Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Banking Talent
MacMickster
Posts: 3,639 Forumite
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21715167A total of 428 employees of Barclays earned more than £1m last year, the bank has disclosed.
Five members of staff were paid more than £5m, the bank said, but they did not include the chief executive, Antony Jenkins, who received £2.6m..........
The pay details released include salaries, bonuses and the value of long-term share awards given to all of Barclays' 145,000 staff.
Among the top earners, 50 people were paid between £2.5m and £5m last year, while a further 373 were paid between £1m and £2.5m...............
Earlier this month, another major bank, HSBC, gave details of the amounts it had paid its top earners last year.
HSBC's 16 top executives received an average of £3.25m each.
Globally, 204 HSBC employees were paid more than £1m last year, of which 78 were in the UK, where the group has its headquarters
From this can we conclude that Barclays have far more of the top banking talent in their ranks than HSBC? Surely that is the reason given for the obscene amounts paid to bankers - to attract and retain the most talented individuals.
"When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
0
Comments
-
MacMickster wrote: »http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21715167
From this can we conclude that Barclays have far more of the top banking talent in their ranks than HSBC? Surely that is the reason given for the obscene amounts paid to bankers - to attract and retain the most talented individuals.
How can Banks legitimatly pay these vast sums of money to their staff then report that they have made a loss.
Seems that their figures are covering up some corrupt deals.0 -
Seeing as City of London remuneration and bonuses form a significant part of UK Government tax receipts, you shouldn't be so bitter.
I think you should focus your concerns on the inability of the Govt present and past to diversify the UK economy rather than criticising those who happen to already add to it.Reformed Saver!0 -
How can Banks legitimatly pay these vast sums of money to their staff then report that they have made a loss....
Err, both Barclays and HSBC posted profits last year. Granted Barclays made a lot less (£250m?) than the previous year, but HSBC made £13 billion.
Hence the OP's observation.Seems that their figures are covering up some corrupt deals.
Seems you don't know what the figures are.:)0 -
Seeing as City of London remuneration and bonuses form a significant part of UK Government tax receipts, you shouldn't be so bitter.
I think you should focus your concerns on the inability of the Govt present and past to diversify the UK economy rather than criticising those who happen to already add to it.
Seeing as City of London banks were largely responsible for the global financial crash, I think that it is reasonable to ask whether their staff are worth their wages.
The remuneration stats quoted are interesting.
HSBC has almost twice the number of employees worldwide than Barclays, but Barclays have around twice the number of employees earning over £1million.
As Barclays seem to have cornered the market for talent (with roughly 1 in 300 of their employees earning over £1million) I'm sure that potential investors will expect their future performance to be far better than HSBC, or have I got something wrong?"When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson0 -
MacMickster wrote: »Seeing as City of London banks were largely responsible for the global financial crash, I think that it is reasonable to ask whether their staff are worth their wages.
The remuneration stats quoted are interesting.
HSBC has almost twice the number of employees worldwide than Barclays, but Barclays have around twice the number of employees earning over £1million.
As Barclays seem to have cornered the market for talent (with roughly 1 in 300 of their employees earning over £1million) I'm sure that potential investors will expect their future performance to be far better than HSBC, or have I got something wrong?
Yes you have it totally wrong;
investors are more interested in overall profitablity, dividend and future growth prospects than who earns what.0 -
Err, both Barclays and HSBC posted profits last year. Granted Barclays made a lot less (£250m?) than the previous year, but HSBC made £13 billion.
Hence the OP's observation.
Seems you don't know what the figures are.:)
Maybe you are correct but in my long lifetime I have never heard of such figures being brandished around in bonuses.0 -
MacMickster wrote: »From this can we conclude that Barclays have far more of the top banking talent in their ranks than HSBC? Surely that is the reason given for the obscene amounts paid to bankers - to attract and retain the most talented individuals.
Barclays has bigger investment bank operation. Bought a large chunk of Lehmans from the administrators.
HSBC operated in 80 countries in 2012. That doesn't make the profit figure look so great. After accounting adjustments are stripped out. Such as buying back its own debt and booking a profit!0 -
Yes you have it totally wrong;
investors are more interested in overall profitablity, dividend and future growth prospects than who earns what.
Yes "real" dividends from Barclays would be nice.
The relative number compared to HSBC seems somewhat odd.
1 in 300 also seems a high proportion."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Yes "real" dividends from Barclays would be nice.
The relative number compared to HSBC seems somewhat odd.
1 in 300 also seems a high proportion.
I'm afraid I don't understand you
at current prices HSBC shares pay 4.2%
and Barclays pay 2.1%
presumably the market thinks that barclays have greater growth prospects0 -
We might not like it ...but it doesn't look like its going to change.
Once one gets it...the rest follow....at least the premiership footballers deserve it for all their hard training..;)
The committee who vote these salaries through are all part of the same game as far as I understand...
Wonder why they weren't fleeing the country in 1998 looking at the chart...
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 345.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 251K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 450.9K Spending & Discounts
- 237.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 612.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 174.3K Life & Family
- 250.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards