Barclays is a bit sorry

Dear Robert
,
So it is being let out of the Bag, Brown refers to Deflation, ------which ultimately leads to the Euro

The PM get's GBP250k - That is ridiculous!

It might be the first bank to offer up the entire board, but it shouldn't be - Northern Rock should have done this a year ago!

No comment from Robert on news they're overperforming and paying the taxpayer back too quickly!

Which is apparently a bad thing too - They really can't win!

... By the way, did anyone watch the Ascent of Money on C4 last night? I think all the calls on this site for a tv explanation of fractional reserve banking will be answered.

Robert's crown is slipping!

The great daylight robbery of the middleclasses continues.

Pension Funds and small sharholders robbed blind.

Inflation up (mine running at eleven and a half percent)

The Pound falling as international investors flee the land of state robbery.

Are they ready to nationalize the House builders yet ?

More windfall taxes on Pension Funds !

The charge may be "emotional rather than rational reasons", but wanting to preserve a profitable but frowned-upon business-line such as Barclays' rather active 'tax schemes' division was perfectly rational.

At least, it might have been back in October. The very recent approach of the HMRC, simply announcing they will legislate retrospectively against new tax-avoidance schemes (see HMRC press releases last week), may make that an altogether less attractive business to be in.

So no bonuses, an alienated shareholder base, an alienated regulator and paying more that they need to have done.

I just hope that the 'benefits' they claim become real. Otherwise it may be better for the shareholder to vote out the board!

I still am unable to escape the thought that there must be another reason behind the refusal to take the Chancellor's shilling - only thing I can think of is that there is some activity or something in, or indeed not in, the accounts that they wish to keep hidden - else why did they do it?

"For Bod Diamond, the head of Barclays Capitals" - no wonder they're in a sticky position, having a 70's childrens animation character as their head....

Which Party has said anything about a policy to rebuild Britains manufacturing industry?

Hmm, I can't think of one.

But without rebuilding manufacturing Britain isn't going to get out of this mess.

But with a Pound a Dollar exchange rate our manufacturing should recover a little ?

Maybe, but politicians sitting on their hands hoping that jobs will magically reappear isn't going to make it happen!

We need some politicians who genuinely care about their people.

Oh yes they are supposed to do that.

They claim the right to rule and defend the lands and people of Britain, but they happily take actions that grind our economy into the ground.

They give away assets to foreign powers......

In whose interests are they running this country, and in which Swiss bank do they put their savings ?

I see that Bod is now CEO of Barclays (Para 11). I remember when he was just a little animated character.

I wonder if he's still in touch with Aunt Flo and PC Copper.

The whole thing stinks of corruption. "Back us or sack us"..more like back us or give us a good payoff to retire on. The government needs to find a way to recoup the last ten years of bonuses already paid out. Surely these bonuses can be proven to be "illegal" as the money was not really there for them to be paid.

Considering that the majority of Barclays' voting shares are in foreign hands, this may not be as silly as is thought. It could be an exercise in shutting up, once and for all, those vocal minorities who complained that *they* were not given a chance to invest or vote for the fund raising.

500m quids worth of *cash* is a lot of money for any bunch to come up with in these recessionary times. Furthermore, it is a very smart ploy in that since there are no warrants up for sale, Gormless Gordon and his merry men cannot do a back door nationalisation of Barclays using funny money !!

So, for the vocal minorities, it is time to put your money where your mouth is !! You have talked the talk; now let's see you walk the walk !!

Why is it inconceivable that the whole board be sacked?

It would be historic but not inconceivable. It might just be the thing that turns UK banking around.

The problem with back me or sack me is that when you bring emotions into an equation you sometimes don't get the response you want.

Even if the board "won" a numberical majority a sizeable no vote would effectively sink them if, for example the Association of British Insurers and National Association of Pension Funds came out against the deal.

Robert, I wait daily for your analysis but still have not seen the piece I really want. I feel like I am living in Alice in Wonderland as every day passes. We are in a mess because we borrowed too much and spent money we didn't have on things we often didn't need. Asset prices of things like homes soared way beyond what my poor son's generation can remotely afford. There had to be a correction. Now that correction is finally upon us and we are told falling prices are a BAD THING. That the only way out of this mess is to keep doing the very thing that got us into it in the first place -spending money we don't have, putting off saving, putting off investment in our futures and our pensions. Surely this is just going to put off the inevitable for a little longer till the money really runs out and in the process make it even worse. I can't believe there will be much of a deflation anyway with the currency falling by 25% and us so dependent on imports. And with the gvt about to need to borrow/print squillions so that it falls even more. I would have thought a more likely outcome is some kind of Zimbabwean hyper inflation at this rate. Yet the people who warn of all this are shouted down. Why has no single BBC reporter challenged the notion that governments and people should keep on and on spend spend spending. THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES

Barclays,

yeah, really a business story that matters, that one.

