RBS Loses £3.6 Billion

Published in Company Comment on 25 February 2010

Despite losses of £3.6bn, RBS pays out big bonuses.

Royal Bank of Scotland (LSE: RBS), the bank that failed so spectacularly during the financial crisis, leading to its effective nationalisation and the gilded departure of Fred the Shred, announced full-year results for 2009 on Thursday. The bottom line was a loss of £3.6bn for the year.

While that doesn't sound great, it's better than the £5.2bn loss that analysts had been expecting, and it's not in the same league as 2008's £24bn, the largest annual loss in UK corporate history. Still, the contrast with Barclays (LSE: BARC), which also reported recently, is striking.

It looks as if the size of RBS's bad debt mountain has peaked. Although total impairment charges for the year rose to £13.9bn, from £7.4bn the year before, the fourth quarter figure actually fell to £3.1bn, from £3.3bn in Q3.

Big bonuses

Despite the overall loss, RBS's investment banking division, Global Banking and Markets, actually made an operating profit of £5.7bn, from a £1.8bn loss in 2008, further highlighting the poor performance of RBS's retail banking.

The staff at the division are set to share a bumper £1.3bn in bonuses, a rise of 44% over 2008, though the new chief executive, Stephen Hester, will forego his own bonus. That figure will anger many of the UK's taxpayers, who effectively own 84% of the bank, and will put political pressure on the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, who signed off the bonuses despite RBS not meeting its targets for lending to small businesses -- though the bank did exceed its lending target for homebuyers.

Loss of key staff

Mr Hester defended the bonus payments on the grounds that the bank had to make competitive payments in order to retain the talented people who are needed to turn around its fortunes, telling us that thousands of the bank's best-performing people had already left for better rewards elsewhere, and that RBS is having to walk an "unenviable tightrope" on pay.

RBS also said that pay and bonuses in the investment banking division amounted to 27% of revenues, which compares well with Barclays payout of 38%. But then, Barclays has just posted a profit of £11.6bn.

The market seemed pleased with the smaller-than-expected loss, and the shares rose 5% after the results were announced, being priced at 38p at the time of writing.

David Holding reckoned RBS was a 'contrarian buy' a month ago and these results provide further evidence that its recovery is progressing as well as can be expected. Do you think the shares are good value or not? Let us know in the comment boxes below...

More from Alan Oscroft

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

gordongtsb20 25 Feb 2010 , 4:06pm

Bloody disgusting, as soon as Virgin starts their bank, RBS wont see my ass for dust.

gulliblejack 25 Feb 2010 , 4:57pm

25% of profits from an expected bounce paid as bonusses is regarded as 'competitive'? What % of the losses did these 'talented' people pay to RBS when they destroyed shareholder value? This has got to stop. Until it does, no more of my money will voluntarily go into Bank shares. I doubt if many private shareholders will disagree. I do have some Barclays shares, which I will hold on to for the moment. Does anyone have any other suggestions?

tdoghouse 25 Feb 2010 , 5:55pm

It's pointless stating disgust at RBS over it's bonus payments. If you want them to succeed then they have to be allowed to play on equal basis with their competitors - ie pay large bonuses to attract key staff.

Personally I don't like seeing people with huge egos who think very highly of themselves getting payed millions each year (bankers or footballers). But short of every major government banning bonuses (US, UK, Hong Kong, Japan, Across Europe) then there's very little we can do, but accept the bonus payments by RBS - albeit with gritted teeth. The alternative is watch RBS waste away slowly.

54Nick 25 Feb 2010 , 7:24pm

Some may have read my earlier comments slamming the banks about their attitude regards their bonuses. The senior banking echelon appear so naive about the public anger it shows nothing but contempt for us plus add a large dose pompiousity to go with it.

lalastorm 25 Feb 2010 , 8:39pm

tdoghouse no you can't stop rewarding people but there has to be accountability or does that no apply to the banking industry? The culture of reward needs to be aligned to profitability. Reward enough they still have their jobs if the the money in bonuses had been used for the recently laid of staff at Corus it would have paid there wages for the next 50 years.....go figure. We ultimately all paid for their bonuses and if a representative from RBS had approached you personally for your contribution what would you have done...opened your wallet willingly or questioned why? Taking it laying down is why people get walked over apathy breed contempt.

tdoghouse 25 Feb 2010 , 8:49pm

lalastorm, read my post again. I don't agree with ridiculous amounts of money being payed to anyone. You cannot justify paying anyone millions for a job in which they effectively take no risks of their own. HOWEVER, by punishing RBS (by not allowing bonuses), who do you think is going to suffer further? All of us (either by holding RBS shares directly or via the government) when they lose key staff. There is nothing to stop bankers to move to the likes of Barcap etc - human nature to chase the best paying jobs. Don't tell me you would not do it. The only way to stop all this madness is to have some sort of salary cap introduced internationally. Sadly trying to get the major governments to agree on this would be a miracle.

bragg99 25 Feb 2010 , 10:07pm

has my shares gone up or down my pc has gone down and i can not login

jerryrc 25 Feb 2010 , 11:28pm

Would like to know out of the £5.7bn or so profits mentioned, how much of that was due to fair value accounting gains, rather than actual money coming in the door. Paying cash bonuses (deferred or otherwise) based on unrealised valuation gains is plain wrong.

Furthermore, profits deriving from investments that are reliant on counterparty payments (i.e from other financial institutions) can hardly be defined as wealth creation.

In summary, the shady definition of investment banking profits is where the problem lies in my view.

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.