# New MD's salary in AIB



## Mars39 (17 Nov 2009)

am so angry about this. Government cap of €500k for the role of CEO - So AIB changed the title to MD and gave higher salary and government approved it. People should let the bank know how they feel by closing their account with the bank where possible.


----------



## ontour (17 Nov 2009)

Mars39 said:


> So AIB changed the title to MD and gave higher salary and government approved it.



Have the government approved it?  Oh the joys of people's reaction to 'media soundbite politics' makes me angry !


----------



## Sunny (17 Nov 2009)

It is a joke how they got around it but the Government insisting that they hire an outsider while imposing a €500k salary cap was also a joke.


----------



## WaterSprite (17 Nov 2009)

I'm not condoning it, but he's already on a higher salary with AIB - it's just that his salary is not being cut as a result of the "promotion".  Also the government has not approved it yet (see [broken link removed] article).  That said, they probably will approve it.  

It does appear to be difficult to hire someone qualified for that position with the salary cap in place. I wonder which people would prefer: someone unqualified who would take the €500k a year or someone who would do a good job but would have to be paid more?


----------



## TLC (17 Nov 2009)

If there was a real "cap" on all of the banking sector these people would either have to accept it or take a walk - I don't believe they are the only people capable of running the bank.  It might be a great opportunity to get some "new blood" in the system, at the moment it's the same old crowd & we'll have the same old problems.


----------



## WaterSprite (17 Nov 2009)

I honestly don't believe you'd be able to get competent "new blood" in for a salary of €500k a year.


----------



## TLC (17 Nov 2009)

But how "competent" have the old crowd been - that's half the trouble - same old faces same old problems & practices.


----------



## Ceist Beag (17 Nov 2009)

WaterSprite said:


> I honestly don't believe you'd be able to get competent "new blood" in for a salary of €500k a year.



Never quite got that argument meself - if the leader of the US can manage on less then surely half a million a year should suffice for running a bank in a small country like ours no? Of course those in the industry would like us to believe otherwise!


----------



## Kine (17 Nov 2009)

TLC said:


> The banks are still paying bonuses & making complete fools out of us all.


 
Who's still getting bonuses?


----------



## WaterSprite (17 Nov 2009)

I think that market forces would shake out good candidates if the salary was at the right level.  The fact that we haven't been inundated with good outside candidates leads me to believe that the salary level is a problem.  You can't compare it to the US president I don't think.  There's a tad more honour and glory attached to that position than Chief Exec of a battered bank in a banana republic....


----------



## pjmn (17 Nov 2009)

ontour said:


> have the government approved it?  Oh the joys of people's reaction to 'media soundbite politics' makes me angry !



+1


----------



## putsch (17 Nov 2009)

I can't believe that he is even being considered for the job - he's been on the AIB Board all the way through the creation of this mess. The 500K is more than enough. The problem seems to be that he is currently paid too much and not that the CEO salary is too small.

Some comparisions:
Barclays CEO earns $1.8m - 134,000 employees
BNP Paribas earns $1.5m - 172,000 employees
Credit Agricole $1.2m     - 164,000 employees
AIB                  ????         - 23,000 employees

Come on lads - ye must be using the same rigorous negotiating skills that got us into this mess to settle his salary!


----------



## DerKaiser (17 Nov 2009)

WaterSprite said:


> I honestly don't believe you'd be able to get competent "new blood" in for a salary of €500k a year.



That's just ridiculous.  You need some perspective here, €500k is enough for the head of a company with a market capitalisation €1.5bn.

AIB want an internal man for the job and they want to break the salary cap.

Paying top money does not make competent men out of monkeys.

You only have to look at the base salary (just over €500k) of the most successful CEO this country has ever seen, Michael O' Leary.  Ryanair is 3 times the market capitalisation of AIB

Also, would you say Brian Cowen was a better minister for finance than Ray MacSharry?  

A decade of systematically increasing the pay of politicians, the boards of the banks, RTE broadcasters and top civil servants has done nothing to improve their competency.  

I'd venture that if we'd shown a bit of wage constraint over the last 10 years we would still have ended up with the same faces in all these positions.  Are we petrified at the remote possibility that they would all be poached by some other country???

