Major UK banks, including Barclays, HSBC and Lloyds Banking Group, face having to pay out hundreds of millions of pounds as claims against them relating to the PPI scandal mount. (Photo: ALAMY)
Jan 22, 2011
A carve-up of big banks is firmly on the agenda, the chairman of
Britain's Independent Commission on Banking made clear today, even as he
ruled out the most radical solutions designed to avoid the necessity of
another multibillion-pound bailout of the financial sector.
In
only his second public statement since being appointed by the government
last summer to review the structure of the banking industry, the former
Bank of England economist Sir John Vickers also spelt out the need for
holders of bank bonds to suffer losses when banks run into difficulty,
and his commission's view that the new capital adequacy plans for the
financial sector - Basel III - do not go far enough.
Vickers's
much-anticipated remarks came amid an acceleration in talks between
high street banks and the government to commit to lending between PS160bn
and PS180bn to businesses this year. Discussions about disclosing more
information on top pay are also continuing. The aim is to conclude
negotiations with the banks before next week's high-level summit of
business leaders and economic policymakers in Davos.
Vickers told
his audience today that he wanted to consider "whether, and if so how"
structural reforms to the banking industry could work alongside existing
plans to bolster bank capital and create "recovery and resolution
plans" to cope with crises. He indicated that the new rules from Basel,
which could require banks to hold three times as much capital as they
presently do, will still not be sufficient to ensure banks hold reserves
that can be used as a cushion in the event of collapse.
"If,
then, one takes the view that the loss-absorbing capacity of banks needs
to be massively enhanced - and beyond the prospective requirements of
Basel III in the case of systemically important institutions - there are
dilemmas about how best to achieve that," Vickers, a former head of the
Office of Fair Trading, told an audience at London Business School.
He
ruled out ideas for "narrow" banking - where banks act purely as
low-risk, deposit-taking institutions - or other forms of "limited
purpose banking". But he explored the idea that so-called "universal"
banks, which combine high street businesses and investment-banking
operations, might be required to ring-fence certain riskier operations
from their consumer businesses - a process known as "subsidiarisation".
"Universal
banking has the advantage that a sufficiently profitable or
well-capitalised investment banking operation may be able to cover
losses in retail banking," said Vickers. "But it has the disadvantage
that unsuccessful investment banking may bring down the universal bank,
including the retail bank."
He floated the possibility that the
riskier operations of banks could be required to hold more capital
rather than being split off from the high street bank completely. But he
rejected the characterisation of investment banking operations as
"casinos": "Retail banking necessarily carries risk, notably via
exposure to residential and commercial property markets. Thus the
popular 'utility/casino' distinction between types of banking activity
seems more catchy than helpful."
Any attempt to split up sprawling
banking institutions would meet fierce resistance from the industry.
Peter Sands, chief executive of Standard Chartered, warned this weekend
that breaking up the banks would be "very damaging".
Lord
Oakeshott, a Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, said: "I have pinched
myself in recent weeks and asked who is really running the country - the
banks or the elected government?"
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A carve-up of big banks is firmly on the agenda, the chairman of
Britain's Independent Commission on Banking made clear today, even as he
ruled out the most radical solutions designed to avoid the necessity of
another multibillion-pound bailout of the financial sector.
In
only his second public statement since being appointed by the government
last summer to review the structure of the banking industry, the former
Bank of England economist Sir John Vickers also spelt out the need for
holders of bank bonds to suffer losses when banks run into difficulty,
and his commission's view that the new capital adequacy plans for the
financial sector - Basel III - do not go far enough.
Vickers's
much-anticipated remarks came amid an acceleration in talks between
high street banks and the government to commit to lending between PS160bn
and PS180bn to businesses this year. Discussions about disclosing more
information on top pay are also continuing. The aim is to conclude
negotiations with the banks before next week's high-level summit of
business leaders and economic policymakers in Davos.
Vickers told
his audience today that he wanted to consider "whether, and if so how"
structural reforms to the banking industry could work alongside existing
plans to bolster bank capital and create "recovery and resolution
plans" to cope with crises. He indicated that the new rules from Basel,
which could require banks to hold three times as much capital as they
presently do, will still not be sufficient to ensure banks hold reserves
that can be used as a cushion in the event of collapse.
