Compared to a year ago, the new plans sound reasonable. The general framework which is based on long term success makes perfect sense. The problem today is that being reasonable wasn't good enough at the end of the year for the banksters. Despite record losses last year they still paid out billions and justified their bloated pay plans. Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic - always afraid of their own shadows - went along with it. Sure, they complained but besides that they did very little. You'd almost not even know that in many cases the government is a majority shareholder or at a minimum at substantial minority. Ownership gives you power, in theory. If not, time to change the rules to reflect this position.
None of this gives an impression of a government interested in challenging the authority of the banks. The Guardian:
The latest controversy follows the award of shares worth £5m to four RBS bankers last week. The largest award was to Ellen Alemany, who runs the bank's US business and was given almost 6m shares, worth £2.4m based on Friday's closing price of 41p. Three other bankers had awards of about 1.8m shares each, worth about £750,000 at current share prices.Yes, think again. Nothing suggests much of a change in the attitudes of the bankers and they won't until they are forced to change. There remains plenty of people who are willing and eager to step in and step up so let the bankers complain and leave. That's the way the system works. Regardless of the cries of disaster from the banksters, we'll be just fine.
The shares were awarded during an ongoing review of the pay structure for Hester, parachuted in as chief executive when Sir Fred Goodwin was ousted last year. Goodwin's pension of £700,000 a year continues to cause controversy.
City institutions being consulted about the scheme for Hester, who earns £1.2m a year, are determined that strict performance criteria are attached. One investor said: "People are not entirely happy [about the deal for Hester] and have asked them to refine it. Its performance criteria are not sufficiently stretching. They have been told to think again."
