No fall in Barclays bonuses

 
Barclays

I would expect Barclays in results on Tuesday to disclose it is paying more in bonuses to its investment bankers than the £1.3bn it paid for 2012 - and that it has allocated a higher proportion of investment banking revenues to the pay of its investment bankers than last year's 39%.

My sources there tell me that the board has become increasingly concerned that its huge investment bank is being damaged by defections to higher-paying US banks - and is therefore maintaining pay and increasing it for some, even though revenues have been under pressure.

The bank is increasingly concerned that it has become too easy for the giants of Wall Street to pick off its best people, by pointing to the looming imposition of the EU's cap on bonuses.

Which is why Barclays is finding ways to get round the bonus cap and feels the need to publicly make it clear that it still offers substantial rewards for investment banking stars.

None of which is designed to make it popular with millions of British people, whose living standards are not yet rising and who continue to feel sore about the widespread misconduct by bankers and their contribution to making most households poorer.

But Barclays, if true to form, will point out that its top people will be deferring their bonuses, such that they will not be able to spend them for months and years. And it will highlight that a huge chunk of bonuses is these days paid in shares rather than cash.

Which leads on to the important questions of how to pay bonuses fairly and how to pay them prudently - questions which politicians and regulators have a tendency to elide and confuse.

The important point is that prudent pay may in an important sense be less fair pay, from the perspective of taxpayers who rescued banks in 2008 and still provide the ultimate safety net for them

Here is why.

The prudent way to pay bankers is in shares, because paying them in cash depletes banks' vital, loss-absorbing capital.

London's Canary Wharf

And, as it happens, paying them in shares actually increases banks' buffer against losses (since the shares are that buffer).

Also - but only maybe - paying bankers in shares may encourage bankers to take fewer dangerous risks that could damage their respective banks, because if a bank were to go down, pop would go the value of the shares.

However I say only maybe, because there is plenty of evidence of business folk ramping up the value of shares in a dangerous and short-term way, in a frantic attempt to sell the shares at the top.

So share-based rewards are no guarantee of sensible behaviour.

But let's park the question of whether any form of pay can counter greed-motivated reckless conduct.

The point is that all banks have been handing out wodges more shares to their top people, rather than cash, under pressure to do so from regulators and politicians.

You will probably remember that very recently the prime minister boasted in the House of Commons that semi-nationalised RBS would continue its habit of the past few years of paying no more than £2,000 in cash bonuses, and that therefore the bulk of bonuses would be in RBS shares.

And last year Barclays, which is much bigger in investment banking than RBS and therefore pays much more in bonuses than RBS, made share-based payments to its people of £818m, including £446m of bonuses in deferred shares (or shares that can't be pocketed immediately).

So although it may be prudent to pay an increasing proportion of bonuses in shares, is it actually fairer?

Well there are two ways of evaluating this.

Barclays

Last Updated at 20 Oct 2014, 11:36 ET Barclays twelve month chart
price change %
218.35 p +
+5.25
+
+2.46

If you think that bankers are paid too much, then whether they are paid in shares or cash is irrelevant. Both are currency.

In fact, any financially astute banker working for a half-decent organisation in a time of recession would much rather be paid in shares rather than cash.

Why is that?

Well, because the shares would be awarded at the knockdown price in the market, and - barring crass incompetence or exogenous disaster - the price of those shares should rise over time.

Or to put it another way, when Barclays last year said that its average bonus per investment banker was £54,100 and that its top executive below board level received a £2.25m bonus, that said nothing about what those bonuses may eventually be worth to the recipients.

If Barclays' share price were to rise, those bonuses would become more valuable.

Now as it happens, Barclays' shares have gone nowhere over the past year, though over five years they're up 165%.

And there is another thing. I am not 100% sure that the chancellor is completely thrilled at the trend to share-based remuneration.

How so?

Well, of course income tax is paid on the shares as and when they are recognised as part of the bankers' income.

Which means that for most investment bankers there is tax to pay at the top rate of 45%.

But if the shares rise in value and are then sold, that gain would be liable not to income tax but to capital gains tax - at a rate roughly half the top rate of income tax.

So the trend to share-based pay is a double benefit to the banker: there is the potential for a bonus to end up being worth much more than face value; and the final tax bill should be much lower than for a cash bonus.

The chancellor can't rail against share-based bonuses, because he believes that the cash-based bonus system was at the heart of some of the banks' suicidal behaviour in the boom years.

But at a time when he needs every penny of tax he can lay his mitts on, the trend to paying bonuses in shares is not an unmitigated boon for him.

 
Robert Peston Article written by Robert Peston Robert Peston Economics editor

The agony and ecstasy of UK recovery

The prospect of an interest rate rise before the general election has receded sharply, says the Bank of England's chief economist - who warns growth may be low and disappointing over the very long term.

Read full article

More on This Story

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 745.

    How do people not know that there is one rule for all the common people and one rule for the rich. The rich get away with what the common people cannot. No matter what anyone says that will always stay the same.

    In this together? Time to wake up methinks.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 744.

