Banking

From the archives: the fall of Saloman Brothers

Back in August 1991, Michael Lewis examined the disintegration of his ex-employer — investment bank Salomon Brothers — for The Spectator. His semi-autobiographical story, Liar’s Poker, went onto to become an international best seller. Here is the article in full for CoffeeHousers: The Judgement of Salomon, Michael Lewis, The Spectator, 24 August 1991 We never be told the truth about what happened at Salomon Brothers over the past few years. I’m not even sure that it matters. The firm has admitted to breaking the rules in five separate US Treasury auctions, to fraudulently using the names of its customers, and to submitting an illegal bid for $1 billion worth of

From the archives: Rowan Williams on capitalism and idolatry

To mark today’s news that Rowan Williams will be stepping down as Archbishop of Canterbury, here’s a piece he wrote for The Spectator during the financial crash of 2008: Rowan Williams, Face it: Marx was partly right about capitalism, 24 September 2008 Readers of Anthony Trollope will remember how thoughtless and greedy young men in the Victorian professions can be lured into ruin by accepting ‘accommodation bills’ from their shifty acquaintances. They make themselves liable for the debts of others; and only too late do they discover that they are trapped in a web of financial mechanics that forces them to pay hugely inflated sums for obligations or services they

How Mervyn King’s role has changed

A week devoted to Mervyn King and his eight-year reign at the Bank of England sounds like pretty turgid stuff. But, already, the series that has started in the Times (£) this morning — building up to an interview with the man himself — is anything but. Here, for instance, is a snippet from one of its articles, by David Wighton, on how Mr King reacted to the crumbling of Northern Rock: ‘As the plight of Northern Rock and other banks worsened, Sir John Gieve and Paul Tucker were urging Sir Mervyn to act, but he would not budge. “He mocked them as ‘crisis junkies’ and more or less accused

Project Merlin may not wield a magic wand

Are Project Merlin’s lending targets just a myth? On the basis of today’s figures it’s still rather hard to tell. The arrangement between the government and the banks did yield £214.9 billion of gross lending to businesses in 2011 — against a target of £190 billion, and a 20 per cent increase on 2010. But net lending also declined in every quarter of the year. And the target for lending to small businesses of £76 billion was missed by £1.1 billion.  The banks have put this shortfall down to fewer small businesses coming forward for credit — and there’s actually some truth in that. This survey suggests that small businesses

Transcript: Stephen Hester on bankers and bonuses

This morning, the chief executive of RBS Stephen Hester appeared on Radio 4’s Today programme to discuss the recent furore over his bonus. Hester revealed he nearly resigned over the crisis and agreed that bankers have been making too much. Here’s the full transcript for CoffeeHousers. James Naughtie: Banker without a bonus? You might say he’s a lonely figure in his business; he’s Stephen Hester, Chief Executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland. The public furore about executive pay in a bank that’s 83% owned by the taxpayer caused him to forego the bonus he was awarded this year in the form of more than three and a half million

Peston: Hester will not take bonus

Stephen Hester’s decision to waive his bonus, revealed by Robert Peston just after 10 o’clock, will be a source of great relief to David Cameron and George Osborne. A story that could have dragged on for weeks, undermining their argument about fairness has just lost most of its potency. Ed Miliband, though, will be able to claim — with some justification — that it was the threat of a Commons vote on the matter that led to Hester renouncing his bonus. But this isn’t quite the end of this business. There’s now the question of what happens to the bonuses for other members of staff at RBS and then there

When one euro is worth more than another

Faisal Islam has a very interesting report from Davos on how at least one bank no longer believes that a euro from Ireland, say, is worth the same as one from Holland or Germany. He writes that: ‘A leading European bank has begun to account for euros differentially, by nation state. That is to say, they are differentiating a risk to euros that originate in a potentially defaulting country from that of a euro-cert. They, in effect, have invented the concept of a German, Greek and Irish euro. Now we accept that government debts from these nations are different. The idea that a bank treats cash differentially, is an incredible

Miliband’s proximity problem

Ed Miliband is on unusually assertive form this morning. His observation in the FT that ‘my speech to Labour’s annual conference was not — I think it is fair to say — universally well-received’ is not, I think, intended self-deprecatingly, but rather self-congratulatory, as though he were the only politician calling for a ‘responsible capitalism’ at the time. And he’s repeated that suggestion elsewhere: in a short statement for Which?, and in a Labour briefing document — entitled Who is he trying to kid? — that has been filtered around the crowd at David Cameron’s speech. Ed is trying to crash Dave’s party, and bring it crashing down. Like I

Your three-point guide to today’s RBS report

After months of delay, and much hounding by The Spectator’s Select Committee Chairman of the Year, Andrew Tyrie, the Financial Services Authority has finally released its report into the wheezing collapse of RBS in 2008. At 452 pages it is a behemoth of a document, and too much for me to have fully digested yet. But a few points stand out at first glance: 1) Don’t blame us, blame Gordon. The Tories are making much of the fact that only three politicians are mentioned in the report: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and, most relevantly, Ed Balls. And they’re not mentioned in a particularly flattering context, either. All three are quoted

From the archives: Fall of the Rock

Yesterday, George Osborne announced the sale of Northern Rock to Virgin Money. Here, to mark the occasion, is the piece Allister Heath wrote on the bailout of the bank in 2007: Northern Rock: morally hazardous, Allister Heath, 29 September 2007 First we heard about ‘sub-prime mortgages’; then it was ‘collateralised debt obligations’; now it’s the turn of ‘moral hazard’ to appear on the Ten O’Clock News. Jolted out of prosperous complacency by market turmoil, the public has started to care about economics: strange jargon and obscure concepts previously familiar only to investment bankers are going mainstream.    The best way to understand moral hazard is to reflect on how taking

