Diamond has a great CV, but Lloyds and RBS may be better bets

It would be very illuminating if some enterprising journo set out to find EXACTLY what this sort of boss ACTUALLY does for his obscene money. Does he have an "all-seeing" eye that tells him (and him alone) WHAT the company SHOULD be doing, what markets they should be moving into? Has he an encyclopaedic knowledge of the banking biz or is he just another of a special clique? After all, the top man in last year's scandal was ex-retail and now back at Boots, so the actual market can't be a necessary qualification. Does Diamond's market insight see what no-one else sees? Does HE actually DO any work that coins in the profits? Or just oversees the board a couple of times a month, while voting himself and his cronies a load of dosh he couldn't possibly spend. And in doing so take a LOAD of money out of the economy - spending elsewhere in the world. There must be tens of thousands of very good, qualified managers in the UK who COULD be doing this...

I wonder just how many of these bigwigs have a financial qualification. I pose the question as a retired banker who studied for five years of evening classes to become an Associate of the Chartered Institute of Bankers.

You are right John Howard Norfolk. Andy Hornby (ExHBOS chielf and Fred the Shred (RBS) were not qualified bankers in any way. Unlike yourself. The excuse was used that it was their "managerial" skills that were important in their banking roles. Then - when Hornby was dropped back into Boots as top man - lo and behold - he was "recruited for his retail skills". Are we all dense or what? They are all recruited for their crony skills, then sit on each others "fair salaries panels" to set the "right" rate for their jobs. How dumb can WE all get before we chase these people out of the country forever? The whine that "they need to pay the top salaries to get the best people" is an insult to our intelligence - as I am sure anyome who is old enough to remember the Utilities bosses stuffing their pockets with salaries that REAL businessmen "earn" - when they were (to a man) just third rate civil servants.

Barclays rode the credit crisis with skill from good leadership. To question Diamond is churlish. His success at BarCap is unquestionable and at least he's done something impressive. These analysts at Evolution Securities have probably done nothing more than analyse financial statements, and when they are wrong just hide behind futurist excuses. I like and respect doers more than talkers. Barclays do, LLoydas and RBS talk and fail. Upside for a retail bank based in the UK with an over valued property market. Please tell me where that is? Diamond is a good choice and a good banker!!

John Howard,

Some time ago, following the financial collapse, I recall a parliamentary committee member asking the exact same question of bankers during an enquiry into the demise of the banks. I enjoyed watching them squirm in their seats when they admitted having no banking qualifications whatsoever.

Excuse me for sounding a sour note on the pay and benefits, banker is not it, but one letter needs to be changed to a 'W'.

The pay is obscene. He may have an idea, as do the others, but they are reliant on the dealers and middle management whilst they lord it over them.

Even they are on over bloated packages and grossly obscene bonuses, playing with our money.

The regulation proposed is in part incorrectly focused. The regulators (and their 'bosses-our representatives- also unjustly enriching themselves) are giving themselves more power, but they had enough before, but ignored it when things were apparently on the up. And no doubt because they are 'so important'; will want shed loads of money for a relatively simple clerical task. Those in charge of them have no professional qualifications, other than on how to lie and dissemble, and vote themselves expenses, immunity from prosecution and the ability to 'earn' in no time flat a pension it takes others 40 odd years to save for, and for a very anemic imitation with very little similarity in benefits for our foregoing luxuries over the years.

All of these things are true, but 'twas ever thus - 5% of our population owning 95% of the wealth. These grotesque parasites are, unfortunately however, immoveable, and nothing short of a revolution will part them from their ill-gotten gains. Sadly, us Brits don't do revolutions. By way of consolation I have a much cherished daydream - watching Fred the Shred hanging upside down with piano wire from a lamp post outside his former HQ...bloodthirsty perhaps but justified most certainly - and a great deterrent to all other profligate city spivs.

Your recommendation is sensible and wholly justified, Rustie. I recall a couple of decades back when they gave away our Utilities, that a certain Cedric Brown (amongst the first and one of the most arrogant and obnoxious of the fat cats) boasted about his dosh. I suggested that there WAS a cure - and it was to publish the names, addresses and bonus figures of these robbers - THEN, after the first handful of the parasites were found hanged from the same lamp post that Rustie described - the rest of the arrogant cheats would simply hand back their inflated "earnings" and settle for salaries slightly less obscene. We lost a chance back then and we are paying for it now. After all, what price a couple of strung up bankers to a decent living for the remaining hard workers who keep the country's wheels turning. Rustie's figures on who owns the country are probably quite accurate - the VERY disturbing thing is that this gap is GROWING fast.

All of the comments I have read have some justification and never more so than if one has suffered considerable losses whilst some of the bankers get great returns or rewards. But lets be clear about some things here.

Imagine for a moment that you were a sales man in a company. If you sold ( for example ) one million pounds worth of goods and you were on 5% commission you would get 50K. Your sales manger might get 1% ( or whatever) on over all sales. The SM has to suffer the gains and losses of each salesman. However I or you (as the sales man) would not tolerate our commission being reduced simply because other sales men had achieved nothing or the Company made a loss overall.

For a GM or MD or CEO etc etc to get a whopping commission when the company made a massive loss is perverse to say the least.

Most bankers are sales men in a very lucrative market with big money in play.

The notion of categorising all bankers as the same is as perverse as the bonuses paid to the overseers when losses are made.

I am not a banker and certainly wouldn't mind the bonus if I didn't screw up !!

I find it realli interesting that most of the above comments are negative. I'm not a banker (some say!) but I do know that the city, the finance industry is huge and employs lots of people and pays lots of tax.

I also know that the Germans and the French want more of the city in Germany and France and are offering incentives to attract them into those countries. At whose expense?

Where will the jobs and taxes then come from.

Our economy is badly unbalanced, we need more production and high skilled engineering and IT and research skills but in the meantime, like it or not, we need the city and that, by its nature means high paid, obscenely high paid bamkers and financiers who, even with all the loopholes, still contribute vast revenues into the public coffers.

Don't lets all vilify Bob Diamond for doing 'a good job' Lets look at how the regulators and the government can start giving us all better value for our share of our 'hard earned'

To Phillip Swift: Your justification for what, to most right thinking people, is grotesque and shameless greed, sounds placatory to the point of encouragement. How many more world banking crises will it take for you and other apparent collaborators to promote restraint - or shall we just let them continue to gamble our deposits indiscriminately ad nauseum, with bonuses for winning and bonuses for losing!

I don't think MOST contributors here are vilifying Mr Diamond (I think that, were I in his position, would change my name!) for "doing a good job" In the context here, he IS doing a good job. It's just that his "take" is obscene. What on earth can anyone DO with the ten million a year he "earns". Forget the nonsense about quitting the country - MOST will stay for a tenth of what they are taking right now. Even if it IS behind high fenced and gated communities.WE seriously won't miss them - they are not omnipotent...

Bob Diamond earns and spends a fortune and he does it better than most people.His spending and taxes help Society and his nous has generated vast wealth for an army of lazy fund managers who have sat and watched this man dollop cash to them on a plate.

If he isnt breaking the law.

We applaud dullards who can kick a football on £200,000 a week and pay Actors and pop stars and sports men and other entertainers vast sums and yet we dont like people who are stunningly successful in Banking.

give the guy a break no ones pay him for anything but success-live with it.

Stop carping on about success and get him to create another 100 people prepared like him to create wealth.