Home—Blog—The hounding of Bob Diamond: it isn't disgraceful, it's essential
Jul 05, 2012, 01:28
Posted byMerryn Somerset Webb
Comments (62)
“The hounding of Bob Diamond is disgraceful.” So said a tweet from our old friend Jim Mellon last night. He obviously thinks – as many in the City do – that the media and the political establishment are making the Barclays debacle just a bit too personal.
Some of our readers feel the same. When I wrote the blog below about trust in banking, I tweeted that while Bob Diamond was on to a good thing with his “no jerks” policy, he clearly hadn’t applied it to himself (I’m @merrynsw on Twitter, and you can follow me here).
I felt slightly ashamed the second I sent it – after all, that’s a pretty mean insinuation to make. So was I wrong to suggest that Diamond is a jerk and is the wave of criticism against him disgraceful?
I’ve thought about this overnight and I’m pretty sure that the answer is no. It doesn’t make sense to blame one man for everything, but as the CEO of Barclays he has been responsible for a great deal.
It was heavily involved in the PPI scam. It recently had to pay a huge amount to HMRC for its crummy tax avoidance scheme. Like the other high street banks it provides a pretty awful customer experience riddled with inappropriate cross selling and thievingly low interest rates.
At the same time, it is one of the largest private sector employers the UK (it employs 140,000 odd people) and so it benefits not only from the implicit subsidy that comes simply from being a big bank with the right to create money, but also from all the implicit subsidies of our welfare state. Finally, it has just come clean about fraud on a huge and market-moving scale (that’s what manipulating Libor amounts to).
Barclays may think of itself as a private company accountable to no one, but like all banks it just isn’t. That means that the media and the public have every right to criticise it – and those responsible for it.
Diamond’s defenders say that in the midst of all this he remains a great banker – one of the best of his generation. I dare say a case could be made for that if one were to try. After all, the competition doesn’t appear to be all that great. However, he clearly wasn’t on top of things (and who could know what was going on everywhere in such a vast organisation). As MP Teresa Pearce said on interrupting him yesterday: "Mr Diamond you have told us repeatedly that you love Barclays, but from what you are saying you have not even met Barclays... You keep saying 'I didn’t know, I didn’t know'."
Sign up for a 3-week FREE trial of MoneyWeek and get the following free as well
"The only financial publication I could not be without." John Lang, Director, Tower Hill Associates Ltd
And in the end, if you look at the charts you will see that however great a money man his City peers might think him to be, his organisation has not created much wealth for the rest of us.
If you’d invested a pound in the FTSE in 2005 (when Diamond joined the board) and hung on to your dividends you’d now have £1.08, notes a story in today’s Times. If you’d invested it in HSBC you’d have 78p. If you’d invested it in Barclays you’d have 29p. Which is rubbish, really. In the same time period, Diamond has been paid £119m.
Here we come to the second main point. The 'not getting it' bit. Diamond set himself up to be the poster boy for the UK banking industry with his ill-judged Radio 4 talk last year and with his famous (in a bad way) comment on the “time for remorse” being over.
His institution has public elements to it and it is somewhat in debt to the public (those low interest rates that are rebuilding bank balance sheets aren’t doing much for ours). But he has catastrophically failed to judge or perhaps even to care about the public mood.
The transformational event that has been the financial crisis demands change from big companies and from banks. Diamond has just kept doing the deals, taking the money and ignoring the shift. He and others like him should have realised some years ago that it was in their interest to help create a better balanced society, and got on with having a go. They didn’t. Which is why he is being 'hounded' and the rest will be too.
So it is disgraceful? No. It isn’t very nice, but it is an utterly inevitable part of the crisis cycle. Hyman Minsky talks about the 'revulsion stage' being critical to recovery in a wake of a stock market bubble and crash. But it is just as vital to a great crisis such as this: you need revulsion before you can get change.
Published in Blog More articles by Merryn Somerset Webb
By Merryn Somerset Webb, May 21, 2013
By Matthew Lynn, May 17, 2013
May 16, 2013
By Bengt Saelensminde, May 15, 2013
Leave a comment
(05 July 2012, 02:04PM) Complain about this comment
Sounds like bayers remorse Merryn ;)Unusual reaction if running with the pack, so I'd take it as a good sign, no one knowingly wants to be part of an ugly mob.
