D
Deleted member 65149
Guest
The idea of clawing back bonusses on failure would appear to be a logical approach - so will never be adopted! As I see it, the "bonus criteria" are what are at fault. They've clearly been set with insufficient thought for how they could be abused to the detriment of the banks. You don't have to be an economist to realise that any aim for big short-term gains will lead to long-term failure. Yet highly paid "experts" have come up with blinkered bonus criteria, and are no doubt being paid even more now to come up with alternatives that will inevitably be just as poorly structured for long-term effectiveness. But for some reason we continue to believe that we have to pay small fortunes for the best people. When will we learn?I've never quite got the bonus system why don't they go for the "full fat version". It's all supposed to be "performance related" the bank does well people get paid a bonus--- fine--- but why stop there surely a better incentive scheme would be to extend this to it's logical conclusion. Bank does well by a fixed set of criteria - bonus of a million paid fine. Bank does badly by same set of criteria - million pounds deducted from salary = simples------- or perhaps also offer the option of getting paid a fixed salary for just turning up every day and doing your job LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE!!!!!!!!!!! might then have more appeal.
Yes I know {cue harp music} all these talented people will promptly up stakes and migrate to other countries where their talents will be more appreciated. Well here's a news flash----- these countries' banks are already jam packed with talentless greedy barstewards do you think they will willingly make way for another bunch of talentless greedy barstewards from abroad taking their jobs I don't think so.