Taxi Driver Online
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Barclays [edited by admin]
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=21524		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  blackpool [ Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Barclays [edited by admin]
According to Barclays' annual report, which was published on Friday morning, the number of employees paid more than £1m fell from 473 in 2011, with proportionately larger falls in the number paid more than £2.5m and in excess of £5m.

The disclosures are the most detailed given yet by Barclays and are designed to demonstrate a new commitment to transparency in the way it pays its top staff.

The 356-page annual report confirmed Sky News' revelation last month that Barclays had imposed around £450m of financial penalties on staff because of the Libor-rigging scandal through a combination of clawback and bonus reductions.

Barclays said it had decided to comply ahead of schedule with new Government requirements for companies to publish a single figure for the total remuneration of executive directors.

By one measure, this showed that Antony Jenkins, the new chief executive, earned a total of £1.129m in 2012, although this excludes a long-term share award valued at £1.467m.

The bank did not identify the pay package awarded to Rich Ricci, the chief executive of its investment bank, who was one of four executives to forego their annual bonus because of the Libor scandal, although he is thought to have received less than £3.5m in total.

Five employees were paid more than £5m in 2012, although the bank declined to identify them or specify what their total remuneration had been.
I
You couldnt make this [edited by admin] up !!
Author:  trotskys twin [ Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Barclays [edited by admin]
blackpool wrote:
According to Barclays' annual report, which was published on Friday morning, the number of employees paid more than £1m fell from 473 in 2011, with proportionately larger falls in the number paid more than £2.5m and in excess of £5m.

The disclosures are the most detailed given yet by Barclays and are designed to demonstrate a new commitment to transparency in the way it pays its top staff.

The 356-page annual report confirmed Sky News' revelation last month that Barclays had imposed around £450m of financial penalties on staff because of the Libor-rigging scandal through a combination of clawback and bonus reductions.

Barclays said it had decided to comply ahead of schedule with new Government requirements for companies to publish a single figure for the total remuneration of executive directors.

By one measure, this showed that Antony Jenkins, the new chief executive, earned a total of £1.129m in 2012, although this excludes a long-term share award valued at £1.467m.

The bank did not identify the pay package awarded to Rich Ricci, the chief executive of its investment bank, who was one of four executives to forego their annual bonus because of the Libor scandal, although he is thought to have received less than £3.5m in total.

Five employees were paid more than £5m in 2012, although the bank declined to identify them or specify what their total remuneration had been.
I
You couldnt make this [edited by admin] up !!


The point is Blackpool all these banksters should locked up ffs, not that that will ever get a mention in the Media, oh hold on, didnt the Mail write it up as part of an attack on that c*unt Cameron.

LOCK EM UP NOW =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
Author:  blackpool [ Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Barclays [edited by admin]
They dont lock them up, they reward the feckers.Thats the boys club that this goverment are in bed with.
Author:  Sussex [ Fri Mar 08, 2013 8:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Barclays [edited by admin]
blackpool wrote:
You couldnt make this [edited by admin] up !!

Barclays didn't take a penny from UK tax payers, so what right have you or I to dictate what they pay their employees?
Author:  blackpool [ Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Barclays [edited by admin]
Sussex wrote:
blackpool wrote:
You couldnt make this [edited by admin] up !!

Barclays didn't take a penny from UK tax payers, so what right have you or I to dictate what they pay their employees?

Thus, even though it did not take any direct state help during the financial crisis, former Barclays boss, John Varley, had to acknowledge the crucial role played by the government in rescuing the City as a whole:

‘Even those banks who did not take capital from governments clearly benefited (and continue to benefit) from these actions. We are grateful for them, and our behaviour should acknowledge that benefit.’
Author:  gusmac [ Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Barclays [edited by admin]
Sussex wrote:
blackpool wrote:
You couldnt make this [edited by admin] up !!

Barclays didn't take a penny from UK tax payers, so what right have you or I to dictate what they pay their employees?


They take plenty from their customers, or aren't any of them British taxi drivers?
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Barclays [edited by admin]
Ive only good things to say about Barclays, the best bank ive ever used

so what if a few get well paid?
Author:  Sussex [ Sat Mar 09, 2013 8:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Barclays [edited by admin]
gusmac wrote:
They take plenty from their customers, or aren't any of them British taxi drivers?