Osborne sells off the Rock

‘Sir Richard Branson set to buy Northern Rock.’ So read the headlines in November 2007 — and now they’re finally true. It has been announced this morning that Virgin Money is going stump up £747 million to return the bank to the private sector. This, says George Osborne, ‘is an important first step in getting the British taxpayer out of the business of owning banks.’ By the looks of it, Virgin will be paying less than they would have done four years ago, but they have also had to make various assurances about how they will handle the Rock. When Branson’s bid failed in 2007, and the bank was nationalised,

The Italian domino effect

For all the debate about Theresa May and border security, the big news has not been at Westminster today. Instead, people have been watching what is happening in Italy. For it is far from certain that Europe, or the Western world for that matter, has a bucket bigger enough to bail out a country that owes more than Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain do combined. As the New York Times reports, the European Central Bank is reluctant to step in and start buying Italian bonds because it fears that its previous bond buying efforts have simply enabled the Italians to avoid necessary reforms. It feels that only market pressure will

The paucity of the “99 per cent”

A week may be a long time in politics, but it is no time at all in protest. As the inhabitants of Parliament Square have demonstrated, even a decade is as nothing so long as you have a constantly morphing cause, a council with no balls, and a small but steady stream of acolytes. Last weekend I watched a bridal party sneak in through the side entrance of St Paul’s Cathedral. This weekend I went back, curious to see whether the protest that had kept them from entering through the main door had located a point yet. Walking up from Fleet Street the first sight that greets the visitor is

A reminder of two of the political battles ahead for the coalition

If anyone had any doubts about how difficult the politics of banking reform and planning would be for the Conservatives, they’ll be dispelled by a glance at a couple of tomorrow’s front pages.  ‘Osborne to let banks off the hook—for now’ screams The Independent. This a reference to the Chancellor’s plans to consult with the banks on the conclusions of the Vickers report—which the government has seen but is officially published tomorrow morning. The political problem for Osborne is that anything other than the immediate implementation of Vickers’ recommendations will be seen as a favour to the banks. But pushing the reforms through now could undermine an already weak economy.

How will Westminster respond to Vickers?

The Vickers’ report into banks will land on the Prime Minister’s desk tomorrow. It goes to the banks very early on Monday morning before being published later that day. The thing to watch for is how politicians react to it. We know that the report will propose some kind of ring fence. But what we do not know is how strict the ring fence will be and how quickly Vickers will want it implemented. As Robert Peston says the impact of the ring fence on the banks’ creditworthiness will be felt long before the actual ring fence comes into effect. Intriguingly, Ed Miliband is giving a speech to the TUC

Darling lifts lid on Brown’s chaotic government

Tieless, Alistair Darling appeared on Marr this morning to discuss his memoir. As with so many of these New Labour autobiographies, there was the strong whiff of a therapy session. At one point, Darling said “if Gordon is listening to this” before remarking that he still felt a huge amount of “residual loyalty” to him. It is not news that the Brown government was dysfunctional. But it was striking that Darling did not dissent when Marr suggested that under Brown, Labour had – collectively – not been fit to govern. In the serialisation of the book in The Sunday Times, the detail that stands out to me is that Darling and David Miliband met

More banking worries

George Osborne wrote a strident article for the Observer last weekend, in which he called rich tax evaders “leeches”. As James Forsyth reveals in the cover story of this week’s magazine, Osborne is not alone among Tories in hounding the ‘undeserving rich’ at present. James goes on to argue that the Tories are ‘becoming particularly worried’ about the callous rich because the Vickers commission is poised to bring the emotive issue of banks back to the ‘political frontline’. The Vickers report has already irritated the coalition’s sore points, with disagreement allegedly rife between George Osborne and Vince Cable. Today’s FT offers a fresh angle. Osborne and Cable are in fact remarkably close

The undeserving rich

Ever since the Elizabethan poor laws — if not before — society has tended to divide the poor into the deserving and the undeserving. But, as I write in this week’s magazine, our politicians are now taking aim at a new category, the undeserving rich. Who you consider to be the undeserving rich depends on your ideological leanings. Russian oligarchs or the families of Middle Eastern despots are, perhaps, the most obvious examples. They have acquired huge wealth but often by illegitimate means. Then come those who evade, to use a favourite phrase of both David Cameron and Ed Miliband, “their responsibilities”. This includes those who dodge their taxes or

Vince being Vince

A sweeping and utterly typical performance from Vince Cable in his interview with the Times (£) today. Not only does he plunge his teeth into the exposed flesh of the bankers (criticising them for their “special pleading” over banking reforms), but he also offers another overarching diagnosis of the British economy (there won’t be a repeat of 2008’s financial crisis, he says, in case you were wondering, but slow growth could be a problem). I feel like a spoilsport for pointing out that, only four months ago, the Business Secretary was actually warning that “you can see” another financial crash happening. But aside from Cable’s fiery rhetoric, it’s worth noting

Coalition prepares for bank bust-up

There’s a big coalition split coming down the road. Next month the Vickers’ review into banking reform, which is going to suggest a ring-fencing of the investment and retail arms of banks, will come out. The Liberal Democrats — led by Vince Cable — will push for the instant implementation of the report’s recommendations. The Treasury will argue that banks need to be given time to introduce these new rules. The result will be, as one senior Lib Dem source tells this morning’s FT, ‘a big fight’.   The tricky question for Cameron and Osborne is how do they win this argument when there’s a visceral desire for tough measures