Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Bankers under fire over 'business as usual'

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 21 October 2009
BANK of England Governor Mervyn King last night hit out at the "business as usual" culture in Britain's banks.
In a high-profile speech to the CBI in Edinburgh, he criticised the lack of reform in the banking sector and warned against a return to the big bonus culture that has been blamed for threatening the safety of the financial system.

His remarks came amid an outcry over a report claiming City financiers are set to pocket bumper new year bonuses of more than £6 billion, 50 per cent more than a year ago.

"Rather than pay out dividends or generous remuneration, banks should use earnings to build larger capital buffers," Mr King said.

The governor called for a major restructuring of Britain's banks, warning the belief that regulation can prevent future failures "is a delusion".

Mr King set out the case for separating retail banking from riskier activities, such as trading in derivatives.

The bluntness of the governor's speech – and the astringent delivery to leading Scottish business organisations in the capital – will be widely seen as a warning shot across the bows of Royal Bank of Scotland, in particular, on the "business as usual" ethos in the banking sector.

Recent months have seen a return of proprietary trading activity and the bonus culture as if nothing had changed.

Earlier this week, RBS was forced to deny claims that some of its top investment staff could take home bonuses of £5 million at the end of this year.

Barclays, which has not received direct state aid, is also expected to offer large bonuses to its leading investment staff as it prepares to unveil profits of about £10bn.

Goldman Sachs, the US investment bank which employs 5,500 people in its London operation, has already declared it will pay an average bonus of £500,000 this year.

Earlier this month, RBS Coutts, the international arm of the Royal Bank of Scotland, suffered a major blow after losing a third of the workforce at its flagship Singapore office.

It was reported a lack of annual bonus prospects had been a key factor behind many leaving.

The departures came just weeks after former co-chief executive Hanspeter Brunner left to head-up rival Swiss bank BSI's Asian operations out of Singapore.

Mr King said: "It is important that banks in receipt of public support are not encouraged to try to earn their way out of that support by resuming the very activities that got them into trouble in the first place.



"It is in our collective interest to reduce the dependence of so many households and businesses on so few institutions that engage in so many risky activities," he added.

"The case for a serious review of how the banking industry is structured and regulated is strong."

He described the scale of support to the banking sector as "breathtaking".

It was now "not far short of a trillion pounds, close to two-thirds of the annual output of the entire economy".

Mr King's summation of this support was delivered with a piercing sting: "To paraphrase a great wartime leader, never in the field of financial endeavour has so much money been owed by so few to so many.

"And, one might add, with little real reform."

He said it was hard to see how the existence of institutions that were "too important to fail" was consistent with their being in the private sector.

Encouraging banks to take risks that resulted in dividends and remuneration when things went well and losses for taxpayers when they didn't "distorts allocation of resources and management of risk".

He said the massive support extended to the banking sector around the world, while necessary to avert economic disaster, "has created possibly the biggest moral hazard in history".

Mr King set out the two approaches to the problem – regulatory change to modify the risks that banks were taking, and structural reform such as the return to "narrow banks" as advocated by the economist John Kay.

Structural reform, he noted, was considered by some as impractical. But, Mr King said: "What does seem impractical are the current arrangements.

"Anyone who proposed giving government guarantees to retail depositors and other creditors, and then suggested that such funding could be used to finance highly risky and speculative activities, would be thought rather unworldly. But that is where we are. The past two years have shown how dangerous it is to let bankers play with fire."

Whatever approach was adopted, he added, there was growing agreement financial institutions should be made to plan for their own orderly wind-down – "to write their own wills".

"I welcome that," he said, "but without separation of the utility from other components of banking (day-to-day business from more complex, risky trading], it will be necessary to develop detailed resolution procedures for a very wide class of financial institutions.

"The options may turn out to be separation or increasingly detailed regulatory oversight, with the costs that entails for innovation in, and the efficiency of, the financial system."

'7p ON TAX'

THE government may be forced to put 7p on the basic rate of income tax as part of its efforts to bring national debt back under control, according to a report published today.

Economic think tank the National Institute for Economic and Social Research warned that debt could reach 93 per cent of UK national income by 2015, leaving "a burden for our descendants" if it is not reduced.

Spending cuts alone may not be enough to deal with a structural deficit running at 6 per cent of GDP each year, it warned.

A 7p hike in the standard rate of income tax to 27 per cent – pushing individuals' bills up by as much as £2,600 – would raise revenue equivalent to 2 per cent of GDP, said today's report.

Similar sums could be raised by extending VAT to a wider range of goods, or by imposing a five-year public-sector pay freeze, or by a 10 per cent cut in public services.

Public borrowing ballooned by a further £14.8 billion in September.

The latest surge takes net borrowing to £77.3bn for the six months of the financial year so far – the highest half-yearly figure since Office for National Statistics records began in 1946.

Meanwhile, strong demand from people buying new homes helped mortgage lending to edge up by 2 per cent during September, figures showed.


Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 21 October 2009 10:01 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Executive fat cats
 
1

Nevsky;,

St Petersburg 20/10/2009 22:30:51
Brown is being made the biggest clown in recent political memory...how many speeches, how many new initiatives, how many bold statements, how many podium lectures on irresponsible banking....changing the culture..on and on and on...

Meanwhile all the bankers are laughing behind his back at the big useless buffoon!

2

Cynicus Unbound,

20/10/2009 23:36:06
Unswervin' Mervyn is bang on the money.

The wunch of bankers who brought the economy low now know that they will be bailed out if the fail again on an even more gargatuan scale. Moral hazard has been abolished. They are too big to fail.

If so, as Mervyn has said before, then they are too big and must be broken up.
3

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 21/10/2009 00:06:23

It appears that the word 'arrogance', is vital to our banking economy, as stringent warnings are ignored.



4

Alan B,

21/10/2009 01:22:01
The article seems to miss the point. King seems to be attacking Brown (more than bankers).

"The governor called for a major restructuring of Britain's banks....Mr King set out the case for separating retail banking from riskier activities, such as trading in derivatives."

If this split between investment banking and high street banking is to occur it will have to be done by the government.

However brown has recklessly already ruled this out. (too much like admitting he was at fault).

The US until Bush kept a divide between high street banks and riskier banking, under rules brought in during the great depression in the 30s.

He is also right that regulation is not really the answer. (although that depends on what you mean by regulation). Personally i believe the main problem was the complete failure in government policy to control the money supply (amount of credit) and hence the house price inflation.
5

Canis Majoris,

Texas 21/10/2009 03:52:00
What's all the fuss about paying high bonuses.

Consider this, a real life situation: A smart well educated broker either male or female, with a degree in maths, who manages a portfolio of £20 billion over a 12 month period.

Makes a profit for their clients of £1.4 billion less taxes at 50% leaving a net profit of £700 million

Then the broker is paid a bonus of one tenth of one percent(1/10%) of the £700 million net profit, which comes to £7 million .
Now the broker must taxes on that income of £7 million at a (50% rate =£3.5 million).

So finally the broker takes home £3.5 million after paying 3.5 million in taxes

People the winner here is not the broker, its the Government tax collectors.
What did they do to make this profit of £1.4 billion NOTHING. But they took £703,500,000 in taxes.

So if you want to protest and bitch , then start with the biggest crook and con man 'The Taxman".

Leave the broker alone . They did all the work and their clients took the risks.
6

Canis Majoris,

Texas 21/10/2009 03:53:13
Must pay taxes
7

Julian.,

edinburgh 21/10/2009 05:28:14
#10,

Yes, sounds very simple. Separate the risky banking. The problem is how to identify it as such. A lot of the problem (mortgages) stemmed from something which ddin't appear risky at the time but, with the benefit of hindsight, can now be seen as such.