(05 July 2012, 02:12PM) Complain about this comment
What I don't understand about the likes of Jim Mellon (and other City defenders of Diamond) is that he is supposed to be an investor.I can't imagine any other sector or businessman that had destroyed shareholder capital (and being paid so much in the process) to such an extent as Barclays being defended by him.
(05 July 2012, 02:36PM) Complain about this comment
The media have been hysterical over this. The BBC and Daily Mail coverage has been completely over the top. Bob Diamond would not have a problem if (a) he did not have a comedy name and (b) he was not a paid so much. (c) has not been brave enough to "fess" up first over LIBOR irregularities.Barclays did not take direct state aid. And further more, if say CitiBank also fixed LIBOR . Will the British media call for its CEO to be sacked? Will its CEO be harrassed out of a job? I doubt it.
(05 July 2012, 02:41PM) Complain about this comment
"At the same time, it is one of the largest private sector employers the UK ...and so it benefits... from all the implicit subsidies of our welfare state."Not sure I follow this. How does Barclays benefit from old age pensions, family allowance, unemployment benefit etc? Some employees may be getting "in work benefits", but surely not that many. Or do you mean having an educated population on draw on and NHS to look after their workers?
(05 July 2012, 02:47PM) Complain about this comment
Crazy Tony - would the Citibank boss be harassed out of a job if he'd fixed LIBOR?Don't know, but the US courts can be pretty tough - they gave the guy from Galleon (?) 11 years for insider dealing.And he's no the one with the crazy name - I give you his sidekick, Rich Ricci.
(05 July 2012, 03:07PM) Complain about this comment
@crazy tony"Will Citibank's CEO be harassed out of a job? I doubt it."No. Because Citibank isn't a UK bank and therefore gets no implicit subsidy from the British taxpayer.The CEO of RBS would be harassed out of his job though - however he's already gone.And as Merryn points out Barclays isn't just in the public dock for Libor but also PPI and tax avoidance scams. Unlike Citibank (as far as I am aware).
(05 July 2012, 04:02PM) Complain about this comment
I don't mind being labelled part of the angry mob, right now we want blood and this Diamond giza will do as good as any! 20 million per year, not including bounses and having the nerve to avoid/offset most of his tax (civic!) liabilities, unlike us poor PAYE suckers. His righteously paid tax could have keep a hospital or a few local schools going for a year! Let me ask you how many years would you earn 20 million for, before you though; 'oh well, I'm off to retire and enjoy the rest of my life now' they are just 'money-junkies' who can't get enough...live by the sword and die by the sword, I say.
(05 July 2012, 04:06PM) Complain about this comment
Thank you Merryn for keeping this on the front page. Of course he must be hounded. The raison d'etre for paying the man £20 million a year is that he is the figure head and is handsomely rewarded for having the broad shoulders to take the rap. Barclays is a very poorly run institution whose customer service makes Currys look like the Savoy. He is ultimatley repsonsible and is the symbolic head if nothing else. It was Napoleon sent to Elba. not the French. Hitler is blamed for Naziism, not his willing executioners. Charles I was executed not the Crown, it's powers or any of his servants. Too "talented" even to pay attention to something so crucial it could destroy his Bank. Irresponsible and not to be trusted.
(05 July 2012, 04:09PM) Complain about this comment
As long as he is not a scapegoat for the other banks and the BoE/FSA incompetence, we should be fine with the hounding..But guess what, nobody mentions what the BoE said or did not say during the LIBOR lowballing..
(05 July 2012, 04:11PM) Complain about this comment
#7 Nick. One of the hopeless cross examiners on the Commons Select Commitee did mange to remind Diamond Bob that his bonus alone in one single year (£15 million) is more than the entire budget for the homless charity Shelter. Diamond said nothing,. He has been paid £130 million in 7 years and is expecting up to £20 million as a pay off. he just grinned like the brass plate on a coffin and gave the clear signal he saw the homeless as losers in some sort of wierd competition to amass dollars. he is a very severely morally corrupted person. Not fit for purpose.