As an aside, I'd structure the salary as €250k in cash and €250k in bank shares that would have to be held until at least 5 years after the CEO ultimately left the employment of the company.


----------



## WaterSprite (17 Nov 2009)

DerKaiser said:


> That's just ridiculous.  You need some perspective here, €500k is enough for the head of a company with a market capitalisation €1.5bn.



I have perspective, thanks.



DerKaiser said:


> AIB want an internal man for the job and they want to break the salary cap.
> 
> Paying top money does not make competent men out of monkeys.



That's my point - I'd sooner pay more for an outsider who is competent.  The worst case is to pay more for an insider.  My only two points are (i) if they go with this insider, his current salary is over the €500k mark right now and (ii) if we want an outsider, evidence strongly suggests that the salary needs to be higher.



DerKaiser said:


> You only have to look at the base salary (just over €500k) of the most successful CEO this country has ever seen, Michael O' Leary.  Ryanair is 3 times the market capitalisation of AIB



And the rest - he's worth a fortune, and rightly so.  His total comp (including shares) is massive.



DerKaiser said:


> As an aside, I'd structure the salary as €250k in cash and €250k in bank shares that would have to be held until at least 5 years after the CEO ultimately left the employment of the company.



Yeah, we'd all love to do that, but that doesn't seem to be attracting outside candidates, does it?  That's the whole point.  Why do *you* think that there have been no suitable outside candidates applying for the position?


----------



## DerKaiser (17 Nov 2009)

WaterSprite said:


> Why do *you* think that there have been no suitable outside candidates applying for the position?



I, like everyone else here, have no idea of how the selection process has been conducted.  

I suspect that AIB have made no real effort to attract external candidates.

People at that level are headhunted, advertising the job is not enough.  I'm just not convinced that AIB have retained the services of a recruitment consultant with appropriate experience to approach potential candidates in a targetted manner.  

Maybe I'm wrong, but from the outside they seem to be championing their own internal candidate.

PS: What do the asterisks around the word 'you' mean?


----------



## ontour (18 Nov 2009)

Is part of the problem that paying a new CEO would mean that they were earning less than the people who report to them.  Earn 500k as CEO or 600-700k as the head of a department, I know which job I would want.

The issue is much broader than the salary of one role, our banks overpay hundreds if not thousands of their staff and are overstaffed in many areas.  There are, of course, exceptions.

The mentality that, in Ireland, we must pay the highest salaries in the world or else everyone will all leave is madness.  Salary is only one part of peoples choice of where to work and is probably less important than family / work-life balance, friends etc.


----------



## WaterSprite (18 Nov 2009)

DerKaiser said:


> I, like everyone else here, have no idea of how the selection process has been conducted.
> 
> I suspect that AIB have made no real effort to attract external candidates.
> 
> ...



I think that government involvement (in parallel) in the recruitment process might be helpful.  I think what is happening now is that AIB does indeed want an internal candidate; it may be that they are less well disposed to external candidates merely because they are external.  This is not acceptable (and is, in fact, quite worrying) and, if this is the reason that more external candidates (if they are qualified) have not been put forward to the govnt, then we have a serious problem.

It is certainly in the recruitment consultant's interests to put forward high quality candidates (to get their referral fee, which would be substantial).  I don't know what govnt involvement (if any) there was in either picking the recruitment consultant (assuming there even is one) or monitoring the CVs that come in and the quality of the recruitment services provided.  I don't know if the recruitment contract has been awarded on an exclusive basis (it shouldn't have been).  I don't know if the govnt only gets involved once AIB has screened candidates, which means that AIB may have already discounted otherwise qualified candidates.  All that said, AIB is the right body to hire for this position - much as we'd all like to put Michael O'Leary in there, there can be a point at which a candidate that is so objectionable to the existing staff that it becomes counterproductive (if all AIB staff at a certain level decided to up sticks and leave, we'd be in a pickle).  The structure of someone having a final veto over a candidate selected by a company is unusual and is bound to lead to problems.

