Barclays: A page to be updated

[Lateralthinking1]

He's wearing that tie deliberately, if you ask me!

So what was his excuse on this occasion?

[Budapest]

I will add that if you access the BBC web site from outside the UK it's all adverts. Likewise with BBC America, which is an advertising channel that makes a fortune airing programmes payed for by Brit License payers.

It's just another con, like the banksters.

A great inward gulp of breath, at how they can get away with this???

[french frank]

So what was his excuse on this occasion?

Hmmmm. I'm not sure it's the same tie because the patterns are in different places. Unless in one picture one end is much longer than the other because he tied it differently. Or he could have had two ties made out of the same piece of scrap material - curtains, perhaps.

[scottycelt]

I've been pondering on my blissful ignorance of what non-executive directors actually do, so decided to give knowledge a bit of a go by consulting Wiki, which helpfully outlines their task and purpose:


Strategy: Non-executive directors should constructively challenge and contribute to the development of strategy.

Performance: Non-executive directors should scrutinise the performance of management in meeting agreed goals and objectives and monitoring, and where necessary removing, senior management and in succession planning.

Risk: Non-executive directors should satisfy themselves that financial information is accurate and that financial controls and systems of risk management are robust and defensible.

People: Non-executive directors are responsible for determining appropriate levels of remuneration of executive directors and have a prime role in appointing, and where necessary removing, senior management and in succession planning.


I'd always previously understood that most (if not all of these tasks) were part of the role of the Chairman? ... or Chair, if one must.

Regarding Lat's link, there are also apparently six NEDS at the BBC with salaries ranging from Marcus's hefty slice of the action to the usual helpful comment 'Try And Find Out For Yourself In Our Annual Accounts Report' ... one is listed as receiving £10000* ... I checked in vain for an explanatory note for the asterisk in any small print ( I may have missed it) so presumably any lack of one means the salary is unknown/variable and that's simply a number plucked straight out of the Management Guide to Nice-Sounding Round Figures?

In any case, they can't all have the same role and tasks as listed above, surely?

I'm now even more convinced that pure ignorance can be the easiest and quickest route to comprehension at times ...

[mangerton]

Regarding Lat's link, there are also apparently six NEDS at the BBC with salaries ranging from Marcus's hefty slice of the action to the usual helpful comment 'Try And Find Out For Yourself In Our Annual Accounts Report' ... one is listed as receiving £10000* ... I checked in vain for an explanatory note for the asterisk in any small print ( I may have missed it)

NEDS..... In Scottish slang, that's an excellent term for them. They seem to be about as much use.

Is the asterisk not shorthand for "Good grief! Does he/she really get that amount? Risible, isn't it?"

[scottycelt]

NEDS..... In Scottish slang, that's an excellent term for them. They seem to be about as much use.

Indeed, mangerton ... still, our very own NEDS could certainly learn a thing or two from their boardroom namesakes when it comes to the lucrative mugging of Joe Public.

Mind you, any helpful, reciprocal advice on life behind bars might eventually come in handy for some of the others ...

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Scottycelt
That Wiki entry is not bad. In each of those catagories I would expect the Non Execs to have special regard to issues such as:

welfare of employees including renumeration, pension schemes, proper implemenatation of H&S practices and audit thereof, training, career progression, etc.
concern for the public image of the company; involvement of the various company stakeholders (including, for example, the local community(ies) in company activities.
correct and comprehensive management of all environment issues
liaison with external agencies not directly connected with the core business of the company, such as schools, universities, charities, etc.

and so forth.

A good team of non execs can transform the working of a company. Perfectly sensible for the BBC to have them, whatever they're called and wherever they're positioned.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well the Barclays bunch could do with replacing; having to be virtually told by King and Turner that the CEO had to go is a serious deficit in eyebrow raising interpretative skills ...

[french frank]

I think I read somewhere that Marcus Agius sits on one of the Remuneration committees. So if the Inspector is right, and a banker like Mr Agius would regard his pay of £47,000 as little more than one of his 'charitable works', would he be the man licence fee payers would choose to advise on remuneration for senior BBC executives? Rather than having someone from the world of high finance, would it not be better to appoint a leading figure from the charitable world who comes from a background of broad public service rather than from the grasping, greedy world of bankers?