(05 July 2012, 04:25PM) Complain about this comment
These 'Captains of industry', 'Titans of Capitalism' amaze me, they are described as the inertia behind these PLC's, but lets face it, who owns these companies, who owns most of all the shares out there, mainly it's the insurance/assurance companies using pension money from the workers (true socialism? only we have no say over their running and mainly get minimum wages). So, they 'lord' it over us all, using our own money to finance not only an incredible lifestyle, but also manage to naff things up to an extent not seen since the Great Depression (or maybe worse, time will tell). I know a small group of people somewhere are benefiting massively from all this worldwide misery.
(05 July 2012, 05:51PM) Complain about this comment
#11 Nick .They cash in on their name. How many would flock to deal with Bob Diamond? He uses the very real and long established name and reputation of one of the World's biggest banks and uses it to enrich himself and a handful of lickspittle cronies. A reputation that took hundreds of years to build is sold down the river on a torrent of get rich quick sleights of hand. It is on a par with the private equity buyouts of age old firms, now ruined by the greed of a few.
(05 July 2012, 06:08PM) Complain about this comment
Each part of a free market economy helps to service a productive society be it the healthcare industry, manufacturing, agriculture and financial services, which includes banking. What the banking sector have managed to do is turn this on its head and now the economy is being run purely for the benefit of the banks. We have had more QE today to continue to recapitalise the banks - tech speak for transferring wealth from the public to the banks. And this, at a time when everyone else is being told they face year of austerity.Firing Diamond (with a £20m severence) is not nearly enough. The whole banking system has to be dismantled and something that works towards making positive contributions to the economy and society be put in its place. Personally I think Mr Diamond should be looking at a custodial sentence along with many others.
(05 July 2012, 07:40PM) Complain about this comment
Nick - Can you share with us this insight into his personal tax affairs?Boris - He can be criticised for asking for such remuneration but it's the board that needs castigating for paying it if it wasn't justified.Boris - Criticism from an MP is on a par with your name being blackened by a pot and thus treated with the contempt they deserve.Boris - The banks good name evaporated years before Bob Diamond joined them, when they were known as Boerclaysbank for their links with the SA apartheid Government.Ellen - He resigned, he wasn't firedEtc, etc
(05 July 2012, 07:42PM) Complain about this comment
Lots of axe grinding, wagon jumping and opportunism across the media all focusing on Bob Diamond as if his is the face of unacceptable capitalism rather than just part of it. Why is that?Who's whipping up the furore?Was his not a face of someone betrayed by his 'friends' on the committee with their feigned outrage at his use of their Christian name?The important and much anticipated memo that turned out to be no more controversial than a sandwich order from Pret?Let's not get our knickers tangled up so tightly that our nuts force us to squeal and our eyes are squeezed shut, not out of personal choice but because some unseen other wants to bury something.There is something rotten here and focusing on an American abroad will miss something important.
(05 July 2012, 08:26PM) Complain about this comment
#14 Dave. How tiresome that so much needs to be explained. Diamond is not employed directly by Barclays, but by one of their 300 subsidiaries. A particular one sheltering in the offensive US tax haven of Delaware.I don't think the MP was criticising Diamond. Merely pointing out an inequity for dramatic effect.You are right about their appalling reputation of recent years. The Quakers would be quaking if they knew. Barclays customer service is (from personal experience) monumentally abysmal.There are over 330,000 Americans in the UK. Mainly rich ones denying good jobs and housing to locals.
(05 July 2012, 08:42PM) Complain about this comment
@14 Dave. Yes, he was forced to resign. As for axe grinding and wagon jumping - if the man is guilty of committing fraudulent crimes, the fact that others are guilty also, doesn't make him less guilty. If he were a lesser mortal answering to a lesser crime, he would be far more likely to have to deal with the full force of the law. @16 Boris. His nationality should not be the issue. Only his conduct.
(05 July 2012, 09:55PM) Complain about this comment
Anyone who thinks Delaware is the route an American would choose to avoid personal tax is deluded, why do you think there was so much furore over Barclays picking up the tab for his US tax bill?If you think I'm defending him there's something fundamentally wrong with the Universe, but in my view once there's more than 12 people in the room pointing a finger, justice is usually the furthest thing from their minds.Facts beat opinions every time even if popular opinions sound better to more people
(05 July 2012, 10:33PM) Complain about this comment
#18 Dave. The furore was about his tax bill for 2006 to 2009. Since January 2011 Diamond has been under to contract to Gracechurch Services Corp in Delaware. Why would Barclays not want to pay its CEO? Why have him "employed" by Gracechurch?Maybe because Delaware is considered the most opaque tax regime in the world (even worse than the BVI). Perhaps because it levies no inheritance tax.Perhaps because income tax is only paid on money earned in Delaware.maybe because shares can be transferred without public notice. Diamond says it is in order to retain his US social entitlements. Haha. He's worth £125 million and wants to keep up his healthcare plan. Yep I'm deluded.