When you dish out money to people/organisations there is always a risk that you won't get all or any of it back. That's the nature of the business.
8

george toot toot,

Europe 21/10/2009 05:35:55
Are there any "honest" bankers in any country? Are there any banks with top management that are paid reasonable salaries, that share profits with those who invest (that is after all the basic concept of capitalism) instead of allowing the top dogs (top wolves?) to pocket millions and to give millions to traders whether they win or lose, yet giving those, whose money they are using, a big fat zero.
Disgusting
9

george toot toot,

21/10/2009 05:42:51
If Brown were to be paid on the same basis as the brokers mentioned by N°11 - Canis Majoris I wonder how much he would "earn" - what is 0.1% of the UK's GNP?
10

McNasty,

Edinburgh 21/10/2009 07:26:51
A wonderful chance to bring in a 99% income tax rate for those receiving more than £1,000,000 in bonus.

Backdated for five years.
11

Oldhabits,

Bristol 21/10/2009 07:37:00
#15

The passage at No.11 was:

'Then the broker is paid a bonus of one tenth of one percent(1/10%) of the £700 million net PROFIT.......'

Brown would 'earn' exactly ZERO, he has never made a PROFIT, he is a DEAD LOSS!! Socialists have no concept of profit. He only knows how to spend. He would be dear at nothing!!

12

Rosscobhoy,

21/10/2009 08:23:41
#11

If you honestly think the folk taking home multi million pound bonuses pay anything near the higher rate of tax, you are living on another planet. Most will be paying less than the basic rate of 20%.
13

Letters From Muscat,

edinburgh 21/10/2009 08:34:20
Incredible. We help out the banks when they mess everything up with their derivatives and fancy credit swaps etc most of which they did not fully understand, then they pay themselves huge amounts, and laugh in our faces. Please do not forget, it was last year's banking crisis, which caused the recession, when they froze everything. Now that the recession is in full swing, they feel justified in paying themselves a gross amount Brown, get this sorted, and if you are unable to sort this unholy mess, let someone else sort it . Will there be another banking crisis just down the road?
14

Ben Thehoose,

21/10/2009 08:47:42
I am a banker. I work very hard. I deserve more than you plebs. No bonus and I emigrate to work for someone who knows my true worth. So there!
15

Jam Tarts 1874,

On the Rebound 21/10/2009 08:50:25
How many years has Mervyn King been at the Bank of England? Why has it taken him until now to say someting? No doubt for all the previous years he has been happy to scoop up the big salary and bonuses just like all the other bankers.
16

Jam Tarts 1874,

Alloa 21/10/2009 08:52:23
#17... and greed filled pigs like you have no concept of community.

#18. Their earnings and cash bonuses are taxed at source, therefore your comment is garbage.
17

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 21/10/2009 08:54:23
So - the Government and its new quadratic arrangement (to add to the original tripartite control structure) is as useless as I thought it would be. Each criticising bankers for the predicament they thermselves have brought about. Who's in charge here? We own a lot of the banking system including RBS and what do we find? After bailing them out to the tune of a trillion pounds they want bonuses too! Nuts - this money should strictly be ploughed back in to R&C to bolster taxpayer funds. We also need to eject Brown before he gets his hands on any more of our money and spends it in usual reckless fashion on some faddy project or shovelling it out to third world countries as if we're not one. Banking arrogance truly needs a few stiff sentences handed out rather than bonuses, witness the treatment allocated to Goodwin.
18

Rosscobhoy,

21/10/2009 09:07:05
#22

There are ways of claiming a lot of it back. Put as much of it as you can in a SIPP for example and you get the tax paid on the portion refunded into your pension.
19

Sparts,

21/10/2009 09:30:10
Derivatives, risky? I think not, not to someone who knows what they are doing! No different from trading stock (in most cases).
You do all understand that what started the crisis and what is keey here was American banks lending to those who couldn't afford to pay the loan back. This is why credit dried up.

