by Sammy Stein

Created on: September 30, 2008

Definitely. I mean come on!

Banks have, for years, been encouraging us to save what we can for a rainy day. Meanwhile, they have invested our moneyin various funds including short sells, hedge funds, prima accounts and so on so they can keep making profits, much of which they share with us in terms of interest paid. However,a huge stack of the money they make with our money has gone into the pockets of the men and women we trust to invest on our behalf.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with paying well for a job well done. If someone works for your bank and has that knack of turning money into more money, then pay them well and pay them to keep them. This serves the banks and customers but surely the banks should have put some by for a rainy day too?

When I see bankers walking away with bonuses totalling more than I might earn in a year I am angry. I am also angry at just how quickly profit turns into debt because of the system the banks created for themselves, investing in not-so-sturdy markets and chancing their luck by futures buying and (not too) forward markets. That's my money and your money they are playing with!

For years, we have watched bankers get richer and the institutions they serve get even richer so where has the money gone? Much of it has gone into executive pay and I think if one lesson needs to be learned it is to spread your investments and restrict the pay of executives.

Bankers have become worse than soccer players for being paid excessive bonuses and cash handouts just for doing their job - and I bet most of them would work for much less cash in return for stability and long term employment. Good investors can threaten to take their talents elsewhere and demand sky high salaries but who has really been paying them? Yes, you and me!

Millions of dollars in the pockets of a few top men? I do not think so! It should be saved, invested in sure fired accounts and not used to line the pockets of a few. Money is the root of all evil they say, it is also the root of all folly, as we have seen.

Banks invested unwisely in order to be able to borrow more so they could lend more to us and each other and get more money to invest unwisely. A quick , sure fired deal was seen as better than slower but longer term gain. Surely, someone somewhere was saying ' Hang on, what are we doing? Where is this leading? Where's the profit for our investors in a 2 million buck bonus for the banker making the dodgy deals and what happens when it falls down around our ears?

The current situation is what happens and now we see poor bankers, no longer making millions in bonuses but perhaps just getting thier meagere sallaries of hundreds of thousands and some of them have even lost their jobs - how did this happen so quickly?

A major part of the bail out must be restriction on executive pay - after all, at the end of the day, the small investor who trusts the institution with their money is the one who really loses out. The banker may end up temporarily unemployed but they will keep their home, car and jobs. he small investor meanwhile cannot get a mortgage, may lose the house they scrimped to save for and cannot afford holidays. So, yes the government bailout should definitely restrict executive pay.

Learn more about this author, Sammy Stein.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.