(05 July 2012, 11:32PM) Complain about this comment
Boris this is tiresome, we're arguing over different routes to the same destination.Barclays board are at fault for the conditions of his employment - You're correct that Delaware doesn't charge IHT, something that occurs in a number of other US states. The Federal Government does charge IHT at a rate of 35%, which rises to 55% from 2013. To a casual observer it would appear you're deliberately obfuscating state taxes with federal taxes to support your version of the truth.Delaware would argue that they have the most business orientated legislation on the planet, it's the other side of the coin, neither side being wrong or right or ever able to reach agreement face to face. The beauty of a free market in a capitalist environment is that no one has to endure poor service, whether at Barclays or anywhere else, it's your business where you take it.Delusional was inappropriate, I apologise, particularly as it served only to throw more combustibles to add to the smoke.
(05 July 2012, 11:57PM) Complain about this comment
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."- attributed to Lord Acton.Now seems as good a time as any.
(06 July 2012, 10:57AM) Complain about this comment
The legislation already exists for us to live in a perfect and balanced world...but we don't, why? because the law in reality doesn't apply equally to all of us. Remember the golden rule; the man with the gold makes the rules! Sometimes, unfortunately, it takes the angry, blood baying mob to get the job done. The French Revolution, English Revolution (sorry Civil War), Russian Revolution, US Independence, etc, all addressed social inequality which would never have been solved without violence. I'm not advocating it just observing, but have any of us really got the belly for it nowadays? I'd have to lose quite a lot before I took to the streets. Maybe in Greece, China, or even in unexpected places like the USA; they seem to be gearing up the military (& legislation) for martial law. (historically; LA Riots, Watts Towers Riots, etc, etc).
(06 July 2012, 12:13PM) Complain about this comment
Diamond leveraged Barclays at 96:1 before the crunch started. How did Barclays survive after levering themselves that much? By getting unlimited cheap money from the BOE and other central banks and stayed afloat. Lehman was no more insolvent than any of the other banks, it just became the first target of rumours and collapsed. Deutsche was 85:1 levered compared to Lehman at 30:1. Diamond is considered a financial alchemist. Give me free money and allow me to lever myself 96:1 and I will also show you some alchemy. I'll be the world's greatest genius. The sickest thing about all this is that he's made 120 million Sterling doing all this and walks away laughing. The anti-banker tirades are justified not because of envy but because banker profits were always heavily subsidised. Without the subsidy of low interest rates, regulation that acts as a barrier to competition and unlimited access to cheap money from central banks, I wonder how many would be driving Ferraris.
(06 July 2012, 01:30PM) Complain about this comment
Could not agree more with Merryn's blog. The losses we have all suffered through bankers' greed and ineptitude is astounding. . The only winners have been Bob Diamond and his ilk. He should be obliged to repay all the £119m he has trousered over the past few years.On a more positive note Osbourne should have announced that the Vickers report ++ will be implemented as of next year and just told the banks to stop whining and get on with it. He would have been saluted as a statesman not condemned as a chancelor with feet of clay.
(06 July 2012, 02:35PM) Complain about this comment
"On a more positive note Osbourne should have announced that the Vickers report ++ will be implemented as of next year and just told the banks to stop whining and get on with it. He would have been saluted as a statesman not condemned as a chancelor with feet of clay."And what woyld have happened if the banks were physically and technologically unable to deal with such a massive restructuring so quickly and the entire banking system ground to a halt (much like RBS now only 10x worse).Osborne would be accused of recklessness and not listening to professional advice.There's a reason why the Vickers Commission said full implementation should take until 2019.
(06 July 2012, 06:07PM) Complain about this comment
#25 Shinsei. You are very cynical indeed. But I am sure of one thing. Osborne and Cameron will be handsomely rewarded by the banking world for not be too heavy handed with them .Just like Blair, the cheating conniving weasel.
