Barclays Boss gets £ 6,500,000.00 Bonus

The_White_Horse

lemonjelly wrote: »

So why did you have a problem with your bank a week ago horsey dude?

They were trying to increase their profits...

typical lefty. I was annoyed by the inefficient and long winded process. I terminated the process early, but at that stage i wasn't offered any product.

It unlikely they could have sold me a loan (especially when the od is so much cheaper) for my 37p debt.

this lunacy of repeating the same work (as had to say same information to two people) is costing money.

it is wasteful. but as a civil servant, you do not know the meaning of the word.

The_White_Horse

bendix wrote: »

Last time I checked, noone was forced into the police force.

i think you will find that the lefties dropped "force" as it was too aggressive and the criminals may have been upset. it is now a service. and a good service it is too, if you're a criminal arrested at the end of a shift.

smartn

I'm all for giving the bonuses if they can prove they outperformed the market, and as long as they are prepared to accept the pain if they make losses. Trouble is they dont have the pain when they make losses. Because of banking failures plenty of hard working people have lost jobs outside of the banking industry, it isn't fair but I can't see much changing.

vaporate

mcbean2011 wrote: »

the white horse - try working in the police then you will understand. if your at a call and your shift is suppost to end you have a legal requirment to stay on and deal with the situation. not to leave because your finished. and before anybody says it. the shift coming on cant take over because who will then answer the emergency calls then. Its not officers fault they get overtime.

and police deserve more bonuses that bank boss's. banks are the cause to the big drop in money these days and i feel that the police do a more demanding job than they.
most people will disagree but oh well

Comes with the job. Army can be said for the same with their dangers.

They get paid more than enough as it is.

bendix

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i think you will find that the lefties dropped "force" as it was too aggressive and the criminals may have been upset. it is now a service. and a good service it is too, if you're a criminal arrested at the end of a shift.

Are the criminals now called 'clients' or ' customers' too?

Rautavaara

£6.5mil bonus? T'is a pittance! I pity the fool ...

michaels

So this will be 6.5m x 50% = 3.25m income tax straight in to the exchequer which should pay for about 92 teachers / nurses.

Had the money been shared between 20% tax payers in the branches only 37 teaches and nurses could be paid for from the 1.3m tax payable.

Good news 55 extra teachers and nurses can be paid for.

Of course I am envious and would rather see fewer teachers and nurses than see anyone earning so much....

kabayiri

michaels wrote: »

So this will be 6.5m x 50% = 3.25m income tax straight in to the exchequer which should pay for about 92 teachers / nurses.
....
..

No, not quite.

This is a bonus he is due. All top level Barclays staff remuneration is determined by one of their companies, located in the US.

The job of the company is to determine the most tax efficient way of rewarding the execs.

In Bob's case there is quite some flexibility given he still retains an American passport. As I said before, he will actually earn more than the 6m quoted, because Barclays now has an extensive US business.

I think in Bob's case he is probably due what he earns. I don't see him like Fred the Shred who left RBS in very poor state.

JuicyJesus

Barclays made a profit, they can do what they wish (legally) with that profit. They've earned it. Perhaps from bank charges; perhaps from interest on loans; but those are part of business agreements they've made, and they're legitimate. They earned the money. The shareholders apparently are quite happy with Bob Diamond's performance, leading to them being happy to chuck him a good bonus. A personal banker or cashier meanwhile will make a few grand in profit for their bank, and are compensated accordingly.

I've said it once, I'll say it again; the whole bonuses controversy smacks of sour grapes. "They make lots of money, why don't I?" Because they run incredibly profitable multi-billion pound businesses which through their direction they make a sh*tload of money for and you work for someone else. Simples.

I'm sure no small businessmen have paid themselves a vastly (proportionately) higher wage than their employees though, have they?

dunstonh

Because of banking failures plenty of hard working people have lost jobs outside of the banking industry, it isn't fair but I can't see much changing.

Thats a too narrow view. Politicians encouraged the banks during the late 90s and 2000s to lend what they did and they surfed the wave of boom claiming bust was gone forever. However, bust wasn't gone forever, it was just delayed and suffered a bigger bubble because of the artificial boom that was sustained too long by easy credit which then created a bigger bust when it did eventually come. Did the banks cause it? Yes. However, they did it with the consensus of politicians and with the greed of consumers. Did they cause a recession? No. Recessions are normal events that occur as part of the economic cycle. Jobs would be lost in any recession and it wouldnt be the banks fault. There will be another recession in the next decade and the one after. Who are the public going to blame then?

Dont get me wrong, banks have a lot to answer for. However, you cannot blame everything on them. Indeed, the biggest failure is perhaps globalisation and capitalism where bigger is seen as better. Now banks cannot afford to fail. However, the same could be said of a number of other companies as well. Companies are now bigger than some countries. They can bribe, threaten and manipulate as they are so big. Banks were too big to fail. Car makers too big to fail. etc etc.