Barclays

‘Bankers’ was not a documentary. It was a BBC hit job

I like bankers. They’re an honest lot. All of us like money, but only they are upfront about it. I once witnessed a conversation between three financiers that started with them comparing their cars, then their houses, then their helicopters. None of the shilly-shallying you find at a society cocktail party, where people slyly suss out your income on the basis of your profession, your postcode, your accent and the school you went to — these bankers went straight to unvarnished one-upmanship. Such frankness can be refreshing. I like bankers because, these days, somebody has to. The second episode of Bankers (Wednesday), the BBC2 three-part documentary that’s just ended, started

Bankers: I like them — somebody has to

I like bankers. They’re an honest lot. All of us like money, but only they are upfront about it. I once witnessed a conversation between three financiers that started with them comparing their cars, then their houses, then their helicopters. None of the shilly-shallying you find at a society cocktail party, where people slyly suss out your income on the basis of your profession, your postcode, your accent and the school you went to — these bankers went straight to unvarnished one-upmanship. Such frankness can be refreshing. I like bankers because, these days, somebody has to. The second episode of Bankers (Wednesday), the BBC2 three-part documentary that’s just ended, started

The great City of London exodus gathers pace

Why not tax the bejesus out of the City and tighten regulation? Yes, the bankers will moan — but it’s not as if they will go abroad. The tax rate may be low in Zug, but do our pinstriped friends want to actually live there? The City’s elite have their kids in British schools, the time zone is right for business and the global phenomenon of Planet London has attractions that outweigh marginal tax rates. So let bankers moan: they’ll stay. This is, more or less, the argument that you hear from MPs on all benches as they take a carving knife to the golden goose that is the City

Barclays severs ties with Bob Diamond

Barclays bank has opened a charm offensive, hosting an autumn drinks party for assorted hacks at its Mayfair offices. Insiders claim that it’s ‘a very British affair’ at the bank these days, with a new regime at the top following Bob Diamond’s departure. Indeed, even the more subtle traces of Diamond have been eradicated. It was a no tie affair in Mayfair, which meant that there was not a lime green silk number – Diamond’s trademark – in sight. It was not always so. I hear that, when the former chief executive was in town, ambitious tyros would whip their own lime green neckwear out of the desk drawer in an attempt to impress

After LIBOR, why tolerate central banking?

&”Did you encourage them to make up the made up thing to their own advantage?” That’s how one Twitter correspondent paraphrased a question to the Deputy Governor of the Bank.  The LIBOR scandal has exposed the institutions and culture of the City to popular scrutiny as never before.  The population is reacting with justified incredulity to the absurdity it is finding.   LIBOR submissions from Barclays and everyone else were based not on the rate at which they would lend, not on what they actually had to pay to borrow, but on what they said they thought they might have to pay. On the face of it, that is the flakiest

Libor: the truth is out there

Is parliament good for anything? This is, in effect, the question behind the coming Libor investigation. Ed Miliband’s assumption that to get any questions answered you need a judge-led inquiry fits a trend, and one that Rod Liddle examines in this week’s magazine. For my part, I’m uneasy about the deification of the judiciary and quite liked Rod’s idea of having an inquiry into the judges, led by a butcher. If parliament doesn’t work, I think the answer is to fix it rather than give up on it. So a lot is now resting on Andrew Tyrie, who is about to chair the parliamentary investigation into Libor, who must next

Osborne savages Balls on Libor

The Osborne/Balls clash today was one of the most brutal I have seen in parliament. Osborne, leaning across the despatch box, mockingly enquired, ‘who was the City Minister when the Libor scandal happened? Put your hand up if you were the City Minister?’ Balls looked increasingly cross as Osborne continued down this path, demanding that the shadow Chancellor take ‘personal responsibility’ for the failures of the regulatory regime. Labour argues that the public are turned off by this kind of stuff; that they want to see answers rather than point-scoring. Even Darling — hardly an admirer of a man who coveted his job for so long — offered a partial

Isabel Hardman

More remorse and apology from Diamond?

It’s hard to believe that executives at Barclays had much confidence that the resignation of Marcus Agius as the bank’s chair would place a stopper on the Libor scandal. Ed Miliband drove those doubts home this morning when, appearing on Daybreak, the Labour leader reiterated calls for Bob Diamond to resign. He said: ‘I don’t think that he can carry Barclays forward, Bob Diamond, because he was there, he was actually in charge of the part of Barclays where some of these scandals took place years back and we will obviously hear what he has to say at the Select Committee on Wednesday but I really don’t believe that the

Calling for Agius’ head

Marcus Agius’ resignation this morning as chair of Barclays took few by surprise after being widely trailed over the weekend. But as ever, The Spectator was far ahead of the curve, with columnist Martin Vander Weyer calling on 5 May for Agius to go, nearly two months before the Libor scandal even broke. You can read his argument below. A word of sympathy for Alison Carnwath, the chairman of Barclays’ remuneration committee, whose re-election to the bank’s board failed to win support from a quarter of its shareholders at last week’s turbulent AGM. Investors were right to be enraged that the bank had ladled out three times as much in

Osborne goes for Balls over Libor scandal

The Libor scandal is yet another blow to the reputation of the City of London. Alistair Darling may have been right when he told George Osborne that we’re ‘kidding ourselves if we think this was the only country where this happened.’ But there’s no getting away from the fact that an uncomfortably large number of financial scandals start in London.     In the Commons, Osborne seemed keen to move towards a more American-style system of regulation with more prosecuting powers for the FSA and new criminal offences. But he was also keen to make a political point, this happened under the last government and a regulatory system set up

A tax battle that the government won’t be able to avoid

The government is very pleased with itself today for closing a couple of tax loopholes such that Barclays will have to pay £500 million more to the Exchequer. And little wonder why. Not only does it support their rhetoric about a ‘tougher approach’ to tax avoidance, but — on the principle that ‘every little helps’ — it also hammers another few chips from the deficit. Broadly speaking, this sort of action is uncontroversial. In the battle of wits over taxation, the government is well within its legal rights to close loopholes, just as companies are well within theirs to exploit them. But this case is complicated by the fact that

Bankers need to realise that things have changed

In a speech tomorrow, Ed Miliband will call for ‘one nation banking’. The Labour leader will argue that banks have to show that they are part of the society in which they operate.   But, perhaps, most interesting is Miliband’s point — previewed in the political column this week — that the behaviour and pay structures of banks are fair game for parliament because they are ‘either directly or indirectly supported by the taxpayer.’ Labour will, indeed, propose a vote on the broader bonus culture. The clear target of this motion will be Barclays and Bob Diamond.   Before the bailouts it would have been easy to dismiss all this

A banking split

Blame Bob Diamond. Until the “unacceptable face of banking” (© the utterly acceptable face of politics, Peter Mandelson) was appointed chief executive of Barclays, the issue of banking reform was trundling along noiselessly in the background. But now it has spilled, violently, back out into the open. Critics of Diamond say that his very presence makes the case for splitting the retail and investmet divisions of banks – you can’t, they say, have someone who made their money via “casino banking” presiding over a high street banking chain. But the banks are warning that any such split would force them, and their tax dollars, abroad.   The government’s official position is