Diamond’s Bonus: “Something for His Ego”
After a dramatic month at Barclays plc, the departure of non-executive director Alison Carnwath last week provided some insight into backroom board discussions at one of the world’s largest banks. Ms. Carnwath, who headed the remuneration committee, had pushed for no bonus to be paid to former CEO Bob Diamond in respect of 2011. So why was he in line for a £2.7 million payment?
The Financial Times reports that:
“…the majority of the committee was pursuaded by the arguments of [board chairman] Mr Agius, who also sat on the committee, that Mr. Diamond might leave the bank if he received no bonus. “Everyone bought the argument that Bob needed something for his ego,” said one person close to the situation.”
While the Barclays annual report notes that bonuses “are determined by reference to a qualitative and quantitative assessment of performance,” including profit before tax, performance against peers, strategic initiatives, cost reductions, leadership and return on equity as factors in determining bonus levels, ego was not discussed. The level of discretion afforded to the remuneration committee highlights the importance of tying awards to clearly disclosed results to ensure they reflect performance, rather than serving as a retentive or ego-soothing measure.
With shareholders being handed expanded powers (and responsibilities) under new binding remuneration votes, it’s worth noting that the UK government’s proposed shakeup of executive pay does not extend to the non-executive committees that ultimately determine award levels. However, investors are holding these directors accountable—the remuneration committee chairs at Aviva, Trinity Mirror and WPP, three of the companies that saw their remuneration reports rejected during the 2012 “shareholder spring,” received the support of just 78.8% of shareholders on average at their recent AGMs, well below the average 91.2% support received by the CEOs whose pay they set.
© 2020 Glass, Lewis & Co., and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.
This blog is for informational purposes only and is updated periodically to keep Glass Lewis' clients and other interested parties informed of current corporate governance developments and regulatory trends. The information contained herein should not be construed as legal or investment advice. Glass Lewis analyzes issues it believes may be of interest to its subscribers and makes recommendations as to how Glass Lewis believes institutional shareholders should approach such issues. While Glass Lewis may mention certain companies in its blog postings, Glass Lewis never comments on the investment merits of the securities issued by the subject companies. Therefore, none of the information posted through this blog should be construed as a recommendation to invest in, purchase, or sell any securities or other property. All recommendations stated herein must be construed solely as statements of opinion, and not as statements of fact, and may be revised based on additional information or any other reason at any time.
The information contained in each blog posting is based on publicly available information. While Glass Lewis exercises reasonable care to ensure that all information included in this blog is accurate and is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, no representations or warranties express or implied, are made as to the accuracy or completeness of any information included herein. In addition, Glass Lewis shall not be liable for any losses or damages arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use or inability to use any such information.
Glass Lewis expects readers of its blog possess sufficient experience and knowledge to make their own decisions entirely independent of any information contained in Glass Lewis’ blog postings. Subscribers are ultimately and solely responsible for making their own decisions. This blog is intended to serve as a complementary source of information and analysis for subscribers in making their own decisions and therefore should not be relied on by subscribers as the sole determinant in making decisions.