BBC BLOGS - Peston's Picks
« Previous | Main | Next »

Clashing views on pay at the top of Barclays

Robert Peston | 19:11 UK time, Friday, 19 March 2010

There's a fascinating insight into the differing attitudes to pay of the chaps who run Barclays within the pages of its annual report published today.

The president of the bank, Bob Diamond, who made a none-too-shabby £27m from last year's sale of Barclays BGI business, is taking part in a long-term incentive scheme that is equivalent in value to £6m of remuneration this year - and could yield him shares worth £18m in 2013 if Barclays hits its targets over the coming three years.

It's worth noting that this is a chap who has pocketed several tens of millions of pounds in pay and assorted awards over the past few years.

By contrast, his boss, John Varley, Barclays chief executive, chose not to participate in this incentive scheme. Barclays annual report says that "John Varley advised the board that he wishes to decline any award".

Now Varley isn't short of a bob or three. His annual salary is £1.1m.

But, to paraphrase Harry Enfield, Diamond is worth considerably more than Varley - and yet Diamond felt it appropriate, in this climate of some scepticism about the social purpose of bankers and banking, to load up with more performance-related remuneration.

Varley led from the front. Diamond chose not to follow.

I bet that led to an interesting discussion on Barclays' remuneration committee.

The remuneration disparity raises questions about whether there really is a seamless unified culture in this huge bank, with its substantial retail and investment banking operations.

For the record, I should note that both Varley and Diamond declined to take bonuses this year. And that Barclays finance director, took part in the long term incentive scheme to the tune of £1m of present value.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    There is a total disconnection between these people and the community they are part of.

    If this does not highlight the need to introduce a maximum wage, regulated by tax and exchange controls, then I don't know what does.

  • Comment number 2.

    Robert - don't you think you have carped on about bankers and bonuses, particularly at Barclays a bit too long? Why don't you give it a rest? I think these people are incredibly smart and hardworking. Good luck to them. The banking crisis that you consistently use to beat the whole of the banking community with was caused by a few rotten apples. I think these have been dealt with. If the banks continue to bring in billions in inward investement, pay billions to the treasury in tax and creat tens of thousands of jobs - then good luck to them.

  • Comment number 3.

    Robert - whilst I find your posts on the latest developments in UK banking as interesting as the next man, please try to give some attention to other business issues.
    If you counted up the proportion of your blogs that related to banking, I would not be at all surprised if it was a significant majority.
    I'm sure you would argue that UK banking has been the biggest story for some time, but I'm not sure that continues to hold water. Your background is in banking journalism - I'm sure you have a fantastic network of contacts willing to buy you lunch and feed you tidbits about Barclay's remuneration committee - but is that as relevant as, say, the BA strike?

  • Comment number 4.

    There has to be a way of dealing with these obscene rewards in the aftermath of the devastation perpetrated on the rest of us by Diamond and his ilk.

    The liberals are the only party that appears to want to take them on.
    I can't imagine the Tory Party being the least bit inclined to tackle the fear the situation under a Tory government would be worse than under Labour.

    Someone please tell me there is a way of nullifying the banking lobby, and restructuring/ regulating the financial services sector in such a away that it cannot inflict catastrophic damage upon the rest of the population through greed,gross negligence and dubious /corrupt practices.

  • Comment number 5.

    It's a bit like my view of Freddy G. I once asked him why RBS didn't put up any risk capital for start-ups etc. He said it just wasn't part of RBS strategy.

    I find that just gobsmacking. If I was running a bank that was (at the time anyway) making so much money I couldn't sleep at night unless it was doing something genuinely constructive with even just a bit of it.

  • Comment number 6.

    Makes you wonder what the chief exec knows if he can't be convinced to hold his own paper instead of cash....

  • Comment number 7.

    3# Plenty of other threads and newspapers catering for those who want to hear about greedy Cabin staff and their paltry offer of 2.6% pay cut and 2 year pay freeze.Damn those nefarious unions.

    I mean why should anyone be interested in the fact that Bob's comfortable with his mammoth pay out eh? It's not as if he hasn't earned every last penny is it?

  • Comment number 8.

    #2 G Singh wrote:
    >> "The banking crisis [...] was caused by a few rotten apples. I think these have been dealt with."

    You mean they left for Bahamas to live a live of luxury?