Anyone noticed how the recession isn't 'news' any more? De facto - we're in it so lets get back to Little Britain and sideline news stories like the 'Pirates of the African coast' and broadcast more comedy to cheer folk up.

It's even been rubbed off Ch4 headline news.

GC

Good news! I finally get to signal my disapproval for this disgraceful course of action. The whole lot of them should go. I only hope the bigger shareholders have the stomach to take decisive action.

Slightly off topic, but I've just been reading yesterday's blog comments and I just wanted to extend my thoughts and best wishes to Guy Croft.

A close friend of mine has recently been declared bankrupt and I've seen the damage this has done to both his self esteem and to his family.

I can't remember what it is your company does (something to do with classic cars?), but I hope things pick up! I realise your situation isn't absolute yet, or even isolated, but I just wanted to wish you all the best!

Are the Barclays Execs about to have there Ratner moment?

#7 meet #6.


Enjoy

Robert, why haven't existing shareholders in RBS, Lloyds, HBoS et all been offered preference shares as a capital raising mechanism? Is it a condition of our "helpful" interventionist government that only they receive preference shares?

Given the shareholder dissatisfaction at Barclay's selective sale of preference shares to Middle East investors (and the Board's belated policy change) there is clearly a willingness to invest additional capital where the terms are perceived as generous.

No 14: Right on. The situation is so bad it almost defies description. The whole thing has become surreal.

Since the 1990's the UK has had a series of good fortunes. North Sea Oil, Chinese Imports, Computer Age, Carry Trade and Financial Service. The corollary of these good fortunes is that the UK believed that it could walk on water. Whilst we have benefited from these it has created an indigent environment.

There is no cavalry coming over the hill this time. It will be much worse than Japan - they had exports.

https://www.qmh.co.uk/daily_express.html

The chances are that some banks will still collapse before Spring and therfore, offering themselves up will happen anyway, not in the way they see it though.

Of all of the business stories in all of the world, you had to blog on Barclays and their Board. Why?

"The charge against the Barclays board is that for emotional rather than rational reasons it preferred partial nationalisation by a couple of Gulf states to partial nationalisation by HM Treasury."

I'm surprised that you haven't done anything to reassure the public that such a charge is itself based much more on emotion than on reason. Surely you can see the difference between investment by sovereign wealth funds, looking fundamentally at maximising their rate of return, and investment by the UK Treasury, looking fundamentally at directing banks to kowtow to whatever vote-buying social policy is the subject of the latest government diktat - with little regard to its commercial implications?

I'm afraid that reason would suggest that Treasury interference in a part-nationalised business will have zero, repeat zero, regard for the well-being of the remaining private shareholders, and that it is only with emotion that one could think any differently.

Maybe RBS, Lloyds and HBoS have no option but to accept the Treasury "offer they can't refuse", whereas Barclays, clearly, do have an alternative. I really wonder whether the ferocity with which this plan has been attacked is much to do with concern about Barclays. Could it not be more about a desire not to have an independent yardstick against which to measure the actual future performance of the part-nationalised banks?

I must say, I'm a bit baffled by all this.

I can see loads of value for Lloyds TSB and HBOS taking govenment funding - essentially what's good for the UK economy is good for them, they're both UK-centric businesses so the Treasury will be a belign shareholder.

By all accounts, for RBS the Treasury support was the only game in town, so again I can see why Government support was the way to go.

But Barclays? Their strategy has been to diversify away from the UK and into emerging markets. All the evidence (rather than rumour) suggests they're weathering the storm rather better than most Banks and that does place them at a significant advantage and able to grow their business in line with strategy. I really can't see the UK Treasury meekly supporting that sort of agenda and nor, if I'm being frank, can I see existing investors being ready, willing and able to find the sort of money Barclays is being directed to raise.

I seem to recall someone (and Robert, I think it may have been you) commenting that either Eric Daniels or John Varley would end up looking shrewd. That misses the point. Each has his own agenda and both are developing their businesses in line with their own strategy. The disparity of those strategies will make it an awful lot easier for Lloyds to find wriggle room in the Treasury conditions than Barclays.