I agree that there's a lot that isn't public about this entire recruitment process, which is a bad thing.  We can't all be told all about the potential candidates _a la _the Ireland soccer manager, but it would be good to get at least a summary of the number of applicants, the general level of qualifications and confirmation from a source outside of AIB if/that the salary level was a blocker for otherwise qualified candidates.  Recruitment processes are normally quite private but, in this instance, the post is such an important one, I think there needs to be more transparency.

I still think that this job is a hard sell to someone - it's like taking on the HSE, a thankless task that will be scrutinised by every informed citizen in Ireland.  Coupled with a ceiling on the remuneration that can ever be offered for the job, I think it's a hospital pass.  I'd dearly love someone external who was qualified and perfect for the position to pipe up and say "I'd do it for €250k a year but they didn't even interview me" - then we'd see exactly how the land lies.  There's an interesting point of reference in Forbes relating to executive pay - of the Fortune500 companies, 10 (of 500) CEOs earn less than $600k a year.   I am not saying that we shouldn't be able to find someone to do this job notwithstanding the cap, I just think that the cap is restricting us from finding the right, qualified candidate.  I work in software and know of CEOs who are running marginally profitable businesses (sometimes not even profitable) with a turnover of $20-50M earning €200k-€250k in base salary (before bonuses).  The size and complexity of AIB dwarfs those companies.  Like I say, I'm not saying that the position *deserves* such a high salary scale, I just think that market forces are dictating that we can't find quality candidates at that level of salary.

I was heartened to hear Brian L sounding fairly resolute yesterday that the salary cap would not be breached - I hope he sticks to his guns.

PS the asterix is used for emphasis only (as in: here's what *I* think, what do *you* think?)


----------



## Mpsox (18 Nov 2009)

It would seem that AIB have backed down and will accept the salary cap and Colm Doherty has signed up for the role
http://www.breakingnews.ie/business/aib-bows-to-pressure-over-bosss-salary-cap-434788.html

no idea if he will be the right guy for the job or not, but credit to Brian Lenihan for sticking to this. Unfortunately the cynic in me says Doherty will get the difference made up at some stage in the future(share options/bonues etc)


----------



## mercman (18 Nov 2009)

Now that the €500 k has been accepted by the recipient, surely he would have thought that in the interest of the Bank, its staff, fellow directors and customers, that he would have taken the reduction without the fanfare and scurolous remarks concerning his appointment. He is only a youngish man and it will surely stand to him if he does the job right and becomes a lead figure in helping the country's largest Bank and in fact the country from the mess we are all in..


----------



## DB74 (18 Nov 2009)

DerKaiser said:


> Are we petrified at the remote possibility that they would all be poached by some other country???


 
Sure where are they going to go?

_Interviewer (in say, China, for a banking job worth €600K):_ I see from your CV that you used to work for AIB in Ireland.

_Irish banking eh ... whizzkid: _Yes that's right.

_Interviewer:_ There's the door!


----------



## Bluebells (18 Nov 2009)

DerKaiser said:


> You only have to look at the base salary (just over €500k) of the most successful CEO this country has ever seen, Michael O' Leary.  Ryanair is 3 times the market capitalisation of AIB



Don't forget all his  EU Farm Subsidies payments !


----------



## sunrock (18 Nov 2009)

It wouldn`t surprise me if this had been staged....o dherty backing down to ONLY 500k to make Lenihan look good
500k is a huge amount of money .I can`t see why we couldn`t get someone to do it for 200 k or less... we have so many qualified graduates on the dole etc.


----------



## pjmn (18 Nov 2009)

Must admit I have a grudging admiration for them - as yet again AIB pull the wool over all our eyes...

- what do AIB want ?  Ans: their man at the helm.

- what do Government/taxpayer want?  - anybody but an insider.

... so what happens....

a) AIB seek to install their 'insider' at a salary greater than the cap...

b) Country goes 'up in arms' - scandal - disgrace - can't be paid that much - Cabinet meet - and no - absolutely not - he can't have that salary...

... so what happens then....

AIB 'back down' and only pay their man E500k per annum....

Question:

Who got what they wanted?

I'd say it'll be a great party......


