Barclays to cut 12,000 jobs, pays bigger bonuses

[KeepItReal]

Source: Reuters

Barclays said it would axe up to 12,000 jobs this year even as it raised bonuses for investment bankers, prompting fury among politicians and unions who said it had not learned the lessons of the financial crisis.

Britain's third-biggest bank said up to 9 percent of employees could go, including 7,000 in Britain, as it tries to lower costs. The cuts are not concentrated in any one business area.

It said it paid 2.4 billion pounds ($3.9 billion) in incentive awards last year, raising bonuses at the investment bank by 13 percent despite a slump in its profits. The average bonus for the investment bank's 26,200 staff was 60,100 pounds.

Critics of the bonus hike said it showed Britain's biggest banks were still failing to heed the lessons of a financial crisis caused by dangerous risk taking and excessive pay.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/11/us-barclays-earnings-idUSBREA190ES20140211

[TheBlackAdder]

1. This is the game AOL is probably playing...

I had posted this on an AOL post:



AOL might be doing this because:


1) They can fire someone's ass on December 24th, giving the employee a nice Christmas present, knowing the employee won't even be able to tap into their 401(k) money in the event of an emergency.


2) AOL might be able to save that 1.25% interest on the money they would have lost by paying gradually through the year.


3) BONUS POOL. They can decide who to fire in December to free up money to pay out in bonuses. If the returns aren't that favorable... fire a few more staffers and that 'saved' 401(k) money can be used to fund the bonuses for executives.

[sakabatou]

2. Of course they would

[SunSeeker]

3. Why isn't there a shareholder suit challenging the layoffs and executive bonuses?

Seems to me that giving out bonuses to CEOs that have performed poorly--despite all the tax largess from government, would be a breach of the corporation's fiduciary duty to its shareholders. And laying off all those people will hurt the banks' operations and ability to generate revenue.

Instead of laying off 12,000 people, how about keeping those people that help the bank operate, and NOT pay $3.9 billion pounds in bonuses to 26,200 staff at 60,100 pounds per employee? They would be able to retain those 12,000 employees at 60,000 pounds per employee for only a total of 721,200,000 pounds per year, and still have 3.1788 billion pounds to send out as bonuses. Or...use the $3.1 billion to reinvest into the banks so that are better staffed and have better technology to deliver the services they are in the business of providing.

[jsr]

4. That's the least they can do to widen the gap

[Kelvin Mace]

5. Folks, wake up!

Of course they haven't learned their lesson. They won't until you start frogmarching management out the front door in handcuffs.

[blkmusclmachine]

6. MUST.

LOOK.

FORWARD.

[Nihil]

7. Of course the banks learned the lessons of the financial crisis ...

... if you're a bank you can get away with anything.

No responsibility for your own gambling failures.

No penalty to the profit harvesters.

The State will always bail you out.

Banks didn't just learn the lessons, they built entire business plans on them.

[bemildred]

8. Yep, that's how they do it. Your job pays for their bonus. nt