Martin Vander Weyer Martin Vander Weyer

Why the bankers’ bonus debate is not going away

Plus: The fate of AstraZeneca, and the curse of the Gherkin

Curse of the Gherkin [Getty Images/iStockphoto] 
issue 03 May 2014

A bouquet to Alison Kennedy, ‘governance and stewardship director’ at the Edinburgh-based pensions provider Standard Life, for leading the rebellion of Barclays shareholders against the bank’s decision to pay increased bonuses of £2.4 billion, far outstripping dividends to shareholders and despite a fall in profits. At last week’s AGM, 34 per cent of shareholders refused to endorse the board’s remuneration report after Kennedy declared herself ‘unconvinced’ that the bonus pot was ‘in the best interests of shareholders’ and warned of ‘negative repercussions on the bank’s reputation’. As if to prove the latter point, Barclays chairman Sir David Walker responded not by apologising but by expressing ‘irritation’ that Kennedy had spoken up in public rather than in earlier private consultations.

Can it be that such consultations have proved utterly unsatisfactory for concerned institutions? ‘Our patience was exhausted,’ added Kennedy’s colleague David Cumming. The objectors, who in Barclays’ case also included F&C Investments and the Local Authority Pension Fund, are still in the minority among financial professionals.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in