(06 July 2012, 07:30PM) Complain about this comment
@Boris:"Osborne and Cameron will be handsomely rewarded by the banking world for not be too heavy handed with them .Just like Blair, the cheating conniving weasel."But Blair needed and wanted the money. He had no family money and a wife with expensive expectations.As many point out constantly (yourself included) the likes of Cameron and Osborne are already very rich indeed and likely to get even richer when their wife's father's die. Do you really think Cameron or Osborne is the least bit bothered with a $2m a year job as non-exec of JPMorgan like Blair.Thus the argument that the Tories would be easy on the banks for personal financial reasons fails the motive test. They have no need of City directorships and sinecures.And I doubt many senior UK bankers are sleeping easily in their beds these days with the threat of criminal actions from SFO and class action lawsuits probably going to be filling up their diaries for the next ten years.
(07 July 2012, 10:14AM) Complain about this comment
If hounding is what it takes to effect change, so be it. Bob was just collateral damage in that change. He wouldn't see it any other way and I'm not sure why anyone else should.
(07 July 2012, 10:41AM) Complain about this comment
Bob Diamond should just be the first of many to be held accountable. There are far too many Directors (employed by their shareholders) awarding themselves huge sums of money at the expense of their investors and customers. The "old boy" network may finally have had its day - but I think it will take a long time to put everything on an equal and fair footing. Bob will I am sure be the first of many. The way I see it - he is a debtor to the tune of millions - and should pay back those debts that he has helped to create. Politicians should also be held liable if they are involved, no-one should be above the law - so hand it back Tony and Gordon if you've had your sticky little fingers in the till!Wouldnt it be great if Gordon had to manage on the state pension (after wrecking everyone else's?)
(07 July 2012, 10:48AM) Complain about this comment
Sure it doesn't make sense to blame one man for everything- but when things seem to be going well such individuals argue for levels of remuneration with the suggestion that their irreplaceable talent is carrying the company. So the same disingenuous argument is simply being applied the other way.Bob Diamond still wins though because he walks away with £120 million and shareholders and customers are left with the fallout.
(07 July 2012, 10:53AM) Complain about this comment
Sure it doesn't make sense to blame one man for everything- but when things seem to be going well such individuals argue for levels of remuneration that are vast multiples of the average at the company with the suggestion that their irreplaceable talent is carrying the company. So the same disingenuous argument is simply being applied the other way.Bob Diamond still wins though because he walks away with £120 million and shareholders and customers are left with the fallout.
(07 July 2012, 11:01AM) Complain about this comment
@ 31. Lynne How was Gordon Brown responsible for 'wrecking' everyone's state pension?A corrupt financial industry seems a more appropriate target for such accusations and in this respect it seems like the main political failing was not to introduce enough regulation. However he wasn't alone in this, Thatcher deregulated the industry in the first place and there was no party more in favour of de-regulation that the conservatives.
(07 July 2012, 11:37AM) Complain about this comment
The usual trial by media just to sell cheap headlines - so LIBOR was manipulated - the world's central banks are manipulating interest rates all the time (QE, LTRO etc) and it is borrowers who benefit, cetainly not savers or those hoping to start an annuity. In any case, Barclays were not the only bank involved and the "manipulation" could not greatly harm anyone (one bank reported high, another low - probably it worked out right).It's true Barclays share price has not done well - but not as badly as RBS or Lloyds. Let's remember Gordon Brown, our glorious Chancellor in 1990 who sold half our gold reserves at $300-an-ounce (now about $1600-an-ounce !). How many billions did we lose there ? Why not kick up a stink about that ?
(07 July 2012, 12:05PM) Complain about this comment
Please be accurate. Bob Diamond became CEO of Barclays about 18 months ago ago. Before that he was head of Barclays Capital. The PPI "scam" took place many years ago, and these products were sold by Barclays retail bank - never by Barclays Capital. Nothing to do with Bob Diamond - in fact I believe Barclays/Bob Diamon were the first, after the well publicised test case in court, to and publicise that they would go along with it and have proactively managed the client compensation. Credit where credit is due. You should have been shouting louder about PPI when it mattered, ie when it was being mis-sold.
(07 July 2012, 12:07PM) Complain about this comment
@ 28. Shinsei1967Quote:"Do you really think Cameron or Osborne is the least bit bothered with a $2m a year job as non-exec of JPMorgan like Blair?"Yes, have you heard the mantra "the more they have the more they want"? They being greedy b******s.I have to agree with Boris on this one!They're all in it together.