This is the kind of behaviour that Thatcher stomped on when tried by the working class. Its called the closed shop:
You cant sack us because we'll make you pay if you do. For at least three years and more with share options.

I think Robert watched the latest episode of spooks last night

Is it a coincidence that the Chairman of Barclays (Marcus Agius) was also the Chairman of BAA immediately prior to it's sale to the Spanish - any connection with selling British institutions abroad?

They have largely been responsible for wrecking the economy......I say sack em!

Boards must be answerable for their actions, in respect of the Barclays board, their refusal to accept the UK Government money was a mistake.They either refused it because:

(1) It was too restrictive on the bank, and or

(2) It restricted their individual remuneration.

However, there is no reason why they could not have taken the Government money, endured a couple of difficult years with a view to repaying the government and returning to "normal"

Unfortunately they have ended up alienating their existing shareholders, foregoing their remuneration (anyway) and saddling themselves with expensive and dilutive middle eastern money which may end up restricting their performance.

It's a mess and the Chairman should pay the penalty, either he should resign or be voted off by shareholders. In addition to this, there is no question that the shareholders should vote against the current middle eastern fundraising, for the simple reason that it is a poor deal for existing shareholders

In fact....I think I might just buy a few shares to have the privilege of being able to vote to sack em!

The fund-raising deal still does not make sense.

Why raise money overseas when you can raise it on more favourable terms at home; from "UK Investment institutions" or the government?

Three possible reasons.

1. Incompetence or panic. The "Dad's Army" explanation.

2. Barclays have something on their books that they want to hide.

3. Barclays have a cunning plan for future development as an international bank, and so are happy to become less British.

volunteering not to take bonuses? Offering shareholders shares, all stepping down?

I've read the articles several times and still struggle to believe my eyes!

It may not be exactly what is wanted by some, but wow!

A BANK IS APOLOGISING!

It is also doing the decent thing by it's shareholders!

What a rare sight-a bank with a conscience!

WELL DONE BARCLAYS!

Robert, apart from the Lloyds/Hbos thing going to a vote, any chance the rest of the banks will follow Barlays brilliant lead?

Sorry?

No, didn't think so! I wonder why?

Ratner moment?

Solid gold comment!

Excellent!

Robert-new idea for a book for you-best of business blogs!

Include catchy phrases like the Ratner one, and prophetic ones, rants, in fighting and the funny ones!

Be a brilliant read!

He he!

As usual 90% of the 'comments' here bear no relation to the story.

I don't really understand Peston's angle here. The Barclays board, despite being a completely private company (they didnt take any government money) decide NOT to take bonuses. That's a good thing.

So what if British institutions dont get offered the same equity investment terms as the Middle East investors. We all know why that is dont we? When HBOS and B&B tried to raise funds in Britian what happened? Do you blame Barclays for going directly to where funds dont mind taking long term investments and deals can be done in a matter of days rather than months causing volatility on a share price?

Peston you need to take a new look at the new investment world and stop being so reactionary.

Pension funds Managers and other Investing Institutions have only themselves to blame.
they have let Compay Directors do what they want and as long as the Instituyions got their cut (rights issues etc), they waved them on.

When has a FTSE board been forced to change direction by a Resolution being voted down?

Pension Funds have let excess greed and bonuses and hubris go on and done NOTHING.
See N Rock, HBOS, Barclays etc etc.

Sow the wind etc..

What a shame this shambles of a Government dont follow the board of Barclays and offer themselves for re-election !

If Brown mentions "Global Crisis" again I am sure I will loose the will to live !

That said, it will be if if continues to dig the hole deeper, it shouldnt be much longer before he reaches Australia. If they see Brown emerge from his hole they will have a crisis

This Government has ruined the opportunities for todays population and single handed he is destroying any chance of opportinity for our children and their children of the future.

The Tory party dont have much idea of how to get out of it now, and neither does anyone else because the hole is allready so deep.

Is 'Bod' a real name....

#9 supercalmdown

Don't be daft (about rebuilding our manufacturing industry!)

Manufacturing is real work!.......sometimes you even have to get your hands dirty!

Now we surely couldn't expect any of these redundant bankers getting a drip of oil on one of their shirt cuffs could we.

Maybe that's why they say manufacturing is a dirty word in the this country......but it will never be as dirty as the -business- of politics.

The catastrophe we face today is a direct result of people trained as lawyers running our country and economy along with the top bankers. This country is only worth living in if you are one of these pariahs. They are no less than a -legitimised- mafia.

