The £64,000 question - should we beware of Barclays' 'big round number'? - Telegraph What would Mr Chapman make then of Barclays announcement this morning that the bonus per employee for the 24,000 staff in its investment banking arm was £64,000? Not £64,001, nor £59,999, but exactly £64,000. A figure that is conveniently £1,000 lower than the £65,000 cap set on cash bonuses by the bank. Ask yourself the question, which number came first, £1,737bn or £64,000? It may be pure chance that having worked out what the total bonus pool for the investment bank should be, Barclays realised to its amazement that divided among the unit's 24,000 staff this worked out at exactly £64,000. Coincidence it may be. It would appear more likely, though, that Barclays began with the figures of £64,000 and a cap of £65,000 and worked back from there. Harmless enough; who doesn't prefer a nice round number? However, it points to damaging developments, not just in the way Barclays is setting pay at its investment bank, but in the business environment for banks in Britain at the moment that is driving the way they are run. It is right that bonus levels should be falling at Barclays, after all, the investment bank's profits have fell by a third year-on-year. But, it is right too that staff in the division should be paid according to their and their business's individual performance. What today's bonus number suggests is that an unusually high degree of sensitivity to public opinion is guiding the pay process within the bank. This is understandable, but it is not a healthy way to run a business. Mr Diamond's primary duty at Barclays is to customers, his staff, and the bank's shareholders. While he must pay close attention to the wider political and public mood, it is uncomfortable to see such obvious evidence in a key figure of at best mild manipulation and at worst blatant tampering. As Stephen Hester said earlier this week, it is simply not possible to win on the issue of pay. Banking industry bonuses will always look vastly inflated compared to those of civil servants and nurses. Barclays would be well-advised to avoid statistical tricks in future and the "finger in the air budgeting" its hints and concentrate on paying its staff what their performance merits.