Scottycelt outlines the areas covered by non-execs on a Board of Directors and I repeat my point that much of the responsibility in these areas is overseen by the members of the, separate and independent, BBC Trust. The BBC is not a commercial company.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

a fair point ff but NEDs can have roles other than the general oversight, sometimes they are there for specialist contribution to the board and it's strategic deliberations

[french frank]

a fair point ff but NEDs can have roles other than the general oversight, sometimes they are there for specialist contribution to the board and it's strategic deliberations

I've never objected to their presence on the board. I only ever enquired what a non-exec might do for £47,000 on the BBC's EB. For 28 days work, apparently. I'd invite them to donate their services, unless they sacrifice 28 days' pay from their day job.

If Barclays docked his pay, contrary to what has been said, he wouldn't be greatly out of pocket, since, strictly pro rata, Barclays pay Mr Agius £57,534 for 28 days work.

[And they could throw in a free TV licence.]

[Resurrection Man]

I will add that if you access the BBC web site from outside the UK it's all adverts. Likewise with BBC America, which is an advertising channel that makes a fortune airing programmes payed for by Brit License payers.

It's just another con, like the banksters.

A great inward gulp of breath, at how they can get away with this???

So you are privy to the commercial terms under which BBC America gets to show BBC programmes?

You don't think, before you get on your hobby horse yet again, that there might just be a significant chunk of money coming back into the BBC's coffers to make programmes?

No, thought not.

[ahinton]

well the Barclays bunch could do with replacing; having to be virtually told by King and Turner that the CEO had to go is a serious deficit in eyebrow raising interpretative skills ...

But with whom, how many of that bunch and to what extent in any case are King, Turner and others in similarly high ranking positions within the financial services industry of such squeaky-clean repute that they'd be entitled to tell Barclays anthing of the kind? Furthermore, why should heads at Barclays be the only ones to roll? (and indeed I doubt that they will be as more of the truths emerge). The next matters to consider are, firstly, whether (a) one bank on its own or (b) a group of banks by secret mutual agreement or (c) BoE or (d) the government of the day could reasonably be regarded as entitled to manipulate interest rates if not doing so might result in even greater woes for the general public and, secondly, what rôle could or should the regulator play in this; I'm not seeking to defend any of what's happened but, if anyone's to be vilified and/or punished for their part in it, it must surely first be determined what ought to have happened instead and who ought to have ensured that it did. This is where, I believe, the interest rate swap products and sales (especially the sales) need to be considered as a separate entity from the rate fixing issue because, whatever arguments might be put forward in an attempt to justify or at least part-justify the latter, there can be ilttle doubt that the former was in almost all instances just plain wrong and wreaked demonstrable havoc among SMEs that were unfortunate enough to have become victims of that malpractice / professional misconduct.

Much as the government seems determined to confine the inquiry on all of this to a parliamentary one, partly because of the far greater timescale that a judicial one would require, it is becoming increasingly clear that even a mere parliamentry inquiry is likely to grow like Topsy into a vastly larger and more far-reaching and long-term affair than might at first have been presumed by some in government; as with other matters, the more you scratch the surface, the more surfaces you uncover to scratch.

[Lateralthinking1]

Diamond:

Like Murdoch, amnesia.

Isn't it about time that people who are appointed to multi-million pound positions are required to have at least an average memory?

Get them to do some basic tests alongside the interview!

(Some people have barley water in a tennis break - I take in a Parliamentary Committee)

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I think I read somewhere that Marcus Agius sits on one of the Remuneration committees. So if the Inspector is right, and a banker like Mr Agius would regard his pay of £47,000 as little more than one of his 'charitable works', would he be the man licence fee payers would choose to advise on remuneration for senior BBC executives? Rather than having someone from the world of high finance, would it not be better to appoint a leading figure from the charitable world who comes from a background of broad public service rather than from the grasping, greedy world of bankers?

Scottycelt outlines the areas covered by non-execs on a Board of Directors and I repeat my point that much of the responsibility in these areas is overseen by the members of the, separate and independent, BBC Trust. The BBC is not a commercial company.

It's your inference that because Mr Agius occupation is a banker he would regard £47,000 as a low rate; on that point I wasn't making any link to his occupation nor indicating what he actually feels about the level of pay. I would simply say he's probably worth that rate. (And on the subject of banking, I am horrified by the latest revelations, but I see no benefit in intelligent people descending to the level of characterizing the entire workforce as grasping and greedy). Rather I was considering his track record and obvious abilities at board level of an organization of comparable size to the BBC. Since the BBC has a multi-billion operating budget, and indulges in global commercialization of its products, claiming it is not commercial is naive.
As for the rate of pay, argue it down if you want, but it's my view that if you pay low, you'll get dross.