----------



## lion_bar (19 Nov 2009)

I'm not surprised they can't find an outside candidate.  Who'd want to run a nearly nationalised bank in a bankrupt country for a bankrupt government?


----------



## Superman (19 Nov 2009)

sunrock said:


> It wouldn`t surprise me if this had been staged....o dherty backing down to ONLY 500k to make Lenihan look good
> 500k is a huge amount of money .



The 500k is only the cash part of the remuneration - there are other benefits that AIB have "declined to comment" on - shares, bonuses, pension etc.


----------



## orka (19 Nov 2009)

Superman said:


> The 500k is only the cash part of the remuneration - there are other benefits that AIB have "declined to comment" on - shares, bonuses, pension etc.


Apparently no bonuses for 5 years and under strict conditions. If I were Colm Doherty I would have told them to stuff it and kept my 633K salary lower profile job - who would want the publicity, grief plus a lower salary?





sunrock said:


> I can`t see why we couldn`t get someone to do it for 200 k or less... we have so many qualified graduates on the dole etc.


Seriously? Qualified at what? Done a few finance modules so now qualified to run an international bank? I'm not surprised there were no suitably qualified (skills and experience) takers for the job - the going rate is a lot more than 500K even for similar jobs without the publicity, scrutiny and inevitable criticism that will come with the territory. A young banker on a good career path with a UK or European bank would be mad to take the job - they probably already get close to that salary on their current packages including bonuses - and have career paths which will lead them to better things in more respected institutions. Bottom line is that the intelligent, street-smart experienced bankers who would be suitable to fill this position aren't interested - and we're better off if we don't make do with a keen amateur who thinks they could give it a lash...


----------



## mercman (19 Nov 2009)

Orka + 1


----------



## WaterSprite (19 Nov 2009)

mercman said:


> Orka + 1



And another +1


----------



## Brendan Burgess (19 Nov 2009)

I would love if a competent outsider was recruited to do the job for €500k. 

But if one of the guys who turned around the Swedish banks some years ago offered to do the job for €2m a year + a performance bonus, I would be happy to pay that as well. 

If the Minister appointed Dick Spring to represent the public interest, he should have listened to Dick Spring.  He said that there was no external person available and I would strongly believe this. Many banks worldwide are recruiting and good candidates will be paid a lot more elsewhere. It would have been a disaster to appoint someone just because they were external and were prepared to work for €500k. 

So they had to look at internal candidates. Colm Doherty has a great track record of making profits for AIB. He does share joint responsibility as a board member for the problems faced by AIB and every other Irish bank. 
He is smart enough to learn from their mistakes. He also knows AIB well. 

He is clearly the best candidate for the job and it didn't take Dick Spring long to recognize this.


Brendan


----------



## Conan (20 Nov 2009)

At long last some sense has finally enetered this AAM debate. The priority must be to get AIB back onto a sound footing asap. If that happens then the State/taxpayers benefit  (through its shareholding). Whilst €500k is a lot of money, frankly after the media campaign over recent months no sane external banker (of quality) would want the hassle. 
Lets get on with the recovery.


----------



## putsch (20 Nov 2009)

orka said:


> I'm not surprised there were no suitably qualified (skills and experience) takers for the job - the going rate is a lot more than 500K even for similar jobs without the publicity, scrutiny and inevitable criticism that will come with the territory. quote]
> 
> 
> I do not agree that 500K is low for the job - I quote my own post from above:
> ...


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Nov 2009)

Hi Putsch

In all my years, I have never heard of a salary being quoted in terms of per head employed. That really is a first.  I have 10 employees, so I am only worth €70 per annum. I must get a job in An Post or the ESB - I think that they are our biggest employer. 

There are very few well run banks worldwide. Barclays is one of them. Do you seriously think that anyone at or near the top of Barclays is going to leave a good bank like that and move to Ireland to try to restructure a "bad" bank? They would only consider it if they were given a huge incentive in terms a hugh salary and massive share options.


