This was an argument waiting to happen:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6552400.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=1185799
People are outraged at the pay that the top executives get. Once we brought into these banks all tax payers expect banker pay to drop to £100,000 per year.
Its not going to happen nor should it. Compare it to a top footballer, David Beckham is not really worth £100 million as a footballer, however he was a guarantee that a club would be in the top 3.
Now what I want is not that bankers pay be reduced but that my £8billion invested in RBS be doubled in 2 years time. Saving myself £9 million now to put a higher risk on £8 billion in 2 years time is just stupid.
As I have said before, in the short term nothing much needs changing, bankers are under pressure from debt markets and do not need more rules and reduced pay. Mid to long term sure think up some rules about people get nothing if they mess up in a big way.
Right now we, as tax payers need to think about all these billions we have invested at the lowest point in the stock market. In 5 to 10 years that share price should be 3-5 times what it is now. We should be more worried that some MP is going to sell those shares at a discount to some city friends of his!
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Banking rules
Today there is talk about how to reform the banking industry.
Whilst I am not keen on the current governments monetary policy for the last 10+ years (borrow more, sell assets) I have to say I am with the current chancellor with his idea of not changing the rules.
When in the midst of a storm you do not start fixing your boat as you might get washed overboard. The worst has happened and we just have to ride it out.
Wait a year or two then decide, we have the time.
Also whilst the Bank of England wants more powers let us not forget that for the last two years they did nothing to stem the cheap debt. In fact by lowering interest rates they encouraged it.
Prudent people, myself included, saw the start of this almost exactly two years ago. It was reported on and ignored by those making the money.
Whilst I am not keen on the current governments monetary policy for the last 10+ years (borrow more, sell assets) I have to say I am with the current chancellor with his idea of not changing the rules.
When in the midst of a storm you do not start fixing your boat as you might get washed overboard. The worst has happened and we just have to ride it out.
Wait a year or two then decide, we have the time.
Also whilst the Bank of England wants more powers let us not forget that for the last two years they did nothing to stem the cheap debt. In fact by lowering interest rates they encouraged it.
Prudent people, myself included, saw the start of this almost exactly two years ago. It was reported on and ignored by those making the money.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
New Government
I think the system of government is not quite right. Something has bugged me for years since reading Plato's republic. In it he said the leaders should be philosophers. Clearly you could read this as his bit to be Prime Minister.
But essentially he is right. The people that are making laws are those voted in via a popularity contest. It dawned on me the other day that I knew nothing about what Gordon Brown did before becoming an MP and I was surprised at what I found...
What makes a PhD History student turned TV presenter a good person to decide laws and govern over the whole of the British economy?
If it was a CV would you invite him in for an interview?
So surely that leads to the next question, if you were to run the UK like a business how would it be structured?
Well you would have a chief executive officer and correctly qualified people doing the day to day and long term planning. Behind them you would have shareholders that would vote on the board of directors.
Now that clearly looks like what we have with the exception of the qualified bit. What you could do is abstract away one level like schools or charities. You could have smart people running things and a board of governors that intervene when things go wrong or when someone new needs to be picked.
The MP's could be governors of the UK but employees would create laws, smart people, people trained to do so. Pay bonuses when they simplify laws or create a return on investment, right now there is no incentive for an MP to get better at what they do.
Taking it that one step further you could then out source Parliment. Why not?
But essentially he is right. The people that are making laws are those voted in via a popularity contest. It dawned on me the other day that I knew nothing about what Gordon Brown did before becoming an MP and I was surprised at what I found...
What makes a PhD History student turned TV presenter a good person to decide laws and govern over the whole of the British economy?
If it was a CV would you invite him in for an interview?
So surely that leads to the next question, if you were to run the UK like a business how would it be structured?
Well you would have a chief executive officer and correctly qualified people doing the day to day and long term planning. Behind them you would have shareholders that would vote on the board of directors.
Now that clearly looks like what we have with the exception of the qualified bit. What you could do is abstract away one level like schools or charities. You could have smart people running things and a board of governors that intervene when things go wrong or when someone new needs to be picked.
The MP's could be governors of the UK but employees would create laws, smart people, people trained to do so. Pay bonuses when they simplify laws or create a return on investment, right now there is no incentive for an MP to get better at what they do.
Taking it that one step further you could then out source Parliment. Why not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
