Barclays CEO Bob Diamond: a risk too far?
Barclays have appointed Bob Diamond as their new CEO.
As former head of Barclays Capital, the bank's investment banking division, Mr Diamond has a reputation of being a risk-taker. But Barclays Capital has been highly successful, in spite of the downturn, and unlike many other banks. So if Mr Diamond is a risk taker then he appears to be an expert one, whose risks pay off. Could his management style reveal the secrets of managing risk?
I think risk-tolerance is essential to encouraging innovation and in my view this is a really exciting time for Barclays. I expect to see the business move from strength to strength under Mr Diamond's leadership, and will be watching their progress - and his leadership style - with great interest.
What do you think?
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
YouTube
51,377 people viewed the community in October
In any business you have to deal with risk and it's very dangerous to be risk averse, but of course the whole industry revealed a pretty cavalier attitude to risk in the last few years. For me it raises the question of whether a retail bank and investment bank should be allowed to sit within the same company.
Yes, the two businesses are radically different. But I think it could be argued that given Diamond's track record, the money is safe in his hands.
I might be a little odd in this regard, but I actually question how much of an impact a CEO can actually have on a company. I mean I'd imagine a massive part of their rationale in hiring him in the first place is that he knows the culture of Barclays so can hit the ground running. I'd suggest that it's this culture that has a greater bearing on how the company operates rather than the person at the top.
Funny how things work out isn't it? Remember it wasn't so long ago (2007) that he was scrambling with RBS to buy ABN Amro, and it was only the fact that Fred wanted to blow even more on the deal that he managed to get a lucky break. Of course the resulting collapse enabled the company to pick over the carcass of Lehman's. Better to be lucky than smart.
Just wanted to relaunch this thread after the UBS situation. It was announced this weekend that the rogue trading will cost the company over $2 billion.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14965438
The one thing that interests me about the whole financial crash thing, is how little the top brass seem to know about these things. Are the companies not only too big to fail but too complex to manage, or do senior managers know what's going on but turn a blind eye?