----------



## sunrock (20 Nov 2009)

People must remember where the sky high salaries for our top bankers came from. Basically each irish bank owns large amount of shares in the other irish banks. All the top bankers move in the same social circles and get to vote on each others AGMs to make sure the status quo remains in case of disgruntled individual shareholders. Crucially they make up the remuneration committees that decide on their salaries and benefits.I am sure an average worker if in this position would award him/herself a sky high salary also.And these top bankers have been an abysmal failurein running the banks....they have done alright for themselves though!
I would like to ask what qualifications our top bankers had/have and what qualifications are deemed necessary. I know financial instruments can be complex, but these should be avoided.I for one refuse to believe that banking is rocket science and we have to pay 500k to attract a top man.What we need is a conservative ,prudent banker who is risk averse.There are plenty of buisness graduates and accountants here and in europe who could do a good job.


----------



## Sunny (20 Nov 2009)

€500k is a very good salary but as Brendan pointed out, it is not enough to attract someone from abroad to come in especially with regard to the amount of work required with AIB. The €500k cap only makes sense if the Government were willing to accept an internal candidate or someone within Ireland.
People are also saying that they could get someone without banking experience. Maybe in normal times you could but AIB are going to be doing a global roadshow sometime soon looking for capital. They do not want to be doing that with a banking novice as the head. The candidate chosen by AIB is actually well respected in Capital Markets and this increases the hopes that AIB will be able to raise private capital rether than rely on the taxpayer.


----------



## Sunny (20 Nov 2009)

sunrock said:


> What we need is a conservative ,prudent banker who is risk averse.There are plenty of buisness graduates and accountants here and in europe who could do a good job.


 

I agree with most of what you say with regard to banking circles in Ireland but banks function to to take risk so you can't have a risk averse bank. Its all about managing that risk and that is where the failures have been. There is no evidence that a non-banker would do any better


----------



## putsch (20 Nov 2009)

I'm not seriously suggesting that anyone should be paid strictly per employee.....its only one of many factors that go to make up a comparison but at least its less easily manipulated and it certainly does impact on the scale of responsibility.

It was just an effort to demonstrate that comparatively the 500K compares favorably with some international norms. The Barclays etc figures are $ rather than euro so when you convert them to euro and take into account the relatively much greater size the 500K is not at all bad for a small Bank operating in a few markets.


----------



## Sunny (20 Nov 2009)

putsch said:


> I'm not seriously suggesting that anyone should be paid strictly per employee.....its only one of many factors that go to make up a comparison but at least its less easily manipulated and it certainly does impact on the scale of responsibility.
> 
> It was just an effort to demonstrate that comparatively the 500K compares favorably with some international norms. The Barclays etc figures are $ rather than euro so when you convert them to euro and take into account the relatively much greater size the 500K is not at all bad for a small Bank operating in a few markets.


 
Bob Diamond of Barclays earned something like €20 million in 2007. And he wasn't the highest paid. There was a guy called Jenkins or something who apparently put that figure to shame.

You can't compare BOI and AIB to banks like Barclays. Exectutive pay in Irish Banks was way too high for years but €500k is probably too low. Most Countries are now moving away from the idea of salary caps.


----------



## sunrock (21 Nov 2009)

Just seen on the news about the directors fees..Dick Spring and Alan Dukes....about100k each  not bad money one would have to agree.Of course they have the difficult task of getting someone to be the M.D.of the bank for 500 k.
The sad bit is that it is we the taxpayers that are footing the bill.


----------



## Caveat (21 Nov 2009)

Brendan said:


> There are very few well run banks worldwide. Barclays is one of them.



A bit OT, but genuinely curious - can I ask - why do you say this?

What I mean is, is there a specific reason or just a 'balance sheet' type observation?

(Take your time, I know you mightn't feel the best )


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Nov 2009)

Hi Caveat

I am equating "well run" with not having to be bailed out.

Most of the banks in Ireland and the UK had to be bailed out.
Most of the banks in America had to be bailed out. 

I understand that Barclays didn't have to be bailed out. 

Barclays and a few other banks stuck to very conservative lending. 

Is this factually incorrect?