Back us or sack us? Mmmmmmm what should they do? Sack them, the whole lot of them. They acted as they did for personal reasons. They didn't have the interests of their company or their shareholders (owners) at heart. I suspect this meagre 'no bonus this year' announcement is largely directed at the treasury, just in case they need a little help some time soon. Then, well, at least they'll have shown some remorse about their role in the whole banking fiasco. The problem is that these people have shown that they've felt that their bank is precisely that: 'their' bank. It is not 'their' bank to do with as they please. They need to be reminded of this and the best way to do it is: bye bye boys, don't knock over the pot plants on the way out.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#23 ExcellenceFirst......an insightful post.

It's a bit akin to watching two criminal escapees fighting each other on a cobbled-up raft (i.e. the UK economy) as it floats down the river towards the impending Niagra of a waterfall.

Joseph Brown must be spending night and day thinking about how he can get control of Barclays and HSBC.

Sack the Barclays board and let's have an election now!

Post 35, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

I will explain this in English for you. The board of a Plc are elected representatives of the shareholders and are supposed to act in the best interest of the existing shareholders.

To allow the business to run nromally the shareholders appoint the directors to run the company in line with its memorandum of incorporation i.e. its business aims. A certain number of directors come up for re-election every year to allow for both a continuity of management but equally the opportunity for shareholders to change their board over time.

The Board must act in the Companies best interests otherwise they could be sued by the shareholders.

The simple point is here that many people believe that if Barclays needs extra capital it should offer that opportunity to invest to its existing shareholders first. This is generally done via a rights issue. This allows current investors not only first opportunity to invest, after all they are the people who put up the business capital in the first place and the chance to either increase their shareholding or effectively reduce it as a percentage by not taking up the option.

There is a view, reasonably widely held, that the current shareholders have taken the pain from the boards poor decision making that has caused the share price to fall and now they are not getting the opportunity to get the potential future gain.

I will put this is simple terms for you.

Imagine I was the Barclays Board and you have invested in the business looking for a return of about 5% on your investment. For GBP 1,000 you would look for a return of GBP 50 a year.

Now I decide to raise another GBP 1,000 and offer the new investors a 14% return plus the option to buy more shares at a cheap price and I didn't offer it to you first.

You would be angry too.

if the Barclays Board is truly contrite, then by offering themselves up for re-election they must be admitting they have "mismanaged" the Bank's capital raising venture.
If the main executive Board know they are mismanaging this, then are they also admitting the WHOLE of BARCLAYS operations are also being MISMANAGED? Can't do one without the other.
Has someone contacted the FSA? Regulatory failings at this level can and do lead to arrest.
Personally, I'd sack the lot and start again. Look how many Barclays business customers have been truly hurt.

Financial crisis: That's all about trust they say.

Well, but trust in what? At the last instance, trust in the persons who create, manage and work in the institutions.

But how can we trust in someone who's behaviour is reckless, without any kind of principles, engaging in the so called "aggressive selling" (stands for crookery with the poor and ignorant), for whom the concept of Social Responsibility is something for the naive and week, not for themselves, the alpha males who so easily engage in jungle practices.

I doubt that they can understand the concept of Decivilisation, but that's exactly what's happening in our times.

Can we change the human nature? Of course not, but we can and must demand for civilised behaviours in our society. Some big (and small) heads rolling will help, and by the way, not only in the financial and construction sectors, in their political servants as well.

CityZen24561
Animal Farm, Nov 18 2008

They're volunteering not to have a bonus?

Why do they even have the option of a bonus given the state they've let the bank get into.

If you can monumentally screw the company and still expect to collect a big bag of money, then it's not a bonus, it's salary.

A number of people have commented on the Barclay's man's name, but no-one yet appears to have commented on his salary last year.

I am sorry, but no-one and I mean no-one (not even me) NEEDS 21m GBP per year.

I am all for rewarding performance, but that has to be a point where you say have to say "How much money is enough?".

I would suggest that 10% of that figure is more than enough.

I am not advocating socialism here, but there has to be some control.

Barclays bends (a bit) from ftalphaville

I think bankers showing remorse, doing penance or any other slightly human thing is irreconcilable with their position.

There are 2 reasons for this statement.

1)
The G20 (at which many OPEC representatives attended) decided ..

Incentives should be aligned to avoid excessive risk-taking. i.e. bonuses

AND

..Instruct our Finance Ministers.... high priority actions to be completed prior to March 31, 2009 ......

