Job news & views

Search

Post your resume

Back

Print

Conclusive proof that big bonuses were an aberration

20 October 2008

Sarah Butcher

For anyone still living under the delusion that bonuses paid in 2006 and 2007 were even vaguely normal, the Office of National Statistics (ONS) has produced some figures showing that they were, in fact, hideous mutants.

The ONS has only been assimilating figures for total UK financial services bonuses since 2001. Even so, the fluctuations are huge:

2001: £6.5bn
2002: £6bn
2003: £5.5bn
2004: £7.5bn
2005: £9bn
2006: £11bn
2007: £16bn
2008: £16bn

With a mean of £9.6bn, the payouts of 2007 and 2008 were 65% above the norm for the past eight years. And given that most of the past eight years – with the exception of 2002 and 2003 – weren’t too bad for banking, the mean itself may be an aberration. It would be no surprise if the UK’s bonus pool is a third of last year’s amount for the foreseeable future.

Comments (17)

You should also look at the average for the last 1000 years - show's we were way too overpaid in the last 2 - backing up your point evenmore. (another meaningless stat)

View all comments

Bookmark

  • Digg.com
  • Del.icio.us
  • Stumbleupon.com
  • Reddit.com
  • Yahoo.com

Comments (17)

  • You should also look at the average for the last 1000 years - show's we were way too overpaid in the last 2 - backing up your point evenmore.
    (another meaningless stat)

    bc 20 Oct 2008

    RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

  • Who writes this stuff...??!!  Obviously a 5yr old whose never worked in the city.

    Another totally pointless article by EFN - well done.

    JB 20 Oct 2008

    RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

  • OK fot the total amount but a bonus per head calculation would be more pertinent...

    az 20 Oct 2008

    RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

  • How is this meaningless? It highlights the imbalance in pay - a correction was inevitable.

    RB 20 Oct 2008

    RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

  • What about as a % of revenues.... That might be more meaningful.

    Bob 20 Oct 2008

    RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

  • Thanks for the constructive criticism JB. If you read the article again you may notice that it was written by me.

    And BC, it may have been nice to look back over 1,000 years, but the Office of National Statistics is a relatively recent invention.

    Apart from that....this is just a very (very) quick analysis of the stats put out by the ONS. Unfortunately they don't cover bonuses as a % of revenues, or pay per head -  I agree that both measures would have been interesting.

    Sarah, Editor, eFinancialCareers 20 Oct 2008

    RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

  • What different conclusions can be drawn if it is presented as a % per head or as a % of revenue! The numbers show that the FS sector has got too fat - whether that is because of more people earning the same bonus or the same people earning bigger bonuses is irrelevant. The industry has got to re-align.

    RB 20 Oct 2008

    RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

  • It is so comforting, to write scathing criticism from the safety of anonymity. Even when disagreeing with an article, there are no excuses for not staying polite.

    Rodolphe Mortreuil, MKMC 20 Oct 2008

    RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

  • I stand by my comments...

    "Conclusive" proof??  How is this conclusive? "Aberration" - based on what??  I would expect this from The Sun but not from a website focused on city people....

    Why not do some real research instead of your usual cut and paste.  These figures are just for headlines and have no meaning unless you know what they're based on.

    JB 20 Oct 2008

    RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

  • Hi again JB,

    Aberration: noun 1 a departure from what is normal (or acceptable). (Oxford Dictionary)

    In the context of the past 8 years, figures for total financial services bonuses in the UK for 2007 and 2008 (ie. all bonuses paid to everyone who works in the UK financial services industry - retial banking included) fit this definition accurately.

    The headline was intended to be slightly tongue in cheek, but given that the past two years' bonuses were unquestionably an aberration according to the definition above, it is also correct.

    If we were The Sun, I suspect we would have used a headline more along the lines of 'Greedy bankers gobbled billions in bonuses.'

    And, while our pieces are short and in blog style, my usual is not a 'cut and paste job', unlike some of our competitors.

    Sarah, Editor, eFinancialCareers 20 Oct 2008

    RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

Add your comment

* Mandatory

You have 1200 characters left

Enter the code shown here or sign in / register to skip this step. (What is this?)

Post comment

Jobs

Col3
Col4
Col5
Col6
bottom

Site Information

eFinancialCareers is a Dice Holdings, Inc. company. Dice Holdings, Inc. is a publicly traded company listed on the New York Stock Exchange (Ticker: DHX)