Of course, now we have the Govt snapping at the UK banks to increase mortgage loans at a time when people are losing their jobs, paying down debt, not to mention tax rises on the way! Does this strike anyone as strange they can’t afford it. And then we have the UK Govt now proposing more stringent rules governing how much people can borrow.
So, they want banks to loan more, to people with less money and savings, all while tightening the criteria for getting a loan in the first place (so that people can afford the nasty tax rises coming along). Anyone see the problem here? This is why policiticians cannot meddle in business.

Bottom line is the tax payer will win handsomely when they do sell Lloyds and RBS shares in the future.

As for the article, wee Merv is getting too big for his boots methinks, basking in the limelight. He can stamp his feet all he likes, ain’t gonna make a blind bit of difference. Why? Because the UK Govt will not put UK banks at a disadvantage to their competitors.

Isn’t it time the banks stopped being he bad guys? This has been going on for a year now.
20

Alan B,

21/10/2009 09:47:01
#Julian

Separating risky banking refers to the more risky investment banking.

Generally speaking high street banks should be run on a low risk (and hence lower return model).

There are 2 different types of culture.

But the real problem in this case, was banks simply lending far more than they had in deposits and relying on the global wholesale credit markets to fund them.

The mortgage assets were generally profitable and the banks could reclaim back by claiming the property. Also mortgages tend to turn bad when the economy hits the buffers. So it is not necessarily that the mortgage lending was bad if the economy was doing ok.

For me the core issue is the failure to control house price inflation. This has lead banks to lend far too much. And that lending feeds inflation. A vicious circle.

It is basic economic mgt to consider the money supply. Brown has run the economy on ever greater debt. Eddie George the guy who managed this for him as head of the BOE said it was a short term policy that was never sustainable in the long term. (ie ok to get over the problems of the collapse of the dot com bubble in the late 90s), but not something that should have been continued ever since.

A bank that has 150billion profitable lending and only 100billion deposits funding the other lending out by borrowing 50billion on the wholesale credit markets would fail when the credit market as a source of finance dries up. This is what happened. It is liquidity that was the core problem not profitability of mortgage debt.

As such there is 2 issues.
1)whether higher risk investment banking should be mixed with high street banks (that we do not want to ever fail).
2)and how to ensure that high street banks are stable. ie how much can they lend as a ratio to deposits and how reliant should they be on sources of finance like the credit markets.
21

Nellie,

Liverpool 21/10/2009 09:55:20
As an ex-banker, I'd say at the heart of the problem is not so much the bonuses that these people earn but the culture that encourages people to change employer so frequently. People are considered wanting in some way if they stay with a bank for more than 2-3 years. What's that got to do with this? Simple: Short-term gains reap rewards but the long term foul consequences arise well after the much rewarded gypsy banker has long gone to another bank.
22

Ben Thehoose,

21/10/2009 09:57:20
The real problem? banks that are too big to be allowed to fail.

A few big banks has lead us to monopolistic competition.

This means no real competition in terms of service and prices, but only in PR and related trivia.

The real solution is? Banks to be split up into many independent competing banks, none of which are so vital that their demise threatens the economy.

Much as things used to be, in fact. Learn from history
23

Mèths,

21/10/2009 10:06:28
Time for a windfall tax. Howe did it.
24

Alan B,

21/10/2009 10:07:25
#Jam Tarts 1874

"How many years has Mervyn King been at the Bank of England? Why has it taken him until now to say someting?"

The BOE was very angry (apparently) with Eddie George the then govnor of the BOE threatening to resign over issues of the regulation of the financial system. (King was his deputy).

It was a government decision to remove regulation of the financial industry from the BOE and set up a new institution the FSA. Which was headed up with labour supporter Turner. Turner has publicly critised brown and blair from ordering the FSA away from investigating the banks.