To review compensation practices as they relate to incentives for risk taking and innovation; i.e. bonuses

So good they named it twice. The WORLD named this twice.

2)
Barclays management are not falling on their swords, it is simple shrewd management to persuade the international institutions that they listened to G20. They have done the figures and know they will be elected.

We should only be impressed by Barclays statement if they called a bonus moratorium for the entire length of the crisis with performance related REFORMS implicit when restarted. They wont do that.

If Barclays did that I would consider there was some glimmer of hope for the UK economy, someone has to show the way. Currently everyone is stumbling around in the dark with no candles clinging onto the coattails of what has gone before.

Hopless, really hopeless. I am so tired of this insipidity.

#49

Hang on... 21m quid per annum would allow you to invest say 10m in start-ups and early stage companies, 1m would let u run a car in the British Touring Car Championship, 5m would support R&D into new fuels and other energy technologies..

Personally I'd have a great time with 21m but I bet Barclay's main man didn't...

I have a sneaking suspicion that we are not being told the truth about the banks’ real financial situation. Before the slump house prices in the UK averaged between seven and nine times average salary for a good few years. I reckon that this has reaped huge profits, in relation to UK citizens’ total gross salaries.

To show how average house price and average salary provide bank cash flow we only need to calculate the effect of different house price to salary multiples on interest paid over the life of a mortgage.

First some assumptions. 1. If the interest rate is the same for all calculations; 2. the mortgage is equal to the value of the property; and 3. the mortgage term is the same for all calculations then the total interest paid on a mortgage is only related to the price of the property. If the property price is double the interest paid is double.

If we compare an average house purchase at 3, 6 and 9 times average salary and further assume that 1. disposable income is the same excepting mortgage capital and interest payments; and 2. net income after tax and national insurance is 75% for an average salary (see www.listentotaxman.com).

Based upon an interest rate of 7%, a term of 25 years, an average salary of £25,000 and a net income of £18,750 it’s a fairly straightforward process to calculate the interest paid on the mortgage together with the number of years net income required to service the interest.

The result is quite astonishing. At nine times average salary 13.1 years of net income would be paid in interest. That’s almost nine years more than a house purchase at three times average which would only require 4.4 years.

Now, is it fair to assume that the banks have had an interest in creating surplus demand for housing by making unaffordable mortgages easily available? I very much doubt that the negative effects of the credit crunch are going to negate all of this extra profit that the banks have made over recent years.

Hmmmm……..

"Bogged it up" ?

Is that an academic turn of phrase, studied in the final year of a MSc in economics...

I just love RP's (ie GB and Ally D's) ongoing obsession with Barclays, and its unwillingness to accept government investment.

I think a more interesting story is the fact that shares in RBS are currently trading at 42p, which is 23p (ie >50%) below the price at which the government has agreed to underwrite their new share issue. I'm not saying this is necessarily a reflection on the market's fear of State ownership. What it does undoubtedly say, though, is that the UK government as underwriter looks likely to take a hefty loss immediately it acquires these shares. Why would anyone want to take on even greater risk, eg by investing in Barclays too, when there are other investors willing to share the wider burden with HMG?

It's good news (for UK taxpayers) that Barclays doesn't need to take money from the government. And so what if Barclays' current shareholders are upset. That's a matter for them and Barclays to work through for themselves. Is there any evidence that they have the appetite or ability to provide the additional capital Barclays' requires? No there isn't. Is there any doubt that if they had offered Barclays all the money needed and for only 13% return that Barclays would not have gone to their Middle Eastern friends, or at least not for anything like the full amount?

Existing shareholders were almost certainly sounded out about investing additional capital before the Middle East investments were lined up. They couldn't raise the necessary cash from those sources, so approached new ones. It happens all the time.

After banking with Barclays for 55 years I was somewhat miffed when the rate on our small business overdraft was increased from 4% over base to 8%. I wrote to suggest that this was somewhat over the top but naturally I did not receive a reply, just a phone call from a business manager, and they seem to change every few weeks.

Did I read somewhere that Barclays holds more toxic debt in the form of CDSs than can be paid off with the total asset value of the UK, it could have been on this blog.

Two more comments removed?

Now theres a surprise.

Are they really sorry?

Are the existing directors the most competent and conscientious to take the bank forward to repair the damage and to prosper, not just their renumerations and bonuses but in the interests of the shareholders and the British public?

