As I and others have already said, the CHF 70m was the vesting of a (at least) 5 year award. Dougan did not earn that amount of money for 2009 alone. I accept that it's still a boat load of cash, but I would wager that there are many Fortune 500 CEOs who were paid more and wasnt the head of Novartis paid CHF 30 million last year?

Just for fun: how much do you think Grübel's long term incentive could vest at, assuming he manages to turn UBS around?

Is it 10% of his salary?

70m for being an instrumental figure in trebling the share price in 4 years (the period the bonus was valid for)??
Is that fair?

Give me the name of bank where the boss has really been worth the massive bonuses. Surely when they lose money or lead us into financial collapse they should also pay a fine? I mean if we go into the red we pay- so should they. mean you can't have it both ways- socilaism is good when banks go under and we bail them out and then when they do well then hands off governent- we ain't doing sh$$ to help the economy.

The banks that made losses should not have been bailed out, they should have been allowed to fail, that's how capitalism works.

UK bank bonuses were over 7bn in 2010, so they should work out how much was lost and fine them accordingly.

I think that the average person, the customer, should be allowed to rate their bank. they should rate them on customer service, and the bank's contribution to helping stimulate the economy-Both macro and micro, e.g. are they making loans available to small businesses, or are they just protecting their 'old boy's network'?
I would actually rate mine quite highly but then they are mainly small and local.

That is exactly the point: in democracy -especially in Switzerland- people can vote for whatever they want by just following proper procedure.

My understanding is that what is being discussed here, is the convenience or inconvenience of capping bonuses (the ideology, social impact and economics behind this proposal), not the convenience or inconvenience of being ruled by the populace.

it is a rolling bonus, so not exactly his only payment for the five years, was it? So how much did he made on average per year?

He was the most extreme example, but I did not bring this up to bash the CS - UBS was easily worse paying bonus on the one hand and needing tax money on the other one.

And there were not that many fortune 500 CEOs earning more in 2009. 8 to be precise: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/12/TotComp_1.html

Meh. I thought the cigars were there before the revolution...

again, 'we' didn't bail them out, see a few posts back, the gov provided guarantee's for which they where hansomly rewarded.

retails banks (on the high st) and investment banks are 2 totally different things, if you don't understand that then you really shouldn't be commenting on banks and bonuses.

70m? peanuts. try 1.8 billion:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...484726298.html

interestingly, only 4 of the top 25 worked at financial companies.

We should boycott Oracle - paid almost 900m USD in 5 years

The problem being the 'people' do not look at the ideology, social impact etc. Ask the average person in the street if they should stop the bankers bonus and I think you would get an overwhelming 'YES'. If you made them aware of all the other bits then it might change.

That list is from 2006. According to the CS annual report, Dougan earned 19m in 2009 of which 1.25m was salary and the rest was shares. Using your out of date list, over 50 of the F500 CEOs earned more than him.

I don't believe that, money works the same wherever it is in an investment bank or a small local bank if they didn't want socialistic control they should not have accepted government help, the government could quite easily have turned their backs and decided to extend that help to other areas.

Suggesting that I don't know the difference is a facetious attempt to deflect criticism. It is an old ploy as if to say you really don't know what you are talking about so keep out of it, it is an attempt to close ranks and protect the system. Leave it to is ' professionals'-well the professionals messed up- if their system and formulas that they use worked then the system wouldn't have crashed.

How do you know that I don't know what I am talking about? The investment banks that failed made bad decisions, they invested and got embroiled in systems that they should have steered clear off.
To me anyone who can't explain things easily in layman's terms is just trying to pull wool over my eyes. Soon hopefull we will have a new Sheriff of Wall Street.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...003960,00.html

I don't work for a bank, or in banking, saying that I have worked for several investment banks in the past but as a contractor so was never entitled to any kind of bonus.

as for "attempt to deflect criticism" LOL, I'm just stick of people spouting what they heard on tv or read in the papers as some kind of fact, we bailed them out, we gave them money, they should have failed etc etc etc

the world would be truly screwed, I mean totally and utterly f**ked if the banks had been 'allowed' to fail, hundredes of thousands (if not millions) of new people on the dole (and all the costs that entails), no one lending to anyone, huge house price crashes etc

retail banks play to a whole different set of rules to investment banks, sure some may share a name but they are run as totally seperate entities, and you can bet your arse your local branch manager at hsbc isn't getting any huge bonuses.

by what you have posted about it so far

I seriously don't know what the fuss is about. I love seeing people getting money. Mind you, I'm nowhere near rich by Western standards, but it gets annoying to see, hear or read how some jealous folks talk bad about some of the high earners. Let em get paid...and if you want to get paid like that, then there is nothing hindering you going out there and making that money. You are your own hinderance IMO. End of rant.

Still sticking to those debunked models?

http://bigthink.com/ideas/21578

So you disagree wiht Bob Diamond?

Barclays' chief executive Bob Diamond adamant bank’s model funds cheaper lending and is less risky
Bob Diamond, the chief executive of Barclays Bank, has parried claims that combining retail with investment banking threatens financial stability, saying the universal model not only enabled banks to lend for less, but was also less risky.


http://www.risk.net/risk-magazine/ne...versal-banking

I'm not against high earners, I just wanted to see if it was an idea to put some rules in place or find a 'fairer' system - if one exists of course.

The fairest system IMO would be good communism...but we've seen how that doesn't work.

I'm not sure we've ever seen good communism, we've only seen communism run by a few power crazed individuals - which isn't communism as it was ever enviseged. But that's another thread....

I should add of course that I wonder what would have happened in China if they had a runaway banking system....