Comments on: Weekend reading: Bankers!

By: Conrad

Conrad — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:12:54 +0000

I don’t think there’s anything fundamentally wrong with banks paying their staff whatever they choose. After all surely in a capitalist society it’s up to the employer to set salaries not the government.

What the government could do I suppose if they want to effectively cut bankers salaries is to tax them more.

To make a significant dent in their salaries though it would have to be a lot higher than the new 50% tax bracket for earners over £150k.

By: Mogden

Mogden — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:10:01 +0000

I’d like to see the forces in Afghanistan redeployed to Wall Street, with instructions to hang anyone that moves.

By: National Unemployment Statistics At Record Highs

National Unemployment Statistics At Record Highs — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:01:25 +0000

[...] was my piece. Now if you’re in the mood for a good rant, see how the Monevator goes off on bankers! For more on finance around the net, check out the articles [...]

By: Lemondy

Lemondy — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:39:52 +0000

IMO, the only kind of bonus compensation that employees at the bailed-out UK banks get should be stock options which have a strike price set at or above that which the government bought in at. And they should not vest for several years. Beyond that, it’s an effing insult to be compensating these people above their basic pay.

By: FB @ FabulouslyBroke.com

FB @ FabulouslyBroke.com — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:53:23 +0000

I too agree they shouldn’t be paid that much because WE don’t see the value in what they’re doing to be worth that kind of salary….. but it is what clients are willing to pay for their services.

Many people fall under the trap of: if it’s more expensive, it’s better.

On another note, if we’re going to skewer i-bankers, we should also consider pro athletes getting a ton of bucks a year for playing a game.

Sure it’s hard on their bodies, but so is factory work and any hard physical labour.

By: Graeme

Graeme — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 04:51:29 +0000

I agree that they do not really need to be that well paid.

Then again, I do not think Bill Gates deserves his money (which is, in large part, a reward for being born to a well connected family, and for being ruthless in eliminating competition, although he is a brilliant business man).

In general most of the worlds money goes to people who can either trade or make deals, or who inherited money (ideally, all three) and not just in the financial sector.

By: The Investor

The Investor — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:57:32 +0000

@Graeme – This is a really interesting philosophical conundrum that I’ve failed to find answers to before. I agree with you that clearly some active participation in the market must be required for trackers to track; what is the minimum number? Two agents? Two thousand? Two million? I’d love to see some research on this.

That said, I still don’t see that it follows that they need to earn unbridled sums from their input though. As I say above, I fully agree some of these jobs are tough. Fund management clearly is given most of them fail. Now if you’d said 30 years ago that a fund manager would earn 5 times the average working man, back then it would have seemed like very generous compensation. But the equivalent today – say £150,000 a year – would seem barely get out of bed money in some parts of the city.

Thanks for your comment and glad to see you’re still around!

By: Graeme

Graeme — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:54:01 +0000

I agree, except for your comment about fund management: if everyone put all their money in index trackers, the market would not work.