homes to many pre-eminent finance theorists – were crucial in spreading the type of financial analysis that made derivatives and securitised products look too safe to rating agencies, investors, regulators, and the products’ creators. The good news is that finance professors are well placed to improve on existing models, and many schools are already busy introducing or updating courses on finance. But this can only be part of the effort. Modelling risk better does not by itself alter the incentive to take on too much of it. Business schools must use their financial expertise to actively help investors and regulators, not just financial companies – at least if they aspire to a public role. Second, however, business schools have failed to articulate what such a role should be for managers. Failing to make business students absorb a “shareholder value” mindset is not the real problem. It is that many managers care rather less about investors than about themselves. Business schools have not (to put it mildly) damped managers’ inflated sense of entitlement. Many schools are now boosting ethics courses. A dose of moral philosophy could do some good – but lip service is both more likely and worse than no course at all: students quickly see through fig leaves. Students’ own initiatives, such as the “MBA oath” (based on the Hippocratic oath), are more promising. They deserve support. Yet copying the trappings of professions like law or medicine will do little. The managerial class, if it exists as such, does not have an internalised set of common values of which business schools can be the custodians. But the schools should help managers to value ethical conduct. A good start would be a greater willingness to criticise their students’ conduct – even after they graduate. |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by Sagamite(m): 10:25pm On Mar 17, 2010 |
OK, guys, I am beginning to think I am a genius with the insightfulness of my opinions. [size=4pt]Actually, I know I am. But I am just being humble, you know, so you guys don't think for a second that I am arrogant when I am obviously not. *Straight face* [/size] I find a few more brilliant men making points similar to my points: Former US Federal Reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, says financial innovations are worthless. (scam) FSA chairman Lord Turner's comments that banks are "socially useless". (lack of social responsibility) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/6764177/Ex-Fed-chief-Paul-Volckers-telling-words-on-derivatives-industry.html [size=18pt]Ex-Fed chief Paul Volcker's 'telling' words on derivatives industry[/size] Paul Volcker, the chairman of President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, stunned a business conference in Sussex yesterday, saying there is "little evidence innovation in financial markets has had a visible effect on the productivities of the economy". The former US Federal Reserve chairman told an audience that included some of the world's most senior financiers that their industry's "single most important" contribution in the last 25 years has been automatic telling machines, which he said had at least proved "useful". Echoing FSA chairman Lord Turner's comments that banks are "socially useless", Mr Volcker told delegates who had been discussing how to rebuild the financial system to "wake up". He said credit default swaps and collateralised debt obligations had taken the economy "right to the brink of disaster" and added that the economy had grown at "greater rates of speed" during the 1960s without such products. When one stunned audience member suggested that Mr Volcker did not really mean bond markets and securitisations had contributed "nothing at all", he replied: "You can innovate as much as you like, but do it within a structure that doesn't put the whole economy at risk." He said he agreed with George Soros, the billionaire investor, who said investment banks must stick to serving clients and "proprietary trading should be pushed out of investment banks and to hedge funds where they belong". Mr Volcker argued that banks did have a vital role to play as holders of deposits and providers of credit. This importance meant it was correct that they should be "regulated on one side and protected on the other". He said riskier financial activities should be limited to hedge funds to whom society could say: "If you fail, fail. I'm not going to help you. Your stock is gone, creditors are at risk, but no one else is affected." |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by Sagamite(m): 4:10am On Apr 28, 2010 |
Another of my earlier assessment being vindicated: Sagamite: By this story of a Hedge funder earning $1Bn (earned ko, yahoo yahoo ni) http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/john_paulson/index.html More than perhaps any other investor, John Paulson has been lauded for his foresight in predicting a quick and painful end to the mortgage boom. His prescience made him billions and transformed him from a relative nobody into something of a celebrity on Wall Street and in Washington. Plainly put: FRAUD!!! |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by Sagamite(m): 8:53pm On Feb 26, 2011 |
[size=18pt]Investment banks: how much pay is too much? [/size] http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2010-12-06/how-much-pay-is-too-much I said it all here: Risk https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-364347.0.html#msg5085119 Earnings https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-364347.0.html#msg5085634 |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by candylips(m): 12:08am On Mar 25, 2011 |
The guys earning these bonus are typicaly in managment and traders with P&L. Very greedy people. Imagine some of these banks layed off a lot of people last year yet one executive decides to pocket 2.5 million pounds for himself |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by jdvh2002: 2:44pm On May 16, 2011 |
Hello friends , I'm 26 peruvian student who is currently living in Italy, I was reading many post about Oil& Gas sector, and I wonder I can ask you for advices , I've received an offer from Imperial College for Msc in Petroleum Engineering , but I'm working in Italy as a process engineer in Basf , I don't know if is better to go to London , I love oil&gas sector , but I don't know if then is easy to get a job as a reservoir engineering in the uk and it is worth (The fees are £23. 500), I've received a partial scolarship , However I'm afraid that I will spend there as minimun £ 15 000 , thanks for your response, friends. Jhonatan |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by Sagamite(m): 7:51am On Mar 15, 2012 |