Is the £172m unrefundable commission (kickback/bribe?) offered or demanded? It is the most offensive, arrogant fait acompli gesture in this sorry affair. Is it the "norm" in the world of finance and banking? Why cannot the public get such a good sweentener when lending money to the banks, at a much poorer rate of return?

Such intense and expensive aversion to take the government's offers and strings indirectly imply serious doubts competence and trustworthiness of some public servants, past and present, who are suppose to serve the public's interests and only the public's interests.

#14 and #21, I totally agree.

However, I just can not believe the government can be as silly as it looks...I think they have known for years that the crash will happen but decided to follow the US economic policy of borrowing anyway, as it is more economic, in their view, to have the last ten years of growth and to pay the price. I wonder if they have actually calculated the price...Maybe they intended to borrow until the bitter end...It could be cheaper in the long run..
Maybe they have worked out that there is no bitter end. Maybe borrowing can be indefinite. As long as there is someone wealthy enough to lend to them, the borrowing policy will continue. Once the lending stops, the borrowing will stop but when that happens the circle will be complete. All the money will end up with one country or group of people who will be forced to give it away. Has anyone ever finished a game of Monopoly???
The UK government just has to make sure that the US are in the lead or else the UK will get run over by the tank it is slipsteaming. Maybe that is the biggest threat to the UK economy.

#50 virtualpagan

It's the last line of the ftalphaville article that exposes the deceit of these Barclays executives offering to waiver their bonuses.....

'Bottom line: Bob and his colleagues have waived something that wasn’t even coming their way. Was it?!'

I don't have the figures but could Barclays have raise the necessary funds if all bonuses paid since 2001 are returned?

There are some rather perculiar comments posted here.

1. "Barclays is taking money off the Arabs because they've got something to hide that they don't want the government to see".

FACT: Barclays - along with all of the other UK Banks - had to submit their books to the FSA for a thorough grilling. The FSA applied rigour tests to see what levels of capital would be required to withstand a 'Financial Tsunami" - and they told the Banks that they would need to raise their captial to those levels.

At that point, the Government offered to provide the capital to those Banks that thought they wouldn't be able to raise it privately. Barclays was one of the few Bank who declined to take the Government money as they thought (correctly as it turned out) that they could raise the money elsewhere.

As a tax payer, I'm rather happy about that.

2. "We should sack the board for letting the Bank get into the state it is in."

FACT: In the half year interim results, Barclays declared profit before tax of £2.7 billon (against £4.1 billion for the same period in the previsous year). In subsequent annoucements, they have declared that they trade 'satisfactorily' in July and August and where doing better in September than they had in the previous year.

So, whilst profits are likely to be down against the previous year, when compared to what the other Bank's are losing (RBS etc) this is quite a remarkable performance.

Whatever one may think of the way the additional capital has been raised, a bit a perspective (and knowledge) ought to be applied before posting.

Call me an old cynic, but I feel sure that the reason behind the Barclay's decision was their wish to retain those lucrative executive bonuses. Now they've been forced to kick them out, they're angling for a big payoff instead...

The Management are going to reduce what they take out of the TILL?


Now theres a THOUGHT!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

REPOSTED DUE TO ???????

Who says the Regulators are miffed - if they were, they'd surely be doing summat about it. They aren't, which probably means there's no honour between crooks, but might mean they're planning something worthwhile for once...dream on.

#29 Err....exactly which shareholders are you talking about ?? Have you looked at the Barclays' share register recently ?? There seems to be a significant number of foreign sounding names with significant shareholdings !!

In the banking business cocking a snook at anybody is not a good idea. Unlike any other business, (at least in my long gone day) a bank's first concern is not its shareholders, but its depositors. Upset the latter and any bank is out of business, or was pre Northern Rock. I can only think that "Bod" is either so inept as to have overlooked his depositors, or has decided that as they are now largely guaranteed by the Government any re-action from them is unlikely. Perhaps that is an accurate assessment but not a very re-assuring one.

My comment is: "Is the UK very well equipped to cope with this financial crisis or very badly equipped to cope with it. From all that I read it could be either?

Last year's bonus for Diamond of £21M could earn an annual income of £850K which with his lowly basic salary of £250K produces an income this year of £1.1M

He should be able to manage!

How can he and other top directors justify bonuses of this and even greater order.

Can some one explain what they do uniquely to justify such enormous sums? Is a small group of directors solely responsible for creating the value that enables such bonuses to be found?

Is not this overpaid oligarchy utterly dependent on teams of staff and specialists that provide the hard work and expertise?

