Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Realistbear

Bob "legs" Diamond Gets £13 Million Total Bonus For 2010

Recommended Posts

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Barclays-CEO-Diamond-gets-6-5-reuters_molt-2885049219.html?x=0

Barclays CEO Diamond gets £6.5 million bonus
14:32, Monday 7 March 2011
LONDON (Reuters) - Bob Diamond, the new chief executive of Barclays Plc , was paid a bonus of
6.5 million pounds for last year and received a similar amount in shares under a long-term plan.
His bonus was topped by the two new heads of the bank's investment bank arm - Jerry del Missier and Rich Ricci - with each paid over 10 million pounds, according to pay details released by the bank on Monday.

Bob: "Cha- ching!!!" :D:D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UK Debt Slave

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Barclays-CEO-Diamond-gets-6-5-reuters_molt-2885049219.html?x=0

Barclays CEO Diamond gets £6.5 million bonus
14:32, Monday 7 March 2011
LONDON (Reuters) - Bob Diamond, the new chief executive of Barclays Plc , was paid a bonus of
6.5 million pounds for last year and received a similar amount in shares under a long-term plan.
His bonus was topped by the two new heads of the bank's investment bank arm - Jerry del Missier and Rich Ricci - with each paid over 10 million pounds, according to pay details released by the bank on Monday.

Bob: "Cha- ching!!!" :D:D:D

The word GUILLOTINE immediately springs to mind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Money for nothing...

How about this bloke?

Rolls into the top job - kicks off a bold (some would say insanely bold) plan to turn the UK's oldest insurer into an Asian giant...

Spectacularly fails....

Blows a half billion in the process...

Then does SOD ALL for a year..

and STILL pockets 4.3mill ON TOP of his 900K basic salary...

Fk me! I really screwed up my life with the old honest days pay for an honest days work ethic.....:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word GUILLOTINE immediately springs to mind

Anyone remember a film called "The Long Ships"? 'Cos that had a device that was way better than a silly old guillotine...

Aha!

Edited by tomandlu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The head of the investment arm is actually called Rich Ricci - I had to google to make sure you weren't taking the mick.

I presume Scrooge McDuck heads up the treasury department?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And they didn't borrow from the british tax payer so they are worth every penny*

*the $8.5 BILLION they got from the AIG bailout should be ignored

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC commentary

Barclays remuneration report discloses that £100 invested in Barclays on 31 December 2005 would have been worth £53 - including dividends received - at the end of 2010, which most would describe as a hopeless performance.

And they say that remuneration is a reward for the profits the company makes? Then he owes money.

Also, as for banks saying we have to pay to keep these incredible people here, well let them f*ck off oversease and perhaps the company can turn a profit.

It's beyond a joke that these banksters continue to get away with it. There are now no arguments left justifying these extortionate salaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We cannot get shot of the bankers as London is the largest money laundering hub in the world and we need scammers talent like this to keep it all humming along. Shuffling money and flipping houses are the two main industries keeping HMS UK afloat and one is about to go under, please don't blow holes in the other :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pesto sticks it to Barclays in his blog today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/

Barclays remuneration report discloses that £100 invested in Barclays on 31 December 2005 would have been worth £53 - including dividends received - at the end of 2010, which most would describe as a hopeless performance.

And, lest you labour under the illusion that this was just what happened to the stock market in general, think again: the same £100 invested in all FTSE100 companies (a tiny bit of each company) would have increased in value to £126 over the same time period.

Or to tell you what you already know, returns on almost all our banks - including Barclays - have been lamentable.

So how is it that the chaps at the top of Barclays, and those immediately below them, earn such astonishing sums of money (see my earlier post for the details)?

Can Bob Diamond be worth the £9m he received in pay and bonuses and the £15.2m in shares he also received from earlier incentive schemes that have just matured (or vested, to use the jargon)?

Barclays would say Mr Diamond is simply being paid what's required to retain the services of an acknowledged star of his industry.

But if that's the market rate, isn't there something wrong with a market which also awarded £14.3m and £14m to a couple of executives below board level (and who knows what magnificent sums to traders without executive responsibility, whose pay isn't disclosed?)?

Or to put it another way, how can executives be worth quite so much when the owners of the business, the shareholders, have lost so much money?

Here is another way of looking at the extent to which the owners have been punished: in 2007 Barclays' investors received dividends of 24p per share; in 2010, dividends were 5.5p per share.

If a 77% cut in the dividend isn't redolent of management failure, what is - and why haven't the owners instructed Barclays and the other banks to allocate less wonga for top executives and more for shareholders?

Ministers would argue that the disparate fortunes of executives and owners stems from the ignorance of the owners about what has really been going on. So the Treasury told me it deserved credit for forcing Barclays and the other banks to disclose for the very first time the remuneration of the top five executives below board level (which was a stipulation of the Project Merlin agreement with the big banks on business lending and pay).

So now that shareholders know that the top five below board level earn £14.3m, £14m, £9m, £6.5m and £5.2m - or £49m in total - will they think that's miles too much, just about right or too little?

Will they bother to probe behind the headline figures to take a view about whether they are really paying these executives for performance?

Is there any chance that when it comes to bankers' pay, there will start to be some kind of proper alignment between the rewards to senior employees and the fundamental performance of the business - or will top bankers' pay continue to look as crazy to most people as the pay of Premier League footballers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.