Investment bank bonuses to be ringfenced from potential retail bank losses.
(9 posts) (4 voices)
"Banker's bonuses to be ringfenced from losses. More soon" is a bit snappier.
Yep it gets the same message across. Cheers for the tweak.
Great little ticker I think, and now with added snap. Just fyi, the below is grammatically correct if you want to refer to bankers (plural) rather than just one banker:
Bankers' bonuses to be ringfenced from losses.
I think that this could be a potential FP:
Today the Government established Independent Commission on Banking has completed its review of the banking sector and has concluded that it must continue to protect bankers' bonuses from any consequences of their actions, such as a complete collapse of the global economy.
"It is very clear that the people in receipt of these huge sums are very important, clever and special, - you only have to see the size of these bonuses if you need any more evidence", said a ICB Spokesperson today "and the last thing that we would want to do is to scare off the people responsible for the banking collapse from the sector, whilst taxpayers are still willing to forgo luxuries, such as food and shelter, to keep this bonus culture alive."
The report received immediate and fulsome support from the Association of Luxury Yacht Manufacturers, the Guild of Caviaristes, and the governments of Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.
First sentence should be 'its'. 2nd para last line: 'forego' and 'shelter'.
Forgive me for making pedantic corrections, but I can't think of anything funny this morning, so I thought I'd make a nuisance of myself.
I couldn't be bothered to check the grammar myself, as I knew someone else would.
Grammatically correct or not I think it's great work to expand my ticker line into a full FP. would give it a go myself but haven't got enough time to devote to it at the moment.
You must log in to post.