Although the government is not able stop the senior management of private companies from paying each other outrageous sums it is able to design a taxation regime that makes sure the community gets the majority share!

#55 As I said earlier, these "shareholders" and other protesters have talked the talk. Now that they are offered 1/2 billion quid nominal in Barclays shares, can they walk the walk ?? Or was that all bluster and no substance ??

As the Pieman said to Simple Simon,"Show me first your penny !!"

#62 Come, come, now !! Why let a few inconvenient facts spoil a good rant ??

If they can't blame themselves, then surely they have to blame someone else !!

#72

Yes, excuse me, you are perfectly correct. I forgot where I was for a moment there.

As an individual Barclays shareholder, who has stayed with them because the shares have gone well below fair value, I object to the proposed capital-raising and now expect to vote against. But I imagine I will be outvoted by the institutional shareholders who are being given a slice of the action.

The effect of the proposal will be to make the value of my shares lower and their recovery slower. I would be happy to invest more to take advantage of the company's recovery, but am not being given the chance to do this.

As a Barclays shareholder I will not be satisfied with the directors until they ensure that no bonuses or share options are even suggested for any director, or any member of staff, until such time as the share price has recovered to exceed that in the past plus interest. In simplistic terms the self serving directors have devastated my investments, whilst paying out bonuses and share options based upon what amounts to false accounting. Up to now only the shareholders have suffered it is about time the directors and highly paid staff shared in the mess they created.

To those who think Barclays couldn't raise money from their existing shareholders: they did just that earlier this year, at nearly double the current share price.

Other banks' rights issues failed, but theirs succeeded.

#74

I currently work for Barclays and have done for sometime. I read with interest what you all have to say about the current announcements. Many of the posts are informative and often entertaining!

I do find it annoying though that you seem to tar the employees all with the same brush. This situation is as concerning for us as for the shareholders (many of us are customers and shareholders too!) if not more as it will be our jobs on the line if the situation is not resolved.

We are not all highly paid staff and do not get excessive bonuses. We work hard for our salaries and if we perform well then we are rewarded.

Our Exec are currently keeping us all informed of the current changes and emphasising that we must continue to provide the service that our customers expect.

I for one am placing my trust in the Exec and their decisions - their strategy has been clear for sometime and they are focussing on developing the business into a successful international company - this has not changed.

Please remember that the individual employees have not caused the market changes.

#68

Unfortunately, the answer actually is 'both'.

Out of the major economies, the UK is the most heavily reliant on the Financial Services sector are a proportion of it's GDP. Since this is the sector where the effects of the recession are most - disproportionately - likely to be hit by the recession. So, yes we are going to be clobbered in the downturn.

Conversley our (relatively) flexible labour force - and the fact that the financial services sector is also likely to outperform in an upturn, make us well placed to take advantage when we do come out of recession.

If you look at the Bank of England's updated projections for the next few years, they are predicting (as the mid-range) quite a significant bounce-back at the end of 2009 / 2010. Whether this actually comes to pass remains to be seen.

Didn't John Major use the "back me or sack me" ploy?
I seem to remember that it silenced the critics for a while.

Of course all the directors will be re-elected with fresh mandates and confidence.
The money raising will go through unopposed as it's the only option.
As for redundancies.... what's 15 per cent of Barclays head count?

I see RBS are really tackling their salary overspend....nearly one and a half per cent of its workforce to go......just window dressing...well it's nearly Christmas!

#11 Agree. Fail to understand why improperly obtained "bonuses, rewards, etc" are not recoverable. It must be possible to make the incompetent and downright dishonest repay money earned under false pretences.
A blot on that horizon is the greed of the legal profession who would top-slice anything up to 50% of any funds recovered.

That some organisations will now make bonuses and extra payments convertible/payable after the gain has been confirmed three to five years on is a welcome step forward.

barclays john varley & co will have to pull alot of rabbits out of a lot of hats on a regular basis in difficult time's to keep their place on the barclay board but a golden good by wont be a suprise

after the hbos tsb merger and things settle
who will protect the ordinary man on the street from this monoply morgage bank

#75 - incorrect, the placing and clawback in June/July was taken up by only 19% of shareholders leaving the bulk with the Qatar and the other placees.