    >> "the banks continue to bring in billions in inward investement"

    You know there are some opinions that the "wealth" they create exist in their papers only and as a result they extract nice bonuses to buy real yachts and castles, don't you?

    >> "pay billions to the treasury in tax and creat tens of thousands of jobs"

    I'd rather have them being paid decent salaries for the "hardwork" they do instead of them having to pay such high rates of tax. I'd rather not have this huge deficit incurred to bail them out. I'd rather have tens of thousands of _decently_ paid jobs with half the money the senior bankers take home.

  • Comment number 9.

    These directors must have thick skins or a education that is so different from 99% of the UK population.
    Can they not see what they are saying?
    Mind you I can speak before thinking, mainly after a couple of drinks..

    Ahh he was having a bit of a party. A good excuse for what he said.

    Back to sport relief and the real world where the money you are on about would make a difference.

  • Comment number 10.

    This is a reflection in the change in banking that has been the ruin of all. Banks once saught profits to benefit shareholders and depositors. Now banks are structured to benefit staffs. this shift has changed everything about banking and created the incentive driven internal policies that fueled the fake housing boom and other unsecured loan schemes. It is the fact that banking staff are incentive driven that causes the misbehaviors at all levels. Require base salaries with a cap on incentives and those incentives should be based on overall performance and not some single sector that can be manipulated by staff.

  • Comment number 11.

    G singh wrote
    >> "pay billions to the treasury in tax and creat tens of thousands of jobs"

    So they still have a long way to go to pay back the treasury the £100 billion of debt they caused and the hundreds of thousands of jobs they lost the economy by reckless financial behaviour for which they were rewarded handsomely and continue to be so. And if these people are incredibly smart why did they not see what they were doing would lead to this; its hardly subtle or complex! I could go on and on about how its so wrong on so many levels but I will leave that to Mr Peston - and long may he continue. If you don't like it , don't read it and let the greedy investment banking fraternity (how rich does a man want to be before he is satisfied for chrissakes, Mr Diamond) wince or get irritated with every Peston blog, its the very least they deserve.

  • Comment number 12.

    Like some of us, John Varley can see what's coming very soon.

  • Comment number 13.

    Compared with other banks, Barclays is doing pretty good; but it still doesn't alter the fact that their share price is about half what I paid for them! I liked the dividends, but I was oblivious to the fact that I was a shareholder of nothing less than a casino.

  • Comment number 14.

    Barclays is a private company and what it pays their CEO and Chairman is entirely up to them. However I will never (where avoidable) use any of Barclays facilities and will encourage others to do likewise.
    As a consumer that is the best that I can do but in the end, that will be enough.

  • Comment number 15.

    Still watching sport relief.
    Still convinced the view of the world is wrong for directors of banks.

    Still think they all do not live in the real world..........

  • Comment number 16.

    This is precisely why corporate governance is so important. Shareholders, especially the large institutions, have a responsibility to hold the executive to account on policy. Fund managers are paid handsomely in management fees - ask Lord Myners.

  • Comment number 17.

    Keep it coming. Well done.

  • Comment number 18.

    If NULAB gives the banks 0.5% money to lend on at whatever rate they want then they are bound to make profits. Is this what Ernie Bevan wanted. Labour propping up the fatcats.

    Anyways don't worry. It looks like the unions might sort all this out and give us a nice spring of discontent. As long as Brown goes who cares...

  • Comment number 19.

    It would appear that G Singh has been on another planet over the last few years all these hard working chaps have brought havoc to the country loading debt on the future inhabitants how hard do you have to work to do that I wonder how hard mr singh calls hard

  • Comment number 20.

    So what's your point Robert? Just anther bit of jealousy?

  • Comment number 21.

    How can the population of this country sleepwalk through their lives in a society structured like this?

    Large parts of banking are socially useless at best, and sometimes destructive - look at the crisis we have just lived through. Most ordinary people will be working longer and harder for less all their lives as a result. I am shocked at the return to business as usual. Bob Diamond's remuneration is obscene.

    How can we sit back and let this happen? When doctors, nurses, teachers and others make huge contributions to society with a fraction of the reward available in banking?

    And then we see on Sport Relief tonight children dying in abject poverty because they don't have access to a mosquito net?

    Heartbreaking.