----------



## sunrock (21 Nov 2009)

I wonder if FRED _the shred  _Goodwin had applied for the job,would he have been successful? He has after all much more experience than any of our internal candidates and is sure to have learned from his time as CEO of RBS.He has justified his big pension, because he claimed he would not be able to get a job with another bank again.I am sure that he ,like sacked premier football managers is just itching to get back into " management" again.


----------



## putsch (21 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> Bob Diamond of Barclays earned something like €20 million in 2007. And he wasn't the highest paid. There was a guy called Jenkins or something who apparently put that figure to shame.
> 
> You can't compare BOI and AIB to banks like Barclays. Exectutive pay in Irish Banks was way too high for years but €500k is probably too low. Most Countries are now moving away from the idea of salary caps.


 

Exactly - in 2007 not today - and those kind of remuneration packages are part of why were are where we are. Banking is a very basic simple job - average skill base low - management not nearly as challenging as manufacturing environment and yet the pay at all levels is way out of kilter.

Its amusing to hear bankers complain about the pay levels and and security in the public sector - now they are public sector too but dont want to take public sector pay!


----------



## smiley (21 Nov 2009)

putsch said:


> Its amusing to hear bankers complain about the pay levels and and security in the public sector



Can you back this statement up with proof please??


----------



## putsch (22 Nov 2009)

smiley said:


> Can you back this statement up with proof please??


 

Proof that some bankers have criticised the public sector? 
Well these were conversations on the golf course, in the pub, over dinner with various friends who are bankers - covers a wide range of banks - I didn't think to record them.

Proof that I found them "amusing" ?
 though mabye "ironic" would be a better way of putting it


----------



## Afuera (23 Nov 2009)

Brendan said:


> I understand that Barclays didn't have to be bailed out.
> 
> Barclays and a few other banks stuck to very conservative lending.
> 
> Is this factually incorrect?


Your understanding is incorrect. Barclays were bailed out, under rather unfavourable terms, by sovereign wealth funds based in Qatar and Abu Dhabi. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/31/barclay-sovereignwealthfunds

They are not a conservative bank by any means. A large portion of their profits comes from their Investment Banking division, Barclays Capital.


----------



## Sunny (24 Nov 2009)

Afuera said:


> Your understanding is incorrect. Barclays were bailed out, under rather unfavourable terms, by sovereign wealth funds based in Qatar and Abu Dhabi.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/31/barclay-sovereignwealthfunds
> 
> They are not a conservative bank by any means. A large portion of their profits comes from their Investment Banking division, Barclays Capital.


 
Getting private capital isn't the same as been 'bailed out' no matter what price they pay. If they hadn't got the money from the funds, then they would of had to have been bailed out using public money.


----------



## Locke (24 Nov 2009)

putsch said:


> Well these were conversations on the golf course, in the pub, over dinner with various friends who are bankers - covers a wide range of banks - I didn't think to record them.


 
Yes, of course. Your friends opinions covers the opinions of all bankers. 

I think any comments like that should be backed up by facts/sources.

So hindsight will tell me you are correct. Should have recorded them.


----------



## Afuera (24 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> Getting private capital isn't the same as been 'bailed out' no matter what price they pay. If they hadn't got the money from the funds, then they would of had to have been bailed out using public money.


Since when has the term "bailed out" been reserved exclusively for government-led rescues? Frankly, I don't see the difference with who provides the funding to stop the company going under. At the end of the day it is still a bailout.

You have to give it to Barclays though. They were very clever in realizing that they could maintain the public image of being a "prudent" bank if they avoided support from the government. It didn't even matter that the subsequent finance they received was under worse conditions than that being offered to them by the state!!!

There is an important lesson here on how valuable the intangibles are to Finance. Image is everything.


----------



## Sunny (24 Nov 2009)

Afuera said:


> Since when has the term "bailed out" been reserved exclusively for government-led rescues? Frankly, I don't see the difference with who provides the funding to stop the company going under. At the end of the day it is still a bailout.
> 
> You have to give it to Barclays though. They were very clever in realizing that they could maintain the public image of being a "prudent" bank if they avoided support from the government. It didn't even matter that the subsequent finance they received was under worse conditions than that being offered to them by the state!!!
> 
> There is an important lesson here on how valuable the intangibles are to Finance. Image is everything.