They are not a monopoly.
Author:  grandad [ Sat Mar 09, 2013 9:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Barclays [edited by admin]
gusmac wrote:
They take plenty from their customers.

That is probably why they didn't need a bail out. They run like a proper business. You know, charge the proper rate for the job and don't try to undercut the opposition.
Author:  blackpool [ Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Barclays [edited by admin]
grandad wrote:
gusmac wrote:
They take plenty from their customers.

That is probably why they didn't need a bail out. They run like a proper business. You know, charge the proper rate for the job and don't try to undercut the opposition.

Barclays took another major hit to its already bruised reputation last night when a US regulator threatened the bank with a record $470m (£290m) penalty for allegations that it attempted to manipulate the US electricity market.

After the London market had closed, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission announced the scale of the fine – $435m, plus a $35m order to disgorge alleged profits made by the bank – for the alleged offences which are supposed to have taken place between 2006 and 2008.

Barclays had warned earlier in the day that it faced a potential penalty for the alleged movement of Californian electricity prices when it reported that it had made a loss in the third quarter of 2008.

The bank's new chief executive, Antony Jenkins, said the bank would defend any proposed penalty by the regulator, which has given the bank 30 days to respond and prove why it should not be fined.

The Washington-based regulator is also proposing fines on four individuals who worked for Barclays at the time. In April the Ferc had warned it was investigating the bank and the four individuals for allegedly buying and selling electricity in big enough quantities to affect the price of complex derivative positions.

The four traders – Daniel Brin, Scott Connelly, Karen Levine and Ryan Smith – also have 30 days to prove why they should not face civil penalties after the regulator said the actions had led to losses of around $140m for California and other US states.

The regulator, given extra powers after the Enron trading scandal, alleged that traders had "propped up" the market.

The fresh embarrassment for Barclays comes barely three months after Bob Diamond resigned as chief executive in the wake of another record fine, this time for manipulation of the key benchmark interest rate, Libor.

The allegations from the Ferc, which shed some light on the complexities of energy trading, single out four locations – Columbia, Palo Verde, South Path 15 and North Path 15 – that were said to have seen transactions that benefited the bank's positions on the IntercontinentalExchange.

Unlike the Libor case where Barclays agreed to settle the allegations, the bank now appears to be preparing to put a case in the show-cause order issued late last night. If the fine is imposed by the regulator, it would be the largest it has ever levied, and be regarded as evidence that the Ferc is attempting to get tough on attempts to manipulate energy prices. Other banks facing penalties include JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank.

The order does not put Barclays side of the argument but accuses the bank of a "coordinated scheme" to manipulate prices in electricity prices and comes as the bank's new chairman Sir David Walker takes over the key boardroom role today.
Author:  gusmac [ Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Barclays [edited by admin]
Proper business?

Libor.....

Never mind, lm sure they pay every penny of tax and wouldn't dream of short changing the exchequer. :roll:
Author:  grandad [ Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Barclays [edited by admin]
gusmac wrote:
lm sure they pay every penny of tax and wouldn't dream of short changing the exchequer. :roll:

Do you?
Author:  gusmac [ Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Barclays [edited by admin]
grandad wrote:
gusmac wrote:
lm sure they pay every penny of tax and wouldn't dream of short changing the exchequer. :roll:

Do you?
Yes and I dont have a record of illegal business practices.

It says much about you that you find nothing wrong with this.
Author:  blackpool [ Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Barclays [edited by admin]
Strange way of thinking in the current climate ? The banks are one of the main reasons were in the mess were in yet you still support them.To say they are doing a good job is beyond me,but i guess if your happy its ok :roll:
Author:  grandad [ Sat Mar 09, 2013 2:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Barclays [edited by admin]
gusmac wrote:
grandad wrote:
gusmac wrote:
lm sure they pay every penny of tax and wouldn't dream of short changing the exchequer. :roll:

Do you?
Yes and I dont have a record of illegal business practices.

It says much about you that you find nothing wrong with this.

I didn't say that. You were saying about how much they charge their customers, which is high street banking and now you have changed the goalposts to bring in investment banking. two different animals.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/