    At what point are we going to decide enough is enough and hold our politicians to account and demand they build in our name a fairer society, where banking is a service to society rather than a casino with little other useful puropose than to enrich the small club of senior bankers?

  • Comment number 22.

    Not at all related but it is the top news story and u were on the 6 oclock so i have to respond THE BA STRIKE IS ALL ABOUT PENSIONS .the unions have just agreed a 4.5% pay cut for all staff in NAPS for people near retirement no increase in pensionable PAY for 3 years in APS a scheme that nearly 1 BILLION surplus 6 years ago but instead of doing what Boots did ie making the fund paid up in bonds,they continued investing in shares now 1 billion in defecit.Cabin crew were givin an 18.75% increase in pensionable pay in 2007 in return for retiring later check ur own link to the ba pension website, ground staff had to cough up more cash no flying staff have to do the same.Pension contributions have gone from 5.25% 3yrs ago to 13% next yr for plan 60.People that were not affected by the 2007 changes are now being forced without consultatiuon and they are not happy. If u think cabin crew are bothered by a staff travel ban think again they will just buy a standby ticket and get upgraded to first because they know the people at the gate.

  • Comment number 23.

    Why aren't unite asking for the 100 engineers who were made redundant in may last year (voluntary) same as cabin crew. Why not reinstate those posts These people were not responsible for the down turn and if u dont want bankers to make money stop borrying money off them and dont invest in financial services,the ft 100 is at a 21 month high but shares are for the long term so why dont financial companies give us there 10 year results anymore?

  • Comment number 24.

    People earning these extremes while tonight the BBC highlights a little boy dying of malaria, dying after his grandmother carried him to hospital through the night. An old woman walking mile after mile with her dying grandson in her arms in the pitch dark. From a parasite that we could prevent for just a few quid. One African lost to malaria every three seconds!

    Or how about the little boy living in the slums of Kenya who dreams of being an engineer or a pilot and at the age of 14 he has two siblings to look after after lossing both their parents to HIV. Nowhere to go, except a shack. No adults to raise those children in a loving home with the basics like running water, a mum to tuck you in at night.

    Or how about the street kids scraping a living, if they are lucky, from rubbish dumps and then spending the night huddled together on the pavement.

    Now, what do these men do, remind me, to deserve so much? Where were they tonight? did any of these jokers walk down to BBC Centre and hand over their massive wealth? After what they have done over the past few years, not only to this country, but to the people and the dreams of children all over the world, why not?

    6 million plus 18 million is 24 million quid.
    That is 4 800 000 mossie nets. Two or three kids could sleep under a single mossie net. So that would be at least 9 600 000 children sleeping safe from malaria every night. Nine million six hundred thousand children safe from a parasite in their blood. Think about that.

    How many pairs of shoes could that money buy? Just think how difficult your life would be if you had no shoes; the constant damage and the inability to go to school or to work each and every time your foot is torn and becomes infected. There's an awful lot of Africans doing just that; no shoes.

    What use is so much money to one man in a world where families have no shoes, no clean water, no decent sanitation, no access to healthcare, limited access to even primary education?

    I'm disgusted.

    Sports Relief, take a bow for understanding the true meaning of real wealth, real value, the wealth and the value of decency and humanity, of human life.

  • Comment number 25.

    yes, evil banks, blah blah. look at the £11bn profit B have made this year. look at the 40k people they employ, the tax they pay and the spending they generate

    then stop being so jealous

  • Comment number 26.

    25# Taxes can also be generated by people doing proper jobs instead of gambling - UK needs to move away from reliance on a sector that is corrupt and incapable of of behaving responsibly.
    Banking sector is holding the country to ransom and needs massive radical overhaul to deal with loopholes and tax avoidance that clearly flies in the face of the spirit of the law.

    It's not about jealousy cretin! - it's about overpaid selfish bankers being forced to behave like responsible human beings and not causing the misery they have inflicted on the rest of us.

  • Comment number 27.

    Banks will continue their business as usual as the the root issue has not been discussed - the initial creation of money.

    Are you brave enough to touch upon this subject, Robert?

  • Comment number 28.

    These people must be worth loads of money.
    Why? Because they are paid loads of money.
    And we let them get paid loads of money.
    Who are the fools?

  • Comment number 29.

    #8 and #11, Barclays was not bailed out by the government.

  • Comment number 30.