Also the BOE via the then govnor eddie george said that the building of the economy on ever more debt was never sustainable.
25

Alan B,

21/10/2009 10:12:03
#Sparts

The point about splitting investment banking from high street banking is that it would allow investment banks to manage their own risk and fail if they make poor decisions.

We really do not want high street banks run in a way that mean they are at risk of failing using a higher return higher risk model.

Nor do we really want the bank regulating to heavily investment banking as it an industry the uk has done well in and the city is a big player.
26

Alan B,

21/10/2009 10:13:08
#Ben Thehoose

Agree.

It was daft to allow so many mergers within the banks. Less competition seldom will improve the service for the customer.
27

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 21/10/2009 10:20:00
What usually love about this kind of reporting is that they do not distinguish between Banks that had to be bailed out due to stupidity and those banks who were sensible and did not require 'bailing out' ...

My two cents worth is simply that the Boys and girls in Barclays, HSBC, Goldman Sachs and many other institutions who did not have to take public money deserve huge bonuses to emphasise the fact to the other failed bankers that getting it right pays !

PS:- Just incase your wondering - I'm not employed by the banking sector ... just like everyone else I hate to see failure rewarded but equally I hate to see success overlooked.
28

Jamster,

Musselburgh 21/10/2009 10:34:08
#11
"Then the broker is paid a bonus of one tenth of one percent(1/10%) of the £700 million net profit, which comes to £7 million"

My calculator doesn't have enough zeros, but is that not 'only' £700k? Which is a pretty trifling bonus really....

Seriously, as I heard someone say on the radio yesterday, the reality is that the Banks want profits to remain private, but expect their losses to be a public matter and to be bailed out by the taxpayer.
29

Oldhabits,

Bristol 21/10/2009 10:48:56
#26

Re. your 2 issues:

1) Investment Banking i.e. Gambling should be separate.

I never imagined that my money was being used for this purpose, naive.....perhaps?

Remember that the so-called high-flyers use our money not theirs to gamble with. Any one of us here could do their job, if you win you get a cracking bonus, if you lose you simply walk away.................

That being the case, perhaps they should be required to put down a minimum deposit,depending on level of exposure,of their OWN money with either the bank or B.of E. in the event of default/loss or simply walking away, BEFORE they can operate the markets.

Perhaps that might curb the gipsies #27 is talking about?

2) Minimum deposits with the B.of E. should have been increased in keeping with the expansion of business.

30

Nelly,

Paris 21/10/2009 10:59:59
No 20 Ben

Think you have slightly slight faux pas there mate, replace the 'b' with the 'w' after the ...I am a

Hopefully you'll do the right thing a leave.
31

Fairfax,

21/10/2009 11:52:08
Canis Majoris (11): "What's all the fuss about paying high bonuses."

Obviously there is a general distrust of the financial industry itself at present. However, there is also the entirely rational fear that these high bonuses are rewarding short-term risky behaviour, not long-term growth -- in financial jargon, the banks are rewarding beta, not alpha. In other words, our banks have chosen to reward their workers in a way which directly contributes to the instability of the financial system itself.
32

Fairfax,

21/10/2009 11:56:58
Sparts (25): "Derivatives, risky? I think not, not to someone who knows what they are doing!"

Unfortunately there are many derivatives for which nobody really knew what they were doing. In particular, the mathematics underlying CDOs really wasn't particularly well-understood, with the result that hundreds of billions of dollars were invested in contracts whose mathematically calculated risk was simply a polite fiction.
33

BIG EYE,

Paisley 21/10/2009 12:26:24
Public borrowing in September almost doubled to over 16 billion, Brown's debtridden Government is overspending by over £20 million every hour or just under £500 million everyday.

Having destroyed the economy and put hundreds of thousands more out of work welfare benefits now outstrip all income tax revenues.