 
Because otherwise everytime someone raised equity, you would be saying they are being bailed out. The soverign wealth funds made an investment decision based on getting an investment return not saving the bank from failure. The British Government didn't when they handed over money. They handed it over because they had to if they didn't want the banks to fail. Thats why it was a bail out. 

They paid more cash for the money but Barclays did the right thing by it's shareholders. Look at what state bailouts will cost RBS and Lloyds by the time the EU has decided what parts have to be sold off. Also remember that in the midst of the crisis, Barclays bought most of Lehman's which could prove to be the best piece of business in recent corporate history and they wouldn't have been able to do that with public money. They are not a conservative bank by any stretch of the imagination and there are plenty in the market woho don't believe the Barclay's story but it has survived the worst of the financial crisis without taking a cent of public money. Not many banks can claim that.


----------



## Afuera (24 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> Because otherwise everytime someone raised equity, you would be saying they are being bailed out.


No, I don't see it that way at all. I consider the determining factor of whether funding is a bailout or not to be the intended use of the funds.

Funding to provide support for future growth and expansion can't be considered a bail out for example. Funding to simply plug holes in the balance sheet is most definitely a bailout, regardless of whether it comes from public or private sources. Barclays was looking for funding for the latter reason last year as they were undercapitalized.



Sunny said:


> The soverign wealth funds made an investment decision based on getting an investment return not saving the bank from failure. The British Government didn't when they handed over money. They handed it over because they had to if they didn't want the banks to fail. Thats why it was a bail out.


I imagine that the government would have done some kind of cost-benefit analysis before they bailed out a bank. If the amount of investment required to save the bank was less than the expected cost to the economy if it went under, then it would make sense for them to invest.


----------



## Mars39 (25 Nov 2009)

Call me cynical but do we honestly think that the man has taken a 150k paycut from one day till the next?  I have no doubt that his mortgage has been paid for as compensation.


----------



## justin_case (26 Nov 2009)

I acknowledge that this is slightly off the topic, and dont get me wrong, i think 500k is even too much, but how much do WE pay pat kenny & co? we all pay a tv licence and out of this our 'top' presenters earn more than the top management in our banks, when put into this perspective, we need AIB, BOI etc to turn the corner and return to profits as we have invested heavily in them and the salaries have been capped at 500k, so why do we continue to pay our tv personalities crazy money and people threaten to close accounts in banks over pay to guys who we need to turn things around??
apologies of you feel this to be unrelated, but I am sick of reading posts like 'leave the banks fail' and '500k is too much to pay a bank ceo' when we need our banks to survive or the country is in serious trouble & where we could do without a night of over paid tv presenters.


----------



## sunrock (29 Nov 2009)

You have answered your own question.Pat Kenny is or was paid his huge salary because at the time ,he was or his agent was arguing that his salary should be that big because if he was working in a bank etc he would be getting an astronomical salary. The answer is to give Pat Kenny and co. a serious pay cut....I think 100k would be enough...I mean who else is going to hire him..BBC or TV3 or ITV?
The banks top management have a more responsible job in that they are dealing with billions and could wreck the economy if they make the wrong decisions.....oops isn`t that what they have just done, even thought they were on lotto type salaries and bonuses...and they haven`t paid back a cent by the way.
Now they are justifying their 500k salaries + bonuses by saying that banking is rocket science and no one else would do it. I for one think this is patent nonsense and we need prudent bankers and definetly not ones dabbling in complex financial instruments...one of the reasons these are complex is to obscure the explosive risk involved to the banks....the banks CEO s ignored that risk as it still gave them mega bonuses when it went bust!..... the gov. meaning   you the taxpayers took the hit.
We were told that the "experience " gained would stand to these bankers....but if that was the case why didn`t they interview Fred Goodwin for a top job.I`ve asked that question before but was met with a wall of silence.
The truth is that the selection committee/directors are government appointed and are in huge fees themselves and are quite happy to pay these mega salaries...after all it is only the taxpayer is paying......and sure who cares about them.
What is wrong with capping all salaries in RTE and the banks at100k?


----------

