Can anyone else confirm the 60% bonus pool target funding number mentioned in another thread? All we hear is how amazing our quarterly results were, so one would assume that the funding is much higher than 60%.
Sure would be nice to see some transparency around how the bonus pool funding is calculated (like they used to do many years ago). Seems like they just pull a number out of their a** these days. Or maybe they use the monkey dart theory/approach.
Management wants a number to make the most number of employees quit without a package. The post bonus exit this year will be significant. Then there will be another round of RIFs for management to reach the employment numbers they want.
@b9 Ok so here’s how this works, the bank funds the pool based on this massive algorithm on how the bank performed, and how each business line performs against its own targets. If the overall pool is funded at let’s say 70%, that means overall the year was down AND the business line didn’t hit needed targets. From that pool they payout based on the assigned extraordinary %, meaningful %, etc.
Extraordinary this year will be like 105-130% or so, Meaningful is 80%-100%. Typically needs improvement does not receive a payout or very minimal.
So if your salary grade says bonus is 15%, take your salary and x15%. That’s if the pool is funded at 100% AND you get 100%. I’ve had years where my bonus is a little higher and merit is a little lower. Your leader can assign your total comp reward between your merit, bonus and LTI if applicable. A lot of times merit is lower, bonus is nice and LTI is nicer. This pushes out the comp AND doesn’t commit the bank to a long term large payout (ie, your salary increase).
This isn’t a slam on the bank, it’s just business decisioning.
What's a typical payout for extraordinary?
That’s because in the past, they legitimately were “needs improvement” performers, not some arbitrary quota of people who happen to be gullible enough to accept a needs improvement rating. Management realizes this and wants to give them at least something to keep them quiet. Can you imagine how a company’s recruiting/hiring must be if every year, 7-10% of people are needs improvement? I find it hard to believe that’s the case here.
Haven’t heard about any funding rates yet, and typically that’s a bit unknown until January. If you’re hearing 60% that might be what your own business line is anticipating.
100 percent but 40 percent gets carved out and sent in rupees to our headquarters
@OP nah 60% is trash given the quarterly #’s we’ve had. Click bait at its finest
Transparency has left the building, I spend most of my time in empty conference room praying to hit my 6hr per day in aushwitz goal
A 60% funding for meets expectation would be the lowest I've ever seen. On a recent year that had lower performance I think they had a 90% target. That is a huge hit. I really hope that's false.
The 60% mentioned in the other thread was for those that got a "Needs Improvement" review. I have no idea if this is true, but it sounds reasonable given that significantly more people are getting this rating. I believe in the past a "Needs Improvement" would result in no bonus at all.