It has been a crazy five years for United States banks. So much has changed and yet so little progress has been made. While all the stakeholders will no doubt agree that change has occurred, the real debate starts when we consider whether or not the sum of the changes have produced better or worse results.

As premiums for working in financial services shrink and demands on staff grow, morale and motivation are becoming a daily challenge for line managers and HR alike. Many banks are currently considering new approaches that effectively reward and engage without pay.

Negotiators for the European Parliament and European Council reached a provisional agreement on 27 February 2013 on changes to the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD IV).

This Alert summarises the final FSA guidance on the risk to customers from financial incentives; outlines the minimum that firms are required to do; sets out what firms have done to date; and suggests how to makes these changes as effective as possible.

As firms look to reduce costs, the topic of how infrastructure or support staff should be paid is frequently raised. A number of firms have broached the topic of removing incentive pay for some or all of these employees and compensating them on a pure salary basis.

Is private banker pay and productivity showing firms are overpaying poor performers and underpaying strong performers?

Steady growth, high margins relative to other segments of financial services, and low capital requirements makes wealth management an attractive sector in a low growth, capital constrained post-Basel III world.

In an effort to streamline and focus the supervisory process, the UK's Financial Services Authority (FSA) recently issued guidance on the proportionality structure in its Remuneration Code. The requirements that were previously structured as four Tiers based on either assets or regulatory capital have been redrafted in a new three-level system based solely on the firm's total assets.