"If,
then, one takes the view that the loss-absorbing capacity of banks needs
to be massively enhanced - and beyond the prospective requirements of
Basel III in the case of systemically important institutions - there are
dilemmas about how best to achieve that," Vickers, a former head of the
Office of Fair Trading, told an audience at London Business School.
He
ruled out ideas for "narrow" banking - where banks act purely as
low-risk, deposit-taking institutions - or other forms of "limited
purpose banking". But he explored the idea that so-called "universal"
banks, which combine high street businesses and investment-banking
operations, might be required to ring-fence certain riskier operations
from their consumer businesses - a process known as "subsidiarisation".
"Universal
banking has the advantage that a sufficiently profitable or
well-capitalised investment banking operation may be able to cover
losses in retail banking," said Vickers. "But it has the disadvantage
that unsuccessful investment banking may bring down the universal bank,
including the retail bank."
He floated the possibility that the
riskier operations of banks could be required to hold more capital
rather than being split off from the high street bank completely. But he
rejected the characterisation of investment banking operations as
"casinos": "Retail banking necessarily carries risk, notably via
exposure to residential and commercial property markets. Thus the
popular 'utility/casino' distinction between types of banking activity
seems more catchy than helpful."
Any attempt to split up sprawling
banking institutions would meet fierce resistance from the industry.
Peter Sands, chief executive of Standard Chartered, warned this weekend
that breaking up the banks would be "very damaging".
Lord
Oakeshott, a Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, said: "I have pinched
myself in recent weeks and asked who is really running the country - the
banks or the elected government?"
A carve-up of big banks is firmly on the agenda, the chairman of
Britain's Independent Commission on Banking made clear today, even as he
ruled out the most radical solutions designed to avoid the necessity of
another multibillion-pound bailout of the financial sector.
In
only his second public statement since being appointed by the government
last summer to review the structure of the banking industry, the former
Bank of England economist Sir John Vickers also spelt out the need for
holders of bank bonds to suffer losses when banks run into difficulty,
and his commission's view that the new capital adequacy plans for the
financial sector - Basel III - do not go far enough.
Vickers's
much-anticipated remarks came amid an acceleration in talks between
high street banks and the government to commit to lending between PS160bn
and PS180bn to businesses this year. Discussions about disclosing more
information on top pay are also continuing. The aim is to conclude
negotiations with the banks before next week's high-level summit of
business leaders and economic policymakers in Davos.
Vickers told
his audience today that he wanted to consider "whether, and if so how"
structural reforms to the banking industry could work alongside existing
plans to bolster bank capital and create "recovery and resolution
plans" to cope with crises. He indicated that the new rules from Basel,
which could require banks to hold three times as much capital as they
presently do, will still not be sufficient to ensure banks hold reserves
that can be used as a cushion in the event of collapse.
"If,
then, one takes the view that the loss-absorbing capacity of banks needs
to be massively enhanced - and beyond the prospective requirements of
Basel III in the case of systemically important institutions - there are
dilemmas about how best to achieve that," Vickers, a former head of the
Office of Fair Trading, told an audience at London Business School.
He
ruled out ideas for "narrow" banking - where banks act purely as
low-risk, deposit-taking institutions - or other forms of "limited
purpose banking". But he explored the idea that so-called "universal"
banks, which combine high street businesses and investment-banking
operations, might be required to ring-fence certain riskier operations
from their consumer businesses - a process known as "subsidiarisation".
"Universal
banking has the advantage that a sufficiently profitable or
well-capitalised investment banking operation may be able to cover
losses in retail banking," said Vickers. "But it has the disadvantage
that unsuccessful investment banking may bring down the universal bank,
including the retail bank."
He floated the possibility that the
riskier operations of banks could be required to hold more capital
rather than being split off from the high street bank completely. But he
rejected the characterisation of investment banking operations as
"casinos": "Retail banking necessarily carries risk, notably via
exposure to residential and commercial property markets. Thus the
popular 'utility/casino' distinction between types of banking activity
seems more catchy than helpful."
Any attempt to split up sprawling
banking institutions would meet fierce resistance from the industry.
Peter Sands, chief executive of Standard Chartered, warned this weekend
that breaking up the banks would be "very damaging".
Lord
Oakeshott, a Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, said: "I have pinched
myself in recent weeks and asked who is really running the country - the
banks or the elected government?"
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.