Member Info for bald_eagle

I read that a colleague hypothesised that probably the only flaw with James (JES) is that he is too loyal to his friends. Apparently he is a super nice guy, whose word is his bond. But he may have been too protective of the manager who was targeted by the whistleblower - hence why he sought their identity and he probably should have distanced himself from Epstein after his conviction (to protect himself presumably). The fact that he characterised his relationship with Epstein to the BOD as purely business & that now looks questionable made his position untenable (I suppose). He was already on a yellow card after the whistleblower incident and they had to show him red.
A bit unusual that he expected to be gone before end 2021 (according to Wiki) but he is quite upset the way it happened (apparently). Perhaps he wanted his Christmas turkey and Fortnum & Mason hamper?!

"I would like to know peoples thoughts on our new CEO Venkat?"
==========================================================
I believe he comes from a similar background to Mr Staley. If Mr Staley's re-organisation of the company was just starting to bear fruit - which is showing signs of happening - then Mr Venkat can be light touch, keeping the ship headed in the same direction and claim all the credit - plus his pay & bonuses - based on the foundations done by James (JES)

MrWolf, no need to apologise. I am only quoting Wikipedia. If you have a different opinion & have real facts then perhaps you might like to amend the Wikipedia article. Personally I have an open mind...an open mind to the truth.
In my opinion the death of Mr De Menezes was primarily a failure of leadership. The firearms officers were - as you say - only following orders. To me opportunities were 'probably' missed to intercept Mr De Menezes much earlier in their surveillance in a non-lethal way - once he was allowed to enter the underground network the outcome was 'almost' inevitable (given the stress officers were under at the time). Cressida Dick I believe was the officer in charge of the operation.
The scary thing is that it could have been almost anyone....or anyone with dark hair & tanned skin. Mr De Menezes was totally innocent & completely faultless (the wrong place at the wrong time).
The fake news about being 'illegal' is irrelevant & doesn't in any way justify what happened to him (even if were true).
The lies that were told at the time - heavy puff jacket & that he had jumped the barrier on entering the tube - just goes to show how politicians/police/journalists spread lies to cover up mistakes. It's a wonder we believe anything we read or are told.
I guess this also applies to Jes Staley, do we believe him?...I guess the answer is No! Next question, do we actually care?...I do, others probably don't.

It seems that Mr De Menezes was not 'illegal':
"Several reasons were initially posited by media sources and family members for why Menezes may have run from police, as indicated by initial reports. A few weeks earlier, he had been attacked by a gang and may have perceived that he was in a similar situation upon seeing plainclothes officers chasing him. Several sources have speculated that irregularities about his immigration status may have given him reason to be wary of the police; evidence that emerged[colloquialism?] during the course of the criminal trial into the Health and Safety charge showed that Menezes was lawfully in the country on 22 July 2005." [wikipedia]

"....and of course he had a puff jacket on, which was silly of him."
I seem to have mis-remembered the police/political spin over the shooting....he wasn't wearing a puff jacket (apologies):

"...According to the report on leaked IPCC documents, Menezes was wearing a pair of jeans and a light denim jacket. This was confirmed by a photo of his body on the floor of the carriage after the shooting." [wikipedia]

So he was without fault...apart from being possibly 'illegal'.

"If my memory serves me correctly your so called tourist was an illegal immigrant with a fake passport, at the time he met the criteria for one of the terrorists they were hunting, if he had not run he would still be alive."
========================================================
If that is the case then I guess he was fair 'game'!!!....and of course he had a puff jacket on, which was silly of him.

"hunt means to pursue and kill"
================================
No it doesn't. A 'manhunt' is rarely intended to kill the person being sought unless you are being pursued by the American military...or in the UK you are a Brazilian tourist!!

"If it turns out Staley is innocent, that'll be another good CEO forced to resign from Barclays....If it turns out there is evidence against Staley then this abrupt step down was the best to avoid scandal for the bank."
============================================================
It is a matter of trust & honesty (fairly important for bankers....stop laughing!!!).
Mr Staley apparently told the BOD his 'relationship' with Epstein was purely business, the FCA report the BOD have seen a sneak preview of, 'apparently' suggests they have reached a different conclusion (or there are questions to answer).

"Disagree, because a good COE should know who and why there is someone whistleblowing from within the company, if someone is not happy the CEO is the one who can put things right. Its what a ceo does with the whistleblower when he finds them that matters."
================================================
Surely it is how the CEO deals with the accusations of the whistleblower, not who they are, that is important? If the accusations are correct they need to be dealt with, if they are false then they need to be refuted.
I don't know if the identity of whisleblowers is protected by law or by the rules of the company....there isn't much point of having an anonymous whisleblower policy if they are then hunted down by the CEO!!

Maybe I was thinking of the $1.7m Tremor paid to Uber to settle their case. Although I also thought there was an intermediary company involved....these court cases can spiral out of control with counter-lawsuits.

Weren't they taken to court fairly recently and the judge found in their favour...something to do with overcharging.

"Is Venkat the one and the same who was a fine spinner for India!
=============================================================
I wish that were true.
Mr C.S. Venkatakrishnan (known as Venkat)

I expect the remuneration is to keep Mr Staley 'happy' - for he will know where he has buried all the bodies - and Mr Venkat was holding all the cards in his pay negotiation, 'probably' given a blank cheque!
Wipipedia: "In February 2020, the FCA announced an investigation into whether Staley was "fit and proper" to lead Barclays, due to concerns over his previous disclosures of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Staley told Bloomberg TV that "The investigation is actually focused on transparency, and whether I was transparent and open with the bank and with the board with respect to my relationship with Jeffrey Epstein." Staley told colleagues that he expects to leave Barclays by the end of 2021."

A bit of a surprise. But really he should have gone over his hunt for the whistleblower. But not good for BARC.

As usual the people who benefit the most will be the lawyers.
TRMR seems to spend quite a bit of time in court. I hope this doesn't become a trend.

" In my view these businesses are as much for PR purposes than for any other."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After watching some of the evidence of the oil executives before the US House Committee it seems to be the case, they all had the same verbatim response to the climate change challenge. Various phrases spring to mind....proof of the leopard is in the spotted pudding.
Their strategy is to deflect climate anger whilst maximising fossil fuel profits - securing big bonuses & pensions for themselves of course. I would do exactly the same!!

The short queeze was fascinating. To me it is a sign that these sort of financial dealings aren't worth the 'benefits' if they can be manipulated and can cause such instability. A house of cards and the sort of thing I thought regulators were clamping down on post 2008.

I notice there have been lots of petitions to make short selling illegal. Chances of it happening - at least in UK - is zero, too many London financial jobs depend on it (that's the argument) & too many MP's 'probably' have links with hedge funds.

Isn't that a version of 'the Warren Buffett' effect. The mere mention of his name causes people to sit up and take notice.
Obviously he isn't always correct but - if he wanted to - he could use his influence to move share prices to his benefit....call it 'a golden touch' or a self-fulfilling prophecy. There comes a point where he makes money because he has a reputation as someone who makes money.

I thought the elastic band had snapped when we got above 200p but it seems to be intact and pulling us back a bit....although it might be weakened and about to give way. Interest rate rise apparently quite soon, very small rise I expect but every little helps.