Justification that banks need to fork out massive payouts to retain top talent is a fallacy?ref http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/18/bonuses-for-fruit-pickers-not-bankers "more complex task of doing maths, incentives served to worsen performance" "Now for the other argument, that financial institutions need incentives to keep these superstars. That fallacy is neatly... |
If shareholders are not happy they can force change, trouble is no-one has a problem when the banks perform well and the shareholders are making money.
It is when it all comes crashing down that shareholders scream and piss and moan.
I think in any business there will always be exceptional leaders, quite often through the exceptional leaders are not the guys who take on healthy institutions at peak performance times and take the credit for what was essentially others work.
Unfortunately the "old school tie " system is still a powerful tool and many people are in jobs for no other reason than they went to the "right" school, they are totally devoid of any financial acumen or business talent but were chosen over more suitably qualified people because they are connected.
The shareholders always pay the most dearly for those fools.
Bankers...Footballers....They need to be paid top dollar.
But hang on...how come the Sunday football teams can manage without any pay whatsoever.
I'd rather go banking on a sunday than play football.
So that's bollox...innit.
That's not even new information. Studies have been saying this for years.
I agree that the people around the so-called "top performers" often don't get the credit they deserve and the so-called "top performers" take credit they don't deserve.
