Barclays’ Mystery Man Roger Jenkins Still Refusing to Disclose Bonus

The Barclays shareholder meeting yesterday may have paved the way for the Middle East capital injection/rough-shod bailout to go ahead, but it definitely didn’t clear up the issue of bonuses, and in particular, the bonus of one Roger Jenkins. Barclays’ chief executive John Varley has been harping on for weeks about how the deal to take capital at an exorbitant rate from investors in Abu Dhabi and Qatar (14% as compared to the 12% offered by the UK treasury in their banking bailout, which Barclays rejected) was a decision that showed “[t]he board cares about the interests of shareholders long before it cares about the interests of management”, rather than a nice old case of feather-bedding. Varley’s even gone so far as to pledge that the board of directors will be forgoing bonuses this year. But the man who stands to benefit from this deal the most in terms of personal profit is Roger Jenkins, who was instrumental in brokering the capital injection. Because Jenkins doesn’t sit on the board of directors, he is not promising to forgo his bonus. Further, he will not even disclose what his Barclays’ earnings are, which (given his role in this latest whopping £5.8 billion deal) could be upwards of £25 million for 2008.

Sorry fellas, but that kind of shoots the your argument about your rejection of government finance not being motivated by personal greed in the foot. When one shareholder at yesterday’s meeting tried to raise this point, the response of Barclays’ chairman Marcus Agius was an example of textbook hypocrisy, as the Telegraph reports:

“[A shareholder] wanted to know what bonus would be paid to Roger Jenkins, who led the discussions with the Middle East group. Mr Jenkins does not sit on the board so is exempt from the ban on bonuses. He is widely believed to have been paid tens of millions of pounds last year.

Mr Agius said it was “invidious” to comment on individuals, but added that Barclays needed to be free to “recruit the best so it can do the best”.”

In case you’re wondering what invidious means, it’s Agius’s way of saying it might hurt Jenkins feelings (and reputation) if his bonus was revealed. What a stellar defense… As a consolation prize, the board (as the NY Times reports) “pledged to align the bank’s remuneration policy with shareholder interests.”

Notice something ever so slightly circular about that argument? Maybe Barclays’ shareholders might be less venemous if what the bank chose to align with their interests they also chose to disclose?

Posted by Becky North in Hot Money | November 25, 2008 11:56AM |