Connect with us

News

Barclays cuts bonus pool after tough year for investment bank

Published

on

Barclays cuts bonus pool after tough year for investment bank

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Barclays has cut back its bonus pool following a tough year for its investment bank, as the UK lender reported a 15 per cent decline in full-year profits.

The bank trimmed the overall bonus pool by 3 per cent, from £1.8bn to £1.75bn, which it blamed on “the lower year-on-year financial outcomes in some business areas”.

Profits at the corporate and investment bank fell 21 per cent during the year to £2.7bn. Trading revenue dropped 18 per cent to £7.2bn, while investment banking fees declined 12 per cent to £2bn.

Advertisement

Barclays’ results showed group revenue fell 3 per cent in the final quarter of 2023 to £5.6bn, after a poor end to the year for the investment bank.

The 2022 bonus pool was cut by £500mn because of a series of regulatory and compliance scandals. The bank said that without that reduction, bonuses would be down 15 per cent this year.

Barclays is one of the first banks to outline its cut to bonuses following a brutal year for investment banking. Last week, Wall Street heavyweights Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley all disclosed pay rises for their chief executives.

Goldman chief executive David Solomon received a 24 per cent boost to his pay package, taking it to $31mn, despite the investment bank reporting its lowest profits in four years.

In contrast, Barclays’ chief executive CS Venkatakrishnan saw his pay drop 13 per cent, with his overall pay package falling from £5.2mn to £4.6mn.

Advertisement

Venkatakrishnan’s non-fixed remuneration dropped 27 per cent, which was mostly because of losing £148,000 of relocation and housing benefits tied to his move to London two years ago to take up the role.

Chief financial officer Anna Cross also suffered a 25 per cent drop in her bonus, though both Cross and Venkatakrishnan were granted a 2.5 per cent increase in fixed pay.

The number of bankers who earned more than €1mn at the group fell from 698 to 668, a figure the bank was required to publish under EU rules introduced before Brexit.

Barclays suffered an exodus of senior dealmakers in its investment bank last summer.

In October last year, the UK scrapped the cap on banker bonuses inherited from its period of EU membership. The decision was part of the UK government’s post-Brexit push to boost the City of London, although pay consultants have been sceptical that it will lead to a significant change in pay.

Advertisement

Barclays said it would continue for now to apply a cap, but that it would “consider this further” for the next financial year. “A relatively small number of our employees are potentially impacted by this regulatory change,” the bank said.

This article has been amended to reflect the fact that the number of executives earning more than €1mn fell last year rather than rose and that Barclays reported a £111mn net loss for the fourth quarter of 2023, not for the full year.

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

Published

on

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.

“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.

“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.

In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.

“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.

Advertisement

Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.

This story has been updated.

Continue Reading

Trending