The problems with ethics in Finance I alluded to earlier is exposed in Goldman Sachs. [size=18pt]Our toxic bank: It's morally bankrupt and calls clients 'muppets' says disgusted British-based Goldman Sachs executive as he walks out[/size] Today is my last day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm — first as a summer intern while at Stanford, then in New York for 10 years, and now in London — I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it. To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. Goldman Sachs is one of the world’s largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for. It might sound surprising to a skeptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs’s success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients. The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients’ trust for 143 years. It wasn’t just about making money; this alone will not sustain a firm for so long. It had something to do with pride and belief in the organization. I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief. But this was not always the case. For more than a decade I recruited and mentored candidates through our grueling interview process. I was selected as one of 10 people (out of a firm of more than 30,000) to appear on our recruiting video, which is played on every college campus we visit around the world. In 2006 I managed the summer intern program in sales and trading in New York for the 80 college students who made the cut, out of the thousands who applied. I knew it was time to leave when I realized I could no longer look students in the eye and tell them what a great place this was to work. When the history books are written about Goldman Sachs, they may reflect that the current chief executive officer, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and the president, Gary D. Cohn, lost hold of the firm’s culture on their watch. I truly believe that this decline in the firm’s moral fiber represents the single most serious threat to its long-run survival. Over the course of my career I have had the privilege of advising two of the largest hedge funds on the planet, five of the largest asset managers in the United States, and three of the most prominent sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East and Asia. My clients have a total asset base of more than a trillion dollars. I have always taken a lot of pride in advising my clients to do what I believe is right for them, even if it means less money for the firm. This view is becoming increasingly unpopular at Goldman Sachs. Another sign that it was time to leave. How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence. What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm’s “axes,” which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym. Today, many of these leaders display a Goldman Sachs culture quotient of exactly zero percent. I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them. If you were an alien from Mars and sat in on one of these meetings, you would believe that a client’s success or progress was not part of the thought process at all. It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as “muppets,” sometimes over internal e-mail. Even after the S.E.C., Fabulous Fab, Abacus, God’s work, Carl Levin, Vampire Squids? No humility? I mean, come on. Integrity? It is eroding. I don’t know of any illegal behavior, but will people push the envelope and pitch lucrative and complicated products to clients even if they are not the simplest investments or the ones most directly aligned with the client’s goals? Absolutely. Every day, in fact. It astounds me how little senior management gets a basic truth: If clients don’t trust you they will eventually stop doing business with you. It doesn’t matter how smart you are. These days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about derivatives is, “How much money did we make off the client?” It bothers me every time I hear it, because it is a clear reflection of what they are observing from their leaders about the way they should behave. Now project 10 years into the future: You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the junior analyst sitting quietly in the corner of the room hearing about “muppets,” “ripping eyeballs out” and “getting paid” doesn’t exactly turn into a model citizen. When I was a first-year analyst I didn’t know where the bathroom was, or how to tie my shoelaces. I was taught to be concerned with learning the ropes, finding out what a derivative was, understanding finance, getting to know our clients and what motivated them, learning how they defined success and what we could do to help them get there. My proudest moments in life — getting a full scholarship to go from South Africa to Stanford University, being selected as a Rhodes Scholar national finalist, winning a bronze medal for table tennis at the Maccabiah Games in Israel, known as the Jewish Olympics — have all come through hard work, with no shortcuts. Goldman Sachs today has become too much about shortcuts and not enough about achievement. It just doesn’t feel right to me anymore. I hope this can be a wake-up call to the board of directors. Make the client the focal point of your business again. Without clients you will not make money. In fact, you will not exist. Weed out the morally bankrupt people, no matter how much money they make for the firm. And get the culture right again, so people want to work here for the right reasons. People who care only about making money will not sustain this firm — or the trust of its clients — for very much longer. Source: The New York Times |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by Blessedd(m): 6:23pm On May 26, 2012 |
No, not at all. They shouldn't be rewarded for their greed. |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by Sagamite(m): 7:37pm On Jun 29, 2012 |
I am watching the news in the UK this very second and the Economics Nobel laureate, Joseph Stiglitz, is saying exactly what I have been saying for years: The banks are not being run in the interest of social values. They are not even run in the interest of Shareholders. They are being run in the interst of the Bank Managers. Exactly what I have been saying. Society will never allow Doctors or Lawyers to operate like that. Bankers are not given or guided by any social or moral responsibilities. |
Re: Do Bankers Really Deserve Their Multi-million Pound Pays? by eddybanty(m): 10:46pm On Jun 24, 2015 |
No. They don't. |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply)
Loya Milk Promo Scam / Oil Price Rise To $46 Per Barrel- PunchNg / Great Business Opportunities: Abuja Technology Village
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 116 |