Maybe some banks pay any old bonuses they want (despite continuing to lose money) in order to keep up with the Joneses, Goldmans, and JPMorgans of the world, but RBS isn’t going to be one of them! Not while it lives under the government’s house!

U.K. Financial Investments Ltd, the body charged with running the government’s 80% stake in RBS, had wanted to approve the bank’s bonus plans but was overruled by the U.K. Treasury, these people said. UKFI was set up after RBS’s 2008 bailout as an independent group to manage the government’s investment in the bank at “arms length.” The spat highlights how state-controlled RBS continues to be buffeted by politicians attempting to diffuse public anger over high bonuses. The bank had sought to get shareholder approval for plans to pay bonuses of up to twice fixed pay for key staff before the government intervened…The U.K. Treasury said as RBS was still someway from returning to profitability, the increase in bonus cap couldn’t be ratified. “RBS is heading in the right direction, but it has not yet completed its restructuring and remains a majority publicly-owned bank. So an increase to the bonus cap cannot be justified,” a U.K. Treasury spokesman said in a statement. RBS reported a £9 billion net loss for 2013.

Any questions?

RBS Pay Plan Blocked by Government [WSJ]

Related: Barclays Chief Needs Shareholders To Just Calm Down And Give Him Some Breathing Room While He Puts The Finishing Touches On Massive Layoff Plan

11 comments (hidden to protect delicate sensibilities)
Show all comments ↓

Comments (11)

  1. Posted by Silly question | April 25, 2014 at 12:55 PM

    How do you expect to get a bonus when you lost 9 billion in a year? This is why people hate the financial system. What a joke. People dont get that it is over

  2. Posted by Guest | April 25, 2014 at 2:39 PM

    Damn right. They're lucky the peasants didn't demand, "off with their heads!"

  3. Posted by Guest | April 25, 2014 at 2:44 PM

    Why should the Treasury stop there.. They should start clawbacking salary too.

  4. Posted by Guest | April 25, 2014 at 2:50 PM

    Royal Bonus Screwer

  5. Posted by King Joffrey | April 25, 2014 at 3:10 PM

    No one is getting screwed here, the lannisters own 80% of the company. All of your heads will be on spikes in a year. Or laid off either one.

  6. Posted by FaFoo | April 25, 2014 at 3:13 PM

    Obama don't care, Clinton don't care, I care.

  7. Posted by Walter | April 25, 2014 at 4:03 PM

    Nothing is fucked here dude

  8. Posted by Guest | April 25, 2014 at 6:51 PM

    It's really the issue of the chicken and egg.

  9. Posted by Einstein | April 26, 2014 at 12:45 PM

    What if they were expected to lose £12billion? Wouldn't -£9B be a good thing?

  10. Posted by FatGuySkinnyTie | April 28, 2014 at 9:22 AM

    I mean really that number is just a product of the bank's denial over impairments that could/should have been incurred earlier (either amortized in some fashion/period of time or just wham from the get-go). There's a chance of some of these assets recovering giving the improving conditions in EMEA, though not much of one.

    Anyway, you expect a bonus because if you're worth keeping and you don't get a bonus, you're going to jump ship to a shop that will make you feel valued, economically speaking of course.

    Show me a financial professional and I will show you a mercenary.

  11. Posted by Chester | April 28, 2014 at 9:46 AM

    Is that anything like "barebacking"?