(07 July 2012, 12:28PM) Complain about this comment
As a Barclays shareholder I feel,like many others,that the bonus culture endemic in the city drove the greed at all levels-indeed to such an extent that the rewards once given in the form of dividends to the owners(read shareholders)was creamed off,in its many forms,all the way down the line.Indeed city dealers calculated their worth to the bank they worked fo,r not simply by the,by normal standards,generous salary, but even more so by the size of the bonus earned by gambling with ordinary folks savings accounts.Lets hope that the current furore will lead to better behaviour-but I am not overly optimistic.Last,successive governments allowed the above to happen both because of the too big to fail syndrome but also because of the tax revenues generated by the city-it is all too easy to turn a blind eye when being seduced by the tax revenue!David Taylor.
(07 July 2012, 04:10PM) Complain about this comment
I heard Diamond's testimony and found the detail of his Chief Operating Officer's 'misunderstanding' utterly incredible.But I am concerned that the hounding of one or more individuals in the banks is diverting attention from the urgent need to reform the banking system itself. I would suggest the following:1. Reinstate Glass-Steagal and separate investment from retail banks. Completely. No sharing of resources, no more 'Chinese walls'. 2. Remove limited liability from bank directors.3. No more taxpayer help for banks. Let them go down, and fund any compensation for savers from directors' assets.3. Sharpen up the criminal law and reform the SFO to make it sharper, justice swifter, and with far harsher and longer custodial and financial penalties.4. Give parliamentary committees a specialised QC to ask the questions.
(07 July 2012, 05:29PM) Complain about this comment
We heard ad nauseum from Bob Diamond about how much he loves Barclays. I think that if I had been paid regular multi-million pound bonuses for total failure to maintain honesty and integrity in my company I might have been able to express some affection for it also. An absolute disgrace to the whole profession. Run by the old boy network. In cahoots with who knows who in government. Let's have this out in the open once and forever.
(07 July 2012, 05:34PM) Complain about this comment
Tom hits the nail right on the head.Do all of that and the industry crazyness will disappear overnight.Biggest mistake of the previous govt. was to support the banks.It let banking executives off the hook and gave them reassurance that they could take the most stupid risks (with out money) and they would never be held to account - the so called "Moral Hazard". Hence their contempt for public opinion in the years following the crash.In future, public money should be used to cover depositiors (with no ceiling) and let the banks go into receivership and be purchased by ethical banking firms who want to provide merchant and retail banking services that go back to basics.
(07 July 2012, 05:36PM) Complain about this comment
Tom hits the nail right on the head.Do all of that and the industry crazyness will disappear overnight.Biggest mistake of the previous govt. was to support the banks.It let banking executives off the hook and gave them reassurance that they could take the most stupid risks (with our money) and they would never be held to account - the so called "Moral Hazard". Hence their contempt for public opinion in the years following the crash.In future, public money should be used to cover depositors (with no ceiling) and let the banks go into receivership and be purchased by ethical banking firms who want to provide merchant and retail banking services that go back to basics.
(07 July 2012, 06:34PM) Complain about this comment
Pardon my ignorance, but who has lost out in this LIBOR chicanery? The people who lost their homes, but were happy to offer below Ask and blindly ride the property boom? The companies that mark-up their goods and services to rip us all off? Other banks? (Yeah, right). Who? A precious few might have been unable to make payments, but by that stage they were probably financial basket cases anyway - for many a reason. As our de facto rulers, people like Diamond, Ecclestone and Murdoch are (in metaphorical terms) giants among men and their pygmy critics are only on the same planet as them to play their bit-part roles of borrowing, spending and standing on one leg as and when required.
(07 July 2012, 07:21PM) Complain about this comment
#28 Shinsei & #36 Rick. Thanks Rick. Surely Cameron and Gideon belong to the "you can never be too rich" brigade. Power is what they desire. Otherwise why get out of bed and bother to go into politics? After all they are both very rich already. If they just want to help their fellow man they could volunteer at Shelter.....as well as handing over a few quid. They seem happy to pay £230,000 per kid to send them to Eton so they don't have to leave them in the pub.