    Bob Diamond is the pure personification of obscene banker greed. He doesn't have to take it but fails monumentally to appreciate what's happened in the wider world caused by bankers in general, of which he just happens to be one! The man is in utter and total denial. He should be a responsible person. He can afford to be a responsible person. His closest colleague has gone some way to recognising that and acted upon it.

    This shows how Capitalism "works." It's at this point you are either enthused in your admiration for such a way of life, perhaps mesmerised by the chance that you too could one day be this greedy. Or be one of the increasing majority who felt that Capitalism was the way to go - but that this, (what Diamond and others like him) are doing is so obscene that it cannot be right morally and is fundamentally so anti-human that it needs out-lawing. Bob Diamond and his ilk are consiging the rest of humanity to the rubbish dumps, unregulated child labour, increasing infant deaths and a world going mentally unbalanced in its worship of greed.

    Your (Labour and Tory) politicians are doing NOTHING to stop any of this and if they seem to have made lots of noises, that's all they're doing. What they're not doing is anything to stop the greed - separating the casino's from the banks. Where is the moral hazard? ALL they're letting the banks do is wind up the credit spring again, and it will blow up again if things continue stay like they are now.

    Please, please keep up the banker stories Robert! We need to be constantly reminded of the sleaze, going on inside the elite, at the top of the establishment in this country. Millions of us have been kept in the dark for too long about the activities of these "criminals." The ONLy reason they get away with it is only because all of this is, "within the rules!" That's the same mentality used by MP's to demand that their false expenses claims were fair and reasonable!

    Bob Diamond, you are a disgrace and I would urge all Barclays customers to refuse to be "sold" ANY new product next time you go in, or better still transfer to another institution, preferably a mutual building soc. but even another bank if you have to.


  • Comment number 31.

    #29 - Barclays was indirectly bailed out. Had it not been for the UK and US rescue packages there probably would be no Barclays Bank today.

    Bob Diamond is an incredibly lucky man - he desperately tried to buy ABN but was lucky to lose the battle with RBS. He also tried to buy Lehmans just before it filed for bankruptcy and again he was lucky that the FSA prevented him from going ahead. Either of those acquisitions would have had catastrophic consequences for Barclays.

  • Comment number 32.

    #31 HKris makes a very valid point there would be no Barclays had they done the ABN deal (it significantly did for RBS). Mr Diamond and his merry band of men would have probably been responsible for the loss of hundreds if not thousands of jobs then. How very lucky. Not that Mr Diamond would have been worried I suspect redundancy is not something his family would be too worried about unlike 80% of his staff.

  • Comment number 33.

    jeez - when will Peston give it a rest. Always on at Barclays. It seems almost ever other article has either an outright dig at them or a sidewise swipe.

    What did they do - refuse to leak you enough stories?

    As many have pointed out - there are other stories that are out there. If you must you on about banking, perhaps we could see more about the future of mutual societies (the numbers seem in decline as smaller societies seek bigger partners), or perhaps even you'd care to venture onto stories happening elsewhere in the business sector.

  • Comment number 34.

    Barclays Bank made a point of not accepting government money. Why should they limit pay and bonuses if they are able to attract the best people and make large amounts for the treasury to tax?

    @ copperDolomite: The evil bankers with their money eh! Tssssk! Do you know for a fact that none of these people don't give money to charities?

    Do you give all of your money away? How many mossie nets have you spent on clothes/cars/holidays/computers etc etc? (if you dress in flour sacks and wear recycled flip flops I apologise)

    Do you have satellite TV, new mobile phone, new car, drink beer/wine/spirits. How dare you! The guilt must be gnawing away at you. Sack-cloth and ashes much?

  • Comment number 35.

    What we're all forgetting here is that Barclays is a privately owned company. It can pay its directors whatever it wants and let them participate in whatever incentive schemes it feels necessary. We're all well aware that Barclays received 'indirect' support from the Government - but so did every bank in the world, including the do-no-wrong Standard Chartered.

    For once it'd be nice to log onto this blog and find a post that isn't about a bank (especially Barclays which you are always harping on about - what gives with this? Several people have asked this question and you never answer it) or the damn financial crisis which, many would argue, you yourself kind of caused by your constant doom mongering.

    No offence.

  • Comment number 36.

