Yes, they're here to make money but must they charge so much?

They report their results, we do the maths and emit a collective gasp at just how much they're earning. Politicians, here - notably Lord Myners, the City minister - and in the US, jump up and down. The media chip in. And nothing. On they go to the next set of eye-watering figures.

I met a top executive from Goldman Sachs recently and asked him what he thought of the rough ride his bank had received during the summer, when it had been likened to a giant vampire squid? He agreed the firm could not ignore that sort of negative publicity and it was concerned about its reputation. But he added: "we're a bank. We're not going to change that."

First and foremost, his organisation exists to make money. That's what the bank's owners expect of it. Everything else is secondary.

Investment banks are people businesses. Hanging on to the best talent is key to their success. It's no coincidence that head-hunters are reporting a surge in activity - competition for stars is as fierce as ever. So the banks' City and Wall Street audience expect them to reward their staff accordingly. The fact that another constituency, the public, might not like it does not matter.

They work hard and take positions that would shred the nerves of the ordinary man. If they fail, the consequences are swift and brutal. They deserve their money. Where the banks are wrong is that a year ago they did need the rest of us. Even the impregnable Goldman Sachs was teetering. It was rescued by the taxpayer, something that many of them now choose to forget. At the very least, they owe us the assurance there should be no repetition.

Expecting them to go any further is difficult. Obliging them to be more transparent and to make their bonuses more long-term, and deferred, and in shares won't alter anything. Some sort of transactions tax might claw a bit back but, in truth, it isn't going to hurt them greatly.

Yes, they should put more back in philanthropy and there are signs of them doing that. But they can't be forced to and how much they give is entirely up to them. The ease of the banks' recovery ought to raise a more fundamental question: how do they find making so much money so easy?

That is the real issue here and one that clients, when faced with their fees, should also ask. Instead of attacking remuneration, governments too, should require their regulatory bodies to examine the banks' pricing structures. Then, finally, we could begin to get somewhere.