So you didn’t earn a nine-figure bonus. What did you make of the rumour that several people at Goldman Sachs in London did?

Do you think any of the top guys at your shop earn anything like that? Are the top women up there with them?

At present, there is no way to find out. We are being let down by a system where a few decision makers carve up the bonus pie, then hand out sealed envelopes behind closed doors and swear everyone to secrecy.

The boss tells you to be happy: you are up 20% and the pool was only up 10%. Mysteriously, everyone you talk to was also up by more than the pool. Perhaps you don’t really need to know what every individual in your team took home. But surely you have a right to know whether you got paid more or less than the idiot who came in halfway through the year on a guarantee. Your boss can’t tell you that. Why on earth not?

Don’t accept the line that it’s none of your business what the firm pays other employees. This is finance. Money is the business.

Change is long overdue. Coming soon to a financial centre near you is a firm where pay will be disclosed and every employee will know precisely what value is placed on his own contribution and that of his peers.

You can hear the older heads chortle: the City of London does not work like that. But pressure is mounting for greater transparency, not least from the Equal Opportunities Commission, which said recently: “Don’t ask why you should disclose pay levels. Ask why not.”

Four reasons are usually given and none stands up to scrutiny.

1) City of London executives are high alpha performers with egos to match and there would be a riot if pay was disclosed. Maybe. Sportsmen, movie stars, hospital consultants and board members do their jobs knowing what their peers earn.

2) Disclosure would fall foul of the Data Protection Act. It wouldn’t. Salary and bonus information is at a firm’s disposal and personnel departments exchange pooled information. The employer wouldn’t even need further specific consent if it chose to exchange or even publish individual data.

3) An individual’s pay is protected by confidentiality. This is what employers hide behind when asked to disclose comparator pay levels in tribunals. But invariably the courts have ruled that the need for justice outweighs the right of the individual to confidentiality. It follows that an employer should disclose remuneration levels in the greater interests of tackling diversity.

4) Disclosure would compromise personal security. The burglar in a fancy suburb does not need detailed bonus information to work out there will be a 40-inch flat screen television on the other side of the window.

On the rare occasion when the outside world looks past pay levels and asks what good the City does, the answer is that it helps the global economy by ensuring an efficient allocation of financial capital by rewarding good performance and punishing bad. This requires high levels of financial disclosure and full consideration of the information by interested parties.

It must employ the same process for its human capital. Pin up the bonus sheet on the noticeboard and allow an honest debate. The result will be a higher quality input into bonus decisions, a more efficient allocation of financial resources and a fairer workplace.

One bank will break ranks soon and others will be forced to follow. The City will be a better place for employer and employee alike when it happens.

Mike Crawshaw is the former head of equity research at Citigroup and Schroder Securities.