Go on Varley

Be a bit sorry

Resign and spare us forking out to get rid of an arrogant CEO

Value Added Performance Management

Ha ha ha ha

Nice one Varley

Alexander Curzon for CEO at Barclays

Barclays board have offered themselves for re-election, ok let's see who wants to offer themselves up as a leader like Mr Varley, who has not followed the other lemmings into the interfering hands of Mr Brown and Mr Darling (wait for it, theres an election coming!) and has diversified the company into profitable emerging markets which have more of a future than Great Britain and a keen interest in investing in the global super league players to compliment there monstorous wealth from natural resources.
to coin someone else's phrase
'the possibilities are endless !!'
And for GREAT Britain which is generaly becoming owned by those emerging greater economies anyway, even our government is being given away to foriegners with little or no interest in our country, economy or culture.
Great nations, empires and also companies are seldom destroyed from foriegn aggression, but rather from within , like where the knives are out for Mr Varley and his team.(beware the ides of march!! alternatively April)
Enough of crying over wasted opportuities to back the man when you should have, and stand inline behind your leader, thats why you put him there in the first place, let him take you to where the profits grow and stop being donkeys led by lions.

Wow... seems like a lot pf people, INC Robert have it in for Barclays. Checking back on his blogs there seems to be a more then a few directed at attacking the 300yr old bank.

So I have to ask why?

A bank with it's HQ in the UK is making money when the majority of others are not, they have the largest growing share of new mortgage business, and are fast attracting current account customers and you lot seem to think this is bad thing.

Okay so there shareprice is low, how is this their fault - seems like you people are the ones selling off the shares and in effect lowering their price.

And okay they have raised the interest on overdrafts for small business - but isn't that a sign of a responsible lender? Encouraging business (and individuals) to live within their means.

JV and co keep sending out press releases confirming how well they are doing in the current markets, the FSA has checked the books and everything is in order so why are people slating Barclays?

Robert & the rest of the bank bashers should be ashamed of themselves. Do they want another british bank to fail?

As some above as already point out - not everyone working for Barclays is a villian, I know more then one or two myself, and working in the industry myself I know that we're all working hard to make our businesses a success - so come on people, have a little faith in a british company.

absolutely Alexander curzon for barclays CEO-even bank of England or prime minister? There are many on this blog itching to do what the greedy, megalomaniac won't do, and that's male banks and government work for the people they serve, not the other way around!

I'd happily step into a position where I could force all the smoke and mirrors to stop! Anyone notice how the conservatives keep bashing GB and Ally D but never get a decent answer to their questions?

Incidentally, even in banks' accounts have been supposedly rigorously assesed, THAT's not where the biggest problem is- it's the OFF BOOK debt-I suspect no records on this have been submitted, just verbal guestimates. I bet the true figure hasn't been declared, just enough to satisfy the government!

Why am I not surprised that they won't reveal the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Alexander Curzon-leader of the Bloggers party-has a great ring to it, doesn't it? He can call a vote of no confidence and get the government sacked then!

Given the extraordinary number of posts he is having removed before publication has me totally convinced that he is so close to the truth that if his comments were left in the country would riot!

Keep up the good work Alex-if you need a treasury secretary you know where to find me!

ps

Matter of fact, I'd go for education secretary-ban idiotic phones like mine that have dyslexic predictive text, and focus on simple spelling, grammar and arithmetic-then make failed bankers and treasury officials take a refresher course!

About time someone made them understand that debt + more debt + secret debt = bankruptcy.

How can any bank be so much in debt and still manage to pay wages, tax and NI?

Perhaps they could let all struggling SME's in on the secret?

An interesting post on this mornings Insurance Times re the ABI's views on Barclays.

https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=375453

Have Barclays lot their corporate heads? Three hundred million pounds is one heck of a lot of Wonga - and what does Barclays get in return? My late father gave me one very sound piece of advice and that was: "Never take investment advice from a stockbroker or a banker!"

a bit sorry.
a BIT sorry.
A BIT SORRY!

NO!

polish it as much as you like - a turd is still a turd, and this one's going to be a very expensive turd.

The UK is unbelievable. Has everybody disappeared?
This happened because institutions are not support UK banking. They should have approached Barclays in advance of this deal discussing how to move forward.

What exactly are business benefits going to be in respect of the new investors. Is there a new business plan in the Middle East?

If there is something going on then the cost of the investment is appropriate however the amount invested should be split 50/50 between UK and Middle East supporters.

In the UK people have just stopped doing business and put their hands in the air.
We don't have a problem in this country other than something wrong with people.

Why has Barclays chosen not to pass any of the last 1.5% BoE rate cut onto it's standard variable mortgage rate? Did the decision not to take UK Treasury money have the factor that they could ignore any pressure in this area and keep their greedy mitts on the extra money?