Bankers given outrageous incomes by their boards.

by tonytran2015 (Melbourne, Australia)

When looking at the ratios of incomes of directors to office workers of (Australian and probably American and English) banks you will notice something outrageous. I use the Australian figures but it is almost the same in all English speaking countries.

 

From the sources

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=CBA.AX&annual
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=CBA.AX&annual,

it is seen that for the year of 2016, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia has

Total Assets                           933,078,000,000
Total Liabilities                    872,322,000,000

>Net Asset                                60,646,000,000
Net Income (after Tax)            9,227,000,000
Common Stock                          34,129,000,000 shares

The ratio of Net Income After Tax to Net Asset is  9227/60646 = 15%  and is ordinary for banks. Yet the salary of the CEO, chief Ian Narev, is $12.3 million.

 

“Australian CEOs are paid 93 times average worker wages, according to a study published in the Harvard Business Review in 2014.”

“In a follow-up study in 2005, Prof Shields found that “the rise and rise of bank CEO pay is both performance insensitive and perverse”.”

see: http://thenewdaily.com.au/money/finance-news/2016/09/27/bank-ceo-pay/

 

“For the following year, a large proportion of bonuses for the CEO will be measured against performance on non-financial measures such as diversity and culture”, they “were “essentially HR policies” that were part of executives’ and the CEO day job.”

“Ownership Matters revised its recommendation to “against”that kind of payment”

see: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/financial-services/cba-slapped-with-first-strike-on-executive-pay/news-story/794f32fefd0e0b50524d8d8b0ff9ffef

“The first strike by share holders against the remuneration report only needed a 25 per cent protest vote, the rebels won an absolute majority with 51 per cent.”

“Some fund managers believe that non-financial hurdles are a load of bollocks. There was a feeling they (the executives) were being paid extra just for doing their jobs.”

At another Australian ANZ bank, “the remuneration report released this week shows former chief executive was paid all up around $90 million since 2007 for a strategy now being dismantled by his successor.”

see: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-10/cba-remuneration-report-voted-down/8012454

“Under the “two strikes” rule, if a company receives two consecutive votes of more than 25 per cent against its remuneration report, it sparks another vote on whether to force the board to stand for re-election.”

see: http://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/commbank-caves-in-to-pressure-pulls-plan-to-pay-ceo-ian-narev-a-culture-bonus-20161108-gsl2ly.html

“Historically, executive pay has not always been at the current controversial levels but has steadily increased since the mid-1970s, an increase which has continued after the global financial crisis.”

see: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-28/australia-should-compare-ceo-and-average-worker-pay-like-the-us/7884240

So you see that bankers have been pampered too much.

(Notes: The office workers, tellers at banks are not called bankers, they are called office workers and the CEO pay is 93 times their average pays).

CASHLESS trading will only further enhance their positions and they love it.

 

 

Click here for my other blogs on polymeraust100dollarsMONEY

Click here go to Divider63D400Home Page (Navigation-Survival-How To-Money).

 

 

 

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Bankers given outrageous incomes by their boards.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s