(07 July 2012, 08:52PM) Complain about this comment
My comment about Bob Diamond and his so called defenders, they are the very same people involved in the irresponsible proliferation of outrageous rewards, for sub standard performance. How can anyone in their right mind could consider defending him when he is mostly responsible in the distruction of Barclay's of shareholder value, yet being paid for it so generously! I consider him to be incompetent to run a bank and should have been sacked long ago with a number of other like minded directors.Those defending him must be living in a similar world or involved in similar jobs!I happen to be one of the unfortunate shareholder saddled with Barclays shares!!!
(07 July 2012, 10:39PM) Complain about this comment
Word is - the reason Teflon Bob and his Board colleagues 'fessed up so fast to the LIBOR rigging scam is that, at a bank if not individual level, they need to improve their relationship with the BoE. As in they may need every ounce of help they can get come the day of the race.
(07 July 2012, 11:16PM) Complain about this comment
Bonuses should be paid for out of profits and judged on share performance among other things. Barclays has failed on this so whether Bob Diamond is responsible or not is largely irrelevant. You could say he's been very unlucky having been CEO for only 18 months but that's life. Perhaps the Board should be getting a lot more of the flack as they don't appear to have had a clue!
(07 July 2012, 11:22PM) Complain about this comment
At an approximate rate of £1,000 an ounce, Diamond is now worth 50 times his weight in Gold. It rather brings it home. Only 20 years ago to be worth one's weight in Gold was really something, now it seems a bit dated. Perhaps he wants to be worth his weight in Diamonds. Never satisfied are they?
(08 July 2012, 10:06AM) Complain about this comment
It seems to me that the people being hounded, and those doing the hounding, are in large part the same people and/or members of much the same institutions.It looks like one big complex in practice but simple in principle con. And it certainly is working.Printing billions of pounds and tending the medium of exchange ever towards valuelessness is surely a far greater scandal and of far more serious consequence.
(08 July 2012, 02:05PM) Complain about this comment
Yes, low interest rates now, to build bank balances; aren't they just!But what about the interest rate I was getting on my precious hard earned cash sum, deposited in a bank with an interest rate changed weekly according to LIBOR, from 2006? Any sign of compensation?? I don't bank with Barclays but if Bob would like to part with a little of his £119m to make up for his actions then do pass on my details.........Re, Bob's remuneration: am I wrong? Isn't it decided by people who benefit from his 'techniques' ?
(08 July 2012, 07:27PM) Complain about this comment
It's a bit like one of those punishments doled out by the Greek Gods. Overweaning self importance and smug arrogance are rewarded with a two edged sword. £120million on one side, but everybody despising and ridiculing you on the other. It must be like being an uber rich version of Anthony Worrall -Thompson
(09 July 2012, 08:56AM) Complain about this comment
Focusing on Barclays creates a welcome distraction for other bankers / policymakers. I think Diamond's hounding is a bit unfair given it is obvious the other panel banks were / are complicit in the manipulation (which is still ongoing!). But the bigger question remains - why should CBs set interest rates? Are people surprsied Tucker was saying that? That is his JOB (to influence interest rates)!!! Perhaps we should also be looking at the precious metals market or maybe even the oil market - lifting the lid on OPEC and the big trading houses (Glencore, Vitol et al) would be 'interesting'!!
(09 July 2012, 11:16AM) Complain about this comment
I think the article in today's FT(9th July) by Martin Taylor backs you up Merryn. I am sure much more will come out in the coming weeks and months. Bob Diamond, and other senior bankers, have had several years to pro-actively start to put things right and they have failed to do so. Continually stating that you do not know what is going on in the company you are responsible for running is unacceptable. At some point you have to accept the inevitable and getting fired is personal however you package it up. I think that the failure of the City to get its act together rather than waiting for the regulators and government to do it for them is a clear indication of how rotten the place is. They deserve all that is coming to them and lets hope that this time we get lasting change. The old argument that a "light touch" is all that is needed will no longer be acceptable to the public who are ultimately paying for the mess to be cleared up over the coming years.
(09 July 2012, 03:45PM) Complain about this comment
Wow, what a lot of comments!One think I like to bring up, Bob Diamond said he found about LIBOR when he downloaded the report.The Chairman said, in an interview, that he heard about it couple of years ago.Doesn't the Chairman speak to his CEO about what is ongoing in there company?If I was a CEO wouldn't I have been informed about ongoing developments in the firm I worked for and more importantly, if I was CEO, I would have found out, yet he sat back and did what?
