26.12.2013 Views

Salz Review - Wall Street Journal

Salz Review - Wall Street Journal

Salz Review - Wall Street Journal

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

173<br />

<strong>Salz</strong> <strong>Review</strong><br />

An Independent <strong>Review</strong> of Barclays’ Business Practices<br />

Approach to the <strong>Review</strong><br />

Internal and External Data<br />

In compiling this report, we conducted independent analysis of both internal data supplied<br />

to us by Barclays, as well as external data. Internal data included a selection of: Barclays’<br />

Board, Board committees, and executive management committee minutes; management<br />

papers and reports; policies; governance and control frameworks; employee surveys;<br />

aggregate remuneration and performance management data; and management<br />

communications. External data included annual reports; regulatory requirements and<br />

guidelines; industry reports, books and database analysis; and UK House of Commons<br />

Treasury Committee papers.<br />

The views, findings and recommendations set out in this report are based solely on the <strong>Salz</strong><br />

<strong>Review</strong>’s assessment of the documents and information considered by it during the course<br />

of the <strong>Review</strong>. The <strong>Review</strong> requested that Barclays provide it with relevant documents for<br />

those matters which were in the scope of the <strong>Review</strong>, including those relating to specific<br />

regulatory events. The <strong>Review</strong> has not, however, conducted a forensic investigation or<br />

audit of the documents and information made available to it. In some cases restrictions<br />

were placed on the <strong>Review</strong>’s access to documents or documents were redacted by Barclays,<br />

in each case for legal reasons. Accordingly, while the <strong>Review</strong> has sought to identify a<br />

reasonable selection of documents, it may not have reviewed all materials relevant to<br />

specific events. Likewise, the <strong>Review</strong> has been to some extent dependent on what it has<br />

been told in interviews and has assumed the veracity of information provided to it at<br />

interviews, unless there was any reason to think otherwise.<br />

As the purpose of the <strong>Review</strong> has not been to conduct a forensic analysis, other individuals<br />

considering the same information or documents could form a different assessment of it.<br />

Similarly, the <strong>Salz</strong> <strong>Review</strong> might have formed a different assessment of the matters under<br />

consideration were it to have reviewed or considered other documents or information.<br />

We are grateful to those people in Barclays who provided us with this information.<br />

Interview Programme<br />

Over the course of the <strong>Review</strong> process, we conducted over 600 interviews with key<br />

Barclays and industry stakeholders:<br />

― Barclays’ employees and Board members (current and former);<br />

― Investors in Barclays;<br />

― Clients and customers of Barclays;<br />

― Regulatory and government bodies engaging with Barclays;<br />

― Barclays’ professional advisers;<br />

― Board members and executives from Barclays’ competitors; and<br />

― Other organisations and interested parties.<br />

We are extremely grateful to everyone who gave up their time to meet with us, send their<br />

ideas and provide us with input.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!