Amazingly there are still Labour supporters in the country!
34

Sedov,

21/10/2009 12:36:30
AS I posted 12 months ago - once the furore surrounding the credit crunch dies down and the banks are bailed out it will be business as usual for the fat cats.

You can moan all you want- we live in a capitalist society that cannot be tamed, reformed or regulated because the will to do so is not there among our political leaders who are tied to big business by a thousand threads, despite all the hand wringing.

Get rid of the system that creates this nonsense once and for all - but that means revolution - I'm up for it but are you?

No? well then shut up and put up.
35

Sparts,

21/10/2009 13:13:48
#29 and tax what? Tell me which banks you are referring to please,..then I'll shoot you down...
36

Sparts,

21/10/2009 13:21:37
#38, blame the ratings agencies for the majority of that.

#33 have you no clue? Barclays ripped off their shareholders and instead took money from the middle east a price that hurt existing shareholders, Goldmans changed their banking status as it suited their situation (to take advantage of TARPS), not to mention the multi billions they recieved from the US Govt (at the expense of taxpayers!). HSBC had to raise between 11-12 billion gbp to survive.
37

Fairfax,

21/10/2009 14:14:11
Sparts (42): "#38, blame the ratings agencies for the majority of that."

They certainly deserve their share of the blame, but the fundamental mathematical mis-pricing is found throughout the industry, with a few rare exceptions (such as JP Morgan, who avoided CDOs despite their pioneering work in credit derivatives).
38

lulach mac gille coemgain,

21/10/2009 14:38:09
You’ll never teach the cowardly lions, heartless tin men and brainless scarecrows that are the wonderful world of banking.
39

puskas,

East kilbride 21/10/2009 17:19:37
Nothing has changed.. Whi should it... We have a Tory Government in power decieving idiots who vote for them...

Independence is essential for Scotland.
40

Garenne,

France 21/10/2009 17:24:14
If you throw raw meat to a pack of hyenas they will gobble it up and fight each other for the last scraps. It's in their nature. The question is not why hyenas behave like hyenas, but why the so-called zoo keeper threw them so much meat and let them run loose for so long? Was it complicity or incompetence...? It certainly wasn't to protect the public.
Whose idea was it anyway that hyenas running wild know what's best for the country?

OK so derivatives and leverage killed some, others are fighting over the pickings. Add in own account trading with tax-payer guarantees, off-exchange trading, dark "ocean" trading, first millisecond trading, artistic balance sheets... They're still running wild. Best not go out at night.
41

Mr. Borat Sagdiyev,

Kuzcek, Kazakhstan 21/10/2009 17:37:11
Oink oink! Troughing in the city continues at the expense of everyone else.

Nice paradigm, Garenne. Very truthful.
42

Number 6,

Germany 21/10/2009 19:00:15
So much for Brown and Darling's pledges to reform the banking industry.

Just another of their endless litany of lies.

43

,

21/10/2009 19:00:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
44

Fairfax,

21/10/2009 20:22:06
Black Laird (50): "Tcha talking about? JP Morgan are up to their eyeballs in derivatives."

But not mortgage backed CDOs, which they have avoided like the plague. They're doing well with derivatives because they're competent.

"JP Morgan? They get bail outs because they're worth it!"

They haven't been awarded a specific bail out by either the US or UK governments. It was JP Morgan which helped bail out Bear Stearns last year.
45

Letters From Muscat,

edinburgh 21/10/2009 20:47:13
Well there seems to be some bankers out tonight. Do they know what they aretalking about? iT'S ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS but they'll walk off with the bonuses no matter what. Did anyone see Channel 4 news tonight? An American expert seemed to think the regulators should be paid more. Now how does that fathom out? Did the banking crash not start the recession we are all suffering? I wonder what Tony Blair thinks about it all? Or does he have an opinion. Of course, those sitting pretty wont want the funds to dry up. God, what an unholy mess.
46

Letters From Muscat,

edinburgh 21/10/2009 20:49:09
And btw I'm not a pleb!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.