Is this the end of bonus culture?

The punishment, finally, has come.

Finally the punishment has come. After years of banker bashing, public rage and political incredulity, bankers, it seems, are ultimately being hit where it hurts – their bonuses.

The bonus cap, announced on Wednesday, comes not from the UK Government, but the EU, who seemed very pleased with the result: Othmar Karas, the European Parliament’s negotiator said: “For the first time in the history of EU financial market regulation, we will cap bankers’ bonuses”.

But banking is only one half of the story. The excessive bonus culture, inherited from the 80s, has permeated just about every financial trading institution. Hedge funds, those opaque offices of Mayfair that have given us vocabulary like “futures” and “swaps”, are also likely to have their bonuses capped. Other traders could also see regulation: asset managers, investment managers, fund managers; the list goes on. So is this the end of bonus culture?   

Probably not, no. Although financial institutions threaten to go abroad, the list of regulatory-friendly destinations is getting smaller by the day. No, it is much easier just to bypass the rules. The obvious solution is simply to raise salaries – the norm method of gaining more pay before bonuses. An increased salary will also see bigger bonuses as the EU proposed cap is fixed to salaries at a ratio of 1:1 (or 2:1 with shareholder approval).

Long term bonuses-type rewards will also be exempt from the cap. Rather than receiving the usual Christmas bonus, bankers can earn a quarter of their salary through instruments deferred for five years. Other complex structures and financial vehicles will be set up to fall outside EU powers and confound Brussels policy makers. 

Like smoking, financial institutions seem unable to quite their bonuses. Discouraged by Government, banned from public places and shamed by society, bonus baiting goes on.

Photograph: Getty Images

Oliver Williams is an analyst at WealthInsight and writes for VRL Financial News

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496