    I love it when people like Mandy, who have done so little in their lives, besides being full-time politicians, attack the doers of this world. Bob Diamond resurrected a moribund investment bank, BZW, and turned it into one of the premier i-banks in the world. A bank, I must you remind you pays a huge amount of tax to prop up the idiocy of NuLabour and which without Bob would employ tens of thousand fewer taxpayers in this country. Mand, the party's over, time to pack your packs!

  • Comment number 37.

    Can't you see, all these postings are just what the Government wants and you are all falling for it, how naive.

    This is the real story taken from BBC News pages.

    BBC political correspondent Tim Reid said Lord Mandelson was trying to appeal to the voters.

    "He is trying to get the National Insurance story off the front pages by launching a broadside against bankers," he said.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8601512.stm

  • Comment number 38.

    The only way to beat a hustler is:
    Hustle that hustler

    p.s. Be very careful who you network with

  • Comment number 39.

    Being attacked by Mandy? I would feel in fact rather proud, probably means that I am not too wrong. Knowing how useless the guy is, except for spinning things around his contribution to the society has not only been nil but in fact negative. This being said I can understand him, he is so desperate to stay in power; how the poor guy would get his next mortgage when he is kicked out? My heart bleeds for him.

    PS: Mandy on your way out could you take Robert Preston with you? Thank you...and don’t forget the light!

  • Comment number 40.

    Reminds me of the Infamous Hip-Hop Beef between the 2 Rap Artists
    (1) Biggie Smalls (aka Notorius BIG.) and (2) 2Pac Shakur (aka Mackavelli)

  • Comment number 41.

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

  • Comment number 42.

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

  • Comment number 43.

    And maybe just to state the obvious once again Barclays (and a number of other banks) have not been bailed out by the government. It is true that the government provided liquidity for the whole economy including the banks but only idiots would think that providing liquidity and bailing out is the same thing. If it was the case then Barclays is constantly bailing out the UK and the economy has it providing all the time liquidity to both!

  • Comment number 44.

    Mandelson is the unacceptable face of politics, surely? Twice disgraced, architect of the awfulness of New Labour, and so on, and so on....

  • Comment number 45.

    Maybe the extra income this geezer earned (or not) was not from directly Barclay's plc but other shenanigans involved in the biggest banking swindle ever perpetrated etc

    Either directly / indirectly or as a couterparty / agent / principle or leaking pertinent info or acting on behalf of someone else etc.

    Hypothetically speaking that is because MBS trades are performed off the books as uncategorised asset types.

  • Comment number 46.

    Barclays plc never really explained why they were so reluctant to disclose all of their financial dealings and strategies to the federal authorities.

  • Comment number 47.

    Surely there should be some ITAL Integrity Transparency Accountability Legislation to help Barclay's plc Wealth Management Clients identify specifically how they lost their money on investments historically if Barclay's were performing deals on their behalf.

  • Comment number 48.

    No one else has pointed out that one of the main sources of profits in Barcap is structured tax avoidance. In response to this, HMRC have placed Barclays into a High Risk Corporate Project.

    Your BBC reporters might wish to ask Barclays about the above and also why they have not signed the Banking Code of Conduct which would require Barclays to comply with the spirit of UK tax law.

  • Comment number 49.

    The ongoing tirade against bankers still fails to account for those banks/bankers who, in the face of a global meltdown and significant reputational risk, did not turn to the UK government for hand outs. Bob Diamond is extremely well paid, however, at that level reputation counts for more than the money - he is respected for his financial acumen and his stewardship of Barclays Capital. We need to remember that politicians and journalists are only interested in the next headline, the Banks and the Credit Crisis has been trumpeted as the key area for change in the UK in the run up to this election, however, don't forget that for UK Plc there are some stark decisions facing us all after 13 years of cronyism, increased dependence on Brussels and poor management of state owned institutions...the list goes on.

  • Comment number 50.

    Barclays may or may have been doing anything wrong themselves per se but they also may or may not have been protecting clients that have. It's just a bit of an unknown known (possibly).

  • Comment number 51.

    I bet I can guess what people like Diamond like to read when they're looking for something to help them justify their obscene levels of dubious income... 'Writers' such as Herbert Spencer, Hayek, Rand, Friedman et al! All, I believe, are authors who espoused and advocated the unrestricted pursuit of unlimited financial profit. They called for the 'survival of the richest/ allow the 'deserving poor' to flounder and perish'. It's all philosophy that ought to have died out in the 19th century. Alas it lives on...
    This type of mindset is what appears to allow the likes of Diamond, and others such as, for example, Alan Greenspan to delude themselves that they are right.

