What is in a Name?Money?

Barclays Bank in the UK has found that among their clients, some names are more prevalent among the lists of people who are high earners. [thanks to JennyZ for the link]

... professionals called Susan or David are more likely to earn over £100,000 a year, as opposed to those with other monickers, according to new research by Barclays.
Those called Elizabeth, Sarah, John or Michael are also likely to be high earners and also command a six-figure salary.

Which way do you think the causation might run, if there is any causal link here at all?

... But some experts yesterday argued that the list might be influenced by parents' choice of names in different social classes.

A spokesman for Barclays admitted: "Names such as Darren and Wayne are noticeably absent from the list so in some way this could just be a reflection of social backgrounds as much as luck or financial acumen.

"If you think back to the 1950s and 1960s - when most middle-aged high-earners were born - then names for children such as David and Paul were quite common."

Rich list

Men
David
John
Michael
Peter
Paul
Andrew
Richard
Robert
Mark
Stephen

Women
Susan
Elizabeth
Sarah
Jane
Helen
Patricia
Jacqueline
Alison
Anne
Nicola

I'm curious as to whether the data include all income or just labour income. If they include all income, we might expect to see names such as "Chastity" or "Dweezle" on the list. Note, too, that these are based on one bank in the UK. I can readily imagine that the first names of top earners at some southern US banks are not on this list.

Why on earth did Barclays collect these data? If you were a stockholder in Barclays would you care that they did? Would the value of the publicity justify the cost and time?