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 Brexit select committee walkout is an ominous sign of things to come

Leavers walked out of a meeting of Hilary Benn's "gloomy" committee yesterday. Their inability to accept criticism could have disastrous consequences

“Hilary Benn isn’t managing a select committee. He’s managing an ecosystem.” That was the stark verdict of one member of the Commons' Brexit committee on its fitness for purpose yesterday. If its meeting on the eve of Article 50 is anything to go by, then Benn’s fragile biome might already be damaged beyond repair.

Unhappy with the content of its “gloomy” provisional 155-page report into the government’s Brexit white paper, leavers on the committee walked out of its meeting yesterday. The committee is a necessarily unwieldy creation and it would probably be unreasonable to expect it to agree unanimously on anything: it has 21 members where others have 11, so as to adequately represent Leavers, Remainers and the nations.

Disagreements are one thing. Debate and scrutiny, after all, are why select committees exist. But the Brexiteers’ ceremonial exodus augurs terribly for the already grim-looking trajectory of the negotiations to come. “As I understand it, they don’t like analysing the evidence that they have,” another pro-Remain member of the committee told me.

Therein lies the fundamental weakness of the Brexiteers’ position: they cannot change the evidence. As was the case with the 70 MPs who wrote to Lord Hall last week to accuse the BBC of anti-Brexit bias, they assume a pernicious selectivity on the part of Remainers and their approach to the inconvenient facts at hand. None exists.

On the contrary, there is a sense of resignation among some Remainers on the Brexit committee that their reports will turn out to be pretty weak beer as a consequence of the accommodations made by Benn to their Eurosceptic colleagues. Some grumble that high-profile Brexiteers lack detailed understanding of the grittier issues at play – such as the Good Friday Agreement – and only value the committee insofar as it gives them the opportunity to grandstand to big audiences.

The Tory awkward squad’s inability to accept anything less than the studied neutrality that plagued the Brexit discourse in the run-up to the referendum – or, indeed, any critical analysis whatsoever – could yet make an already inauspicious scenario unsalvageable. If they cannot accept even a watered-down assessment of the risks ahead, then what happens when those risks are made real? Will they ever accept the possibility that it could be reality, and not the Remain heretics, doing Britain down? How bad will things have to get before saving face isn’t their primary imperative?

Yesterday's pantomime exit might have been, as one committee member told me, “hysterically funny”. What’s less amusing is that these are the only people the prime minister deigns to listen to.

Patrick Maguire writes about politics and is the 2016 winner of the Anthony Howard Award.