    I'd like to end with a couple of interesting quotes:

    " The salary of the chief executive of a large corporation is not a market award for achievement. It is frequently in the nature of a warm personal gesture by the individual to himself." —John Kenneth Galbraith

    " The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. —John Kenneth Galbraith

  • Comment number 52.

    As somebody who knows Bob Diamond personally I am well aware that this hogwash by Mandelson is nothing more than vindictive jealousy aimed at somebody with far more class, far more intelligence and far more ability and charisma than Mandelson could ever hope for. He is far more generous and gives vast sums to charity.

    Mandelson is a know nothing ignoramus who should go back under his stone and continue to be a loser

  • Comment number 53.

    Ok Mandy is a bliar but ok despair can push people to do silly thing, but what is Robert excuse for propagation untrue and misleading gossips?

    The annual report shows that Diamond pay is £250k and that he did not accept bonuses is 2008 and 2009.

    Diamond sold his shares in BGI last year for around £27m. But BGI is a successful business that he built over many years and that he bought share in. So now you cannot invest and build businesses any longer? Moreover BGI was sold under pressure of the regulator to increase Barclays’ capital ratios!

    Finally everybody was screaming that incentives should been paid over a numbers years in share and directly related to the bank performance to avoid short term risk taking attitude.

    So Robert what is your problem? Frustration to see people much more successful than you are? Try to articulate something instead of gossiping.

  • Comment number 54.

    Q1). Do Barclay's have Weapons of Mass Destruction?
    A1). We don't know

    Q2). What is the price of transparency?
    A2). Priceless

  • Comment number 55.

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

  • Comment number 56.

    #53 By jove- well spotted!
    The prols are all so busy castigating this honourable wealth creator that they've failed to take note of the substantial personal sacrifices he's made in no foregoing bonuses in the banking induced meltdown years.

    Don't miss the next week's episode when we'll be explaining why Conrad Black was so misunderstood.

  • Comment number 57.

    #49 Wasn't Diamond one of the chaps who lost the acquisition race for ABN to the much reviled RBS?

    Brilliant judgement and a reputation that counts for more than money eh? - perhaps on that basis he should give back some of the £60million + handout we've been subsidising?

    Of course, it's all the fault of the EU and public sector stupid -can't you see?

    Which particular celestial object are you currently orbiting?

  • Comment number 58.

    #57

    As you seem better at making stupid and ignorant comments there were three banks who bought ABN, namely RBS, Fortis and Santander. The first two were pathetic with the results we know. The last one Santander did extremely well, thank you for them.

    On top of that it is obvious that RBS and Barclays cannot be compared as RBS was paying cash where Barclays would have paid in share.

  • Comment number 59.

    #58 Stop nitpicking - Diamond's remuneration is indefensible and symptomatic of the lunacy that prevails in that other reality known as the banking world - only a complete clot would argue otherwise!

  • Comment number 60.

    #59

    blah blah blah...who cares about what dummies like you may think...opps sorry cross "think", obviously not your forte, replace by "write"!

  • Comment number 61.

    Hi Robert,

    Do you not think that the latest smear against Bob Diamond and in particular Barclays, is part of a continuing strategy to turn the public against one of the Governments banking competitors?
    It is clear that while the Government's tax payer owned bankers are having their bonuses strangled, Barclays has free rein to reward their own staff as they like. It is a credit to Barclays that they did not have to take a government bail out and as a result, are making dramatic steps on their road to recovery. Unlike the government owned banks who are losing ground on their competitors rapidly.
    Therefore, Lord Mandelson from a business point of view has to take steps to halt the progress of Barclays by using smear tactics to turn public opinion against them and in turn, try to bring Barclays into line with the state owned banks.
    Dirty tactics or just clever business policy?

  • Comment number 62.

    Picking up on the last one it is interesting to know the that RBS and Llyods like (government!) are again undercutting the market by not pricing the risk in their margins, exactly the same thing which started the last bubble! But who cares deception, smear campaign are so much better to grab headlines, people will do anything to be reelected!

 

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.