    722.fallingTP

    How can capital and political processes be separated? Capitalism needs laws and regulation. But what do you mean by capitalism? There are so many variations and corruptions of it. I think our present version has cancer and those who want capitalism to survive need to work to destroy the tumour.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 743.

    failed TP

    "is based on a false premise; that humans can be dissuaded away from their own self interest in pursuit of the greater good."

    and therein the crux for falling, falling, falling TP.... No doubt the nationalist leaders of this century might take issue with this statement or the millions of volunteers, or those that choose vocation over monetary reward.

    Alien language to you though...

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 742.

    730.nicknack1

    But who decides what jobs need to be done, which jobs are more important than others and who should be paid the most. Some naive people would say the market. Who makes the market? It does not exist in free space, it did not come down on tablet of stones from the mountain and it was not generated at the star of the universe by the big bang.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 741.

    failing TP

    "Self interest is always a feature of human bahaviour."

    But when it rides rough shod over the needs of the many then that nag needs putting down.

    As for 'silly comment', a weak put down for what is a statement of fact. And greed, which you don't seem to have an issue with, has been actively sought, nurtured and encouraged in the finance industry which is why it needs radical change.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 740.

    732.fallingTP

    Actually we have evolved to cooperate.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 739.

    Re: 718. fallingTP

    Why are you equating my dislike of bankers and their behaviour to nazism and anti-semitism? What an ignorant, distasteful and deeply offensive way to spin my comment. It is you sir, in fact, that is absurd and you should be ashamed of yourself.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 738.

    fallingTP @737
    "Yes of course
    implicit social functions"

    To be 'taken account of' in proper 'accounting' of purpose & fulfilment in 'the whole system', that within which individuals & enterprises & govts 'come and go', doing their best to make mutually advantageous contracts & positively realistic manifestos, & NOT to be led stray by dogma on human social incapacity. Drop it, lest we all perish!

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 737.

    735. Function of work inarro concept. Yes of course it has impt socail functions also.

    Nash. I agree not all is a prisoners dilemma.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 736.

    734. Indeed, not that all of these services should or need to be provided by the state.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 735.

    fallingTP @729,732
    "the function of work"
    At what level of analysis?
    The pyramid builder, the guard at Sobibor, the dictator?

    Mission-statements belong on the wall, in the lobby: 'purpose' is deep, complex, best left as emergent from interaction of FREE people, free to follow conscience (AND live). Better an equal slice of real freedom than a mirage of dominance. Partners in Nash equilibrium?

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 734.

    729.fallingTP

    I am in agreement with you again, i don't agree that punitively taxing people is either fair or a path to economic success.

    But football and footballers wouldn't be successful if the clubs had no roads/trains leading to their stadiums, no hospitals keeping the paying fans alive and the tax funded infrastructure which keeps private business both possible and profitable.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 733.

    Presumably banking has been tolerated by society because the politicos realized that otherwise there would be a surplus of folk with nothing to do. So they were all set to work as bankers. Not needed but at least it kept them busy and off the dole queue.

    Now however the bankers are biting the hand that feeds them.

    Time for a change.

    Most saps do not realize this however
    So the bankers carry on

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 732.

    The equality AfA promotes is based on a false premise; that humans can be dissuaded away from their own self interest in pursuit of the greater good. Naturally the arbiter is a benevolent govt. Such deny the heritible nature of much of our behaviour & such utopian ideals have created greater misery for man in the last 100 years.

  • rate this
    -2

    Comment number 731.

    nicknack1 @730
    "can never be
    total equality"

    True

    So, straw-men despatched, shall we settle - as a 'socialist' species - for equality of belonging and commitment, for our security in equal partnership, our equal votes (icing on the cake) and our equal purses (especially, essentially) ensuring our democratic self-control, in stewardship of this world for our children? And NOT for uncaring Mammon?

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 730.

    728.All for All

    Inequality is a huge concern for me and for the stability of the country/world, however in life there can never be "total equality" as much as it is both desirable and equal.

    The reality is some people can do jobs others can't not just because of education but genetically as well, however hard i try i won't be the next Mike Tyson/David Beckham for example.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 729.

    727 The purpose of work (and the salary one is paid) is not to fill the coffers of a burgoening state but is to provide people with goods & servcies they desire (in this case football). The assumption that you punitively tax wealth to feed this leviathan is sure way to economic decline aka France.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 728.

    nicknack1 @727
    "making the point"

    That our Pharaoh having taken all the pie, it is "a good thing overall" that some crumbs be cast for such as "nurses, doctors, teachers" to fight over… to fight over as if they had not enough to do to follow their vocations. Like fallingTP, you have not thought through your no doubt well-meaning advocacy of inequality as 'normal' and 'above all essential'.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 727.

    725.fallingTP

    Agreed about skill, i didn't have the number of characters to add this in my comment.

    Regarding tax i was making the point that having highly paid people in the economy is good for everyone although it creates a feeling of inequality. As others have said a £100k a week footballer will pay for many nurses, doctors, teachers via tax which is a good thing overall.

  • rate this
    -2

    Comment number 726.

    fallingTP@725
    "logic a little flawed"

    Rather as strong slaves "commanded" food to maintain usefulness for their Pharaoh, so bankers "command" astro-bonuses - footballers their astro-salaries - to make astronomical profit for the employing edifice, profits from the 99% invested ostensibly 'for the 99%' (reasonably to keep alive in sickness & age), 'as it happens' to yield ever greater power for 1%

 

Page 1 of 38

 

Features

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.