(09 July 2012, 03:57PM) Complain about this comment
#54.Jim. You are right. It is also worthy of note that not one of the rate setters mentioned the many illegal approaches made by their guttersnipe colleagues over a 4 year period. Diamond expressed surprise at the Commons Select Commitee as the rate setters are all senior staff who have served at least 20 years at the Bank. The culture they had become imbued with over those 20 years meant not one of them sounded an alarm bell to their bosses about the blatant illegality of being asked to fix rates.
(10 July 2012, 01:11PM) Complain about this comment
So Bob is a great banker? I recall that Barclays used to pay a dividend. Now it pays a pittance largely eked out at 1p a time. The great genius has converted the share price from over £6 to £1.60. Bonuses paid to staff are treble that paid to shareholders. It is amazing the number of Good Citizen Bob supporters who pop their snouts over the parapets. Methinks these institutional supporters are merely seeking self endorsement for ripping off their own customer base.
(10 July 2012, 03:27PM) Complain about this comment
Whistlerfx...hear hear , its time to route them all out and reform the banking system root and branch. End the culture of short term goals with bonuses for achieving them. End the practice of Commercial banks creating money from nothing.
(12 July 2012, 02:19PM) Complain about this comment
The banking industry are all robbers and fraudsters, remember Fred Goodwin from RBS....he's still laughing all the way to the bank !
(12 July 2012, 05:44PM) Complain about this comment
There are two possible outcomes to Bob Diamond's position:1. He was unaware that his organisation was knowingly mis-stating rates for LIBOR; in which case he was incompetent and should not get a penny in severance.2. He was aware that his organisation was knowingly mis-stating rates for LIBOR; in which case he should be tried by a judge and jury, just like any other person suspected of a crime.The person is the street can easily vote vote with their feet. Sell any shares you have in Barclays, draw out all your savings and pay down any loans you have with them as fast as you can. Then all the spiv traders at Barclays can gamble with their own money. Then you'll see them take less risks!
(12 July 2012, 07:02PM) Complain about this comment
#59 Nigel . Unfortunately there is a third and more likely outcome. He was aware, but nobody can prove it. The City will close ranks to protect its own.The MP's are allowed to bluster but he will keep the £130 million he was paid in the past 6 years adn go back to US Banking handsomely rewarded. Of course he should be a pariah but to upset the City you have to do something unthinkable, like tell the truth.
(13 July 2012, 05:25PM) Complain about this comment
What eveyone has missed is Merryn's comment that very correctly points out ....Quote "implicit subsidy that comes simply from being a big bank with the right to create money"....the commercial banks have the unique privelage of issuing 97% of the nations money as debt through bank loans and digital credits. Not the Bank of England Not the Treasury...the high street commerciasl banks. This topic is the elephant in the room and no one...connects the dots....!!! This should be brought back as a sovereign right to issue our money and decided where it gets spent.
(16 July 2012, 08:58PM) Complain about this comment
Surely your next lead article must be about the Fed's email to the Govenor of the Bank of England - 'bombshell' reported by Sky then drowned? one of the main Telegraph comments - the drowned?He must suffer scrutiny, as must the BBA - time for heads to roll
Name This will be the name displayed with your comment.
Email This helps us verify comments are genuine. It will not be displayed anywhere on the site and is stored confidentially.
Comment Please keep your comment within 1,000 characters and relevant to the main topic. We encourage healthy debate, but we don't allow insults or bad language. Anything off topic or unpleasant, we'll remove. Enjoy the conversation! Thank you.
To prevent spam-related comments please enter the characters shown in the 'Captcha' box to the left.
Enter the text from the box above
Remember my details
By leaving a comment you accept our terms and conditions.
Our free daily email, Money Morning, is an informative and enjoyable analysis of what's going on in the markets. Written by our Editor, John Stepek, and guest contributors.Sign up FREE to Money Morning here.
21 May 13
20 May 13
16 April BBC Radio Scotland(From 1h 45m in)
21 March Radio 4: Moneybox Live
12 March Photogallery of Merryn's talk at BAB London
Become a smarter investor in just 3 minutes a day.
MoneyWeek is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.