´óÏó´«Ã½

Commentators discuss bankers' bonuses as members of the Commons Treasury Select Committee prepare to discuss pay with Britain's best-paid banker Bob Diamond, Barclays' chief executive.

The the argument that, contrary to premiership footballers, bankers are not worth the superstar pay:

"Many people working in the financial services industry are of very high calibre. They have an impressive intellectual grasp, show entrepreneurial flair and often combine a facility with numbers with a creativity that an artist can admire. The fact that these skills are impressive does not, however, make them rare. Or at least, they are nowhere near as rare as the skills of the superstar football player. One of the main drivers of top football wages - that the skill being purchased is incredibly hard to find - does not apply to bankers."

that banks can't afford big bonuses:

"By the end of 2012, UK banks must find as much as £800bn to replace borrowings due to mature, mostly from support mechanisms such as the special liquidity scheme that the Bank introduced at the height of the financial crisis. As yet there is no clarity on how that will be achieved, and a number of banks continue to lobby privately for an extension of emergency support beyond the end of 2012.
Ìý
"In that context, the prospect of British banks paying bonuses totalling £5bn or more looks difficult to defend as a sound business practice. Mr Diamond and company may worry about their stars heading elsewhere if they aren't paid top dollar, but they should be more concerned about how they are going to roll over debt arrangements in the next 18 months."

Cambridge economics professor that getting rid of bankers could be good:

"Of course, if pay restraints and higher taxes continue, some bankers will move abroad and weaken the British banking industry. But that may not necessarily be a bad thing. I would not go as far as Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve board and the current chairman of the economic recovery advisory board, in declaring that the only socially useful financial innovation in the last few decades has been the ATM. But it is true that during this period the banks in London have been engaged in activities that are socially unproductive or even harmful, as revealed by the 2008 financial crisis. Losing some of these activities may not be a bad thing."

The politicians need to keep bankers in line in order to keep the voters happy:

"The people will lack the full facts, but will nonetheless know enough to feel fury. Politicians must keep sight of other objectives, such as encouraging lending and the value of nationalised assets, so fixing the problem is not a simple thing to do. But done it must be. If a blind eye is turned to the blind rage, the politicians will pay a price."

The how much bankers get paid isn't a matter for politicians:

"There is no doubting the public's frustration with the bankers. But there is a danger of the debate becoming bogged down in sterile exchanges. The outrage will not be quenched by constant, largely synthetic calls for bonuses to be forgone or legislation to curb pay. There is a risk that it will simply be magnified.
Ìý
"Such intervention is neither warranted nor sustainable. David Cameron is right to say that the government must not micromanage the banks. Parliament should not - unless absolutely necessary - intervene in private contracts."

The an alternative source to politicians to apply pressure on banks:

"If shareholders can see the grotesque sums being paid to a handful of fat cats, perhaps they will exert sufficient pressure on the banks to affect a much-needed change in culture."

Links in full

•
•
•
•
•
•