Seems to be all the rage. In particular in the context of banks: why are bank management in receipt of bonuses while their banks are ‘losing their shirt’?
There are a number of issues.
What is the purpose of a bonus? Is it a pseudo entitlement – almost ‘deferred pay’ or is it earned in respect of above expectation performance? Is it an actual contracted entitlement? Is it based on individual, divisional or group performance? Or is there some
‘balanced score card
‘ type formula for calculating the entitlement?
Should there be any bonus pool if the group makes a loss?
Should management/ the Board be entitled to defer the payout of all bonuses to retain funds in view of expected (and imminent) trading & cashflow difficulties? Or is this more correctly the concern of the shareholders?
None of this is as clear cut as we would like. I have always operated in businesses where, in theory, there was no bonus pool unless the business itself made a profit. However the rule may have been bent (ie ignored) on a number of occasions e.g. to attract a new ‘heavy hitter’ or to compensate someone for outstanding performance.
What is clear though now is that where public funds have become required to sustain businesses which are in danger of ‘going down the toilet’ the public expects government, representing it, to apply stringent processes and controls to bonus payments (and indeed base salaries themselves). It is for government in these circumstances to decide the merits and basis of investment, in the context of previous bonus commitments which the entities, without funding, may not be able to meet. And this investment decision may incorporate negotiation re waiving of all or some previously ‘expected’ bonuses. In the context of ongoing government influence in rescue and management of near or actually failed entities there should be no room for confusion with respect to bonus expectations going forward.


Share on Facebook