Oh dear, but will he trouser a wedge?
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
Don't know. But if he'd tried to stick it out he would have to have given a fair old amount of bonuses he got over the last few years back.
Surprised he's gone. He should clearly have resigned at the weekend, but he seemed hard nosed enough to not care and just stick it out.
Maybe he is going to spill the beans tomorrow,
bet you any money he got a decent pay off .....
I should image he was told he was going last week, but time was need to get all the ducks lined up i.e.
what sort of pay off he would get
how would the news be presented to the markets
who would take over
All this takes time
Andy
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
On the basis he trousered £27M in one year as head of BarCap, I think he is probably not going to starve either way...Originally Posted by Robxxx7
£20m I understand the chaps severance to be.
"Legs" Diamond does it again............. :D :D :D
B
My wife broke the news to me this morning - I'm still terribly cut up about dear old Bob :twisted:
Are you even eligible for a payoff if you resign?
He's a banker. The same rules do not apply. :wink:
Wonder what he'll be in charge of next.
Jobs for the boys.
Cynical ole git, tin
Depends on whether you are a cashier, or an exec.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
Jobs for the boys?
Interesting article in today's City paper.
Apparently there was lots of pressue on him from the govenor of the BoE but also from other banks. The other banks are glad to see him go because they were envious of him and his ability to bring clients in.
Now obviously this is a bit of an f*** up on his part, but interesting to read an article (below) which isn't based on hysteria and hatred.
The rise of Barclays’ investment banking arm in the advisory sector of mergers and acquisitions and equity capital markets has been one of the most significant investment banking developments of the last few years.
Barclays was the only UK-based bank to get an advisory role on the Facebook float; the bank is constantly pitching to be broker to FTSE 100 companies and has won quite a few of them, such as IAG, the parent of British Airways; and it even muscled in as an adviser to the year’s largest merger of the year, the on-off deal between Glencore and Xstrata. In terms of recruiting, it has hired some of the biggest names in the London market, such as former Bank of America Merrill Lynch stars Mark Astaire, soon to arrive, and Richard Taylor, now the bank’s head of investment banking, UK & Ireland; Jim Renwick, once of UBS; and Alisdair Gayne from Morgan Stanley. In reality, as much as the more established investment banks might scoff, it is in danger of being a real threat in advisory.
There is widespread belief in the market that the driving force behind the march of the investment bank’s equity business (it has for a long time been a force in debt and fixed interest) is the personality and ambition of Bob Diamond.
With the purchase of Lehman’s US business and the constant hiring elsewhere in the group, Diamond has thrown the bank’s weight behind this initiative even when investment banking has been seen as unfashionable, risky and at a time when business volumes are at a low ebb. One rival said yesterday: “We’ve lost a couple of pitches recently to Barclays and on both occasions the potential client said that Bob was all over them, telling them what Barclays could do for them in terms of lending and other services.”
In other words, Diamond is absolutely wedded to the idea of the integrated investment bank, using relationships in one arm to foster business in another.
This being the world that it is, and with Barclay Capital standing around fifth place in most league tables when it wasn’t even in the top ten a few years ago, rival investment bankers are hoping that even if Diamond isn’t forced out over the Libor scandal he will be sufficiently weakened to slow his group’s relentless pursuit of a top table place in the world of investment banking.
Tomorrow could be interesting.
That aside, he'll be back in the US in no time, spending his £100m plus fortune.
And when will he be charged and tried ?
If found guilty he should be jailed and face a massive fine.
Whilst I don't doubt for one second the business acumen of Bob Diamond it was ultimately his greed, arrogance and just "not getting it" that did him in and made him into someone very easy to take a dislike to.
For him to say that the staff of Barclays are doing their best to give the best service to their customers may be true, but these are the same staff that have seen their pay and conditions reduced year on year (not to mention the constant job losses through restructuring) whilst at the same time pushing through even larger pay, bonuses, share options and pension pots for himself and the senior management.
Unfortunately you can apply most of the last paragraph to most huge companies these days, which is in part why we're in the mess we are in.
Will he have the balls to reveal how much the Government and the Bank of England were aware of and almost certainly encouraged this 'lowering' of LIBOR?
If Barclays and the other major banks involved in this manipulation had reported true LIBOR, what would that have been? 6%, 7%? more? With mortgage rates tied to LIBOR, the housing market would have imploded, the country would have been on its knees.
To think the Governement and Bank of England weren't involved would be ridiculous.
He's saying he will spill the beans, today's the day lets see what he says
To be honest I still don't get the problem with lowering Libor from 2009 to 2011 following a possible BoE communication (other than perhaps over stating the health of the banks).
Lower borrowing costs for British banks, larger profit margins (and thereby tax revenues), lower borrowing costs for British business and householders. I don't for a moment believe that if Libor had suddenly risen the banks wouldn't pass that additional burden to customers.
Am I missing something major or is the British public getting venomous about anyone who earns more than they do?
Frankly I think it is a complete f***ing witch hunt, and if any of our politicians, who are fairly clearly complicit in this, were willing to hold themselves to the same standard we'd have none left.
Barclays appears to the first of perhaps 20 banks to settle in this investigation - are we going to see all the CEOs resign?
The Barclays written submission is worth reading.
They said on the news earlier that BD has made £127m out of Barclays since 2006... PLUS whatever he got as severance.
Bunch of bankers, the lot of them :evil:
The LIBOR rate is supposed to be a fair representation of bank borrowing costs. If Barclays did understate their actual borrowing cost they did nothing for the borrowing cost of British banks and their profit margin, because markets knew very well what the price of money was. In fact it led to a lowering of profit margin as many loans are tied to LIBOR and banks were obliged to lend money to their business customers at a pre-defined rate of LIBOR + margin, while the banks couldn't borrow at the (mis-stated) LIBOR rate themselves. It all happened at the command of the BoE as a widening of LIBOR versus the BoE's base rate would have been seen as a further deterioation of bank creditworthyness (which ultimately would have threatened the likes of RBS and HBOS).To be honest I still don't get the problem with lowering Libor from 2009 to 2011 following a possible BoE communication (other than perhaps over stating the health of the banks).
Lower borrowing costs for British banks, larger profit margins (and thereby tax revenues), lower borrowing costs for British business and householders. I don't for a moment believe that if Libor had suddenly risen the banks wouldn't pass that additional burden to customers.
Am I missing something major or is the British public getting venomous about anyone who earns more than they do?
On the other hand LIBOR rates are reference rates when derivative contracts are settled and Barclays had many opportunities to take positions in the derivative market to gain from the mis-pricing of LIBOR rates, which they probably did.
It was a very public secret that LIBOR rates were very detached from reality during the financial crisis and it wasn't just Barclays who reported wrong rates.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Just goes to show, diamonds aren't forever :)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
