Business Diary: The bottom dollar for Jobs and Pandit

Click to follow
The Independent Online

Pass the collection plate round. Associated Press has just published a survey of America's lowest-paid chief executives – and there's a tie for first place. Both Steve Jobs of Apple and Vikram Pandit of Citigroup earned just $1 last year. Pandit has vowed not to take more than that until Citi has put the financial crisis well and truly behind it, while Jobs has drawn only a dollar a year from Apple for many years now, though he does own 5.5 million shares in the company and is hardly on his uppers. It's an example that a few other chief executives might care to follow.

Revolution is in store for the City

We are already looking forward to the annual conference of the Chartered Institute for Securities & Investment, the programme for which was unveiled yesterday. It features speakers including Mark Hoban, the financial secretary to the Treasury, and Ruth Lea, the reliably right-wing economic commentator. This year is all about the "four Rs" apparently: risk, regulation, reputation and, most alarmingly of all, revolution. A bit more attention to the first three in the City might have lead to fewer threats of the latter.

Gross gives US debt another kick

When Bill Gross, manager of Pimco, the world's largest bond fund, first began betting against US debt by short selling large amounts of Treasury bonds, some of his compatriots in American questioned his patriotism. Mr Gross, it appears, is completely unphased by those suggestions, and continues to insist that the world is losing confidence in his supremely indebted nation (he has a point given the rating agencies' warnings). So much so that he's just raised the value of his bet.

Time for Monkey Business is over

An important announcement arrives from wealth-management company No Monkey Business: it will henceforth be known as Fowler Drew. Apparently "the new name, referencing the two originators of the concept, reflects the company's progression from an innovator... to a recognised leader". So not because people wouldn't hand control of their finances to a company which did not appear to take itself very seriously then?