RBS' Controversial Business Unit 'Does Good Overall', MPs Told

'We Do Good Overall', Controversial RBS Bankers Tell MPs
|
Open Image Modal
LONDON, ENGLAND - AUGUST 03: City workers pass a Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) branch on St Marys Axe on August 3, 2012 in London, England. The bank has announced pre-tax losses of £1.5 billion after IT problems earlier in the year hit operations. (Photo by Matthew Lloyd/Getty Images)
Matthew Lloyd via Getty Images

Senior Royal Bank of Scotland executives insisted to MPs that they do good overall as they defended the state-owned bank from accusations that it drove small businesses under in order to make a profit.

Derek Sach, head of the RBS global restructuring group (GRG), which helps manage firms struggling with their debts, insisted that the turnaround unit was "absolutely not a profit centre" nor rough with its customers.

"Generally [I] do believe we do good overall," he told MPs on the Treasury select committee. Sach insisted that the bank "would never get any advantage from destroying a customer", pointing out that GRG had lost £2.1 billion over a five-year period.

“There can’t be all this smoke without some fire,” said Andrew Tyrie, committee chairman, adding: “There have been widespread concerns about RBS’s lending practices.”

Treasury committee member Jesse Norman tweeted that the bank executives' defence was "not persuasive".

RBS was being grilled after a report by entrepreneur Lawrence Tomlinson accused the bank of "killing off" small firms managed through its GRG business turnaround unit by adding on fees or pulling lines of credit. Another report by former Bank of England deputy Sir Andrew Large found that the GRG unit was being run to make profit.

Sach, appearing alongside RBS deputy chief executive Chris Sullivan, told MPs that Tomlinson's accusations had unsettled GRG staff, who felt they had "impugned their integrity".

In response, Tomlinson told the Huffington Post UK that he found some of RBS' evidence to MPs "particularly surprising".

"There was, I felt, a palpable scepticism on behalf of the committee to some of Mr Sach and Mr Sullivan’s answers," he said.

"Certainly, the committee shared my concerns about fees which Clifford Chance also found to lack any transparency. The committee even went so far as to suggest that an opaque fee was inherently an unfair fee. Similarly, the issues surrounding internal valuations, and the means by which the bank leverages its position, were equally probed by the committee."

"All these factors impact on the operability of businesses once they are in GRG, potentially causing cash flow problems in the business in an unaccountable manner. Going forward, I hope they are rectified to ensure fair treatment for all customers, whether in the main bank or in the turnaround division.”

Following Tomlinson's allegations, the bank commissioned lawyers from Clifford Chance to investigate the claims and later welcomed the report for claiming it of trying to "systematically defraud" small firms, something that Tomlinson had never claimed.

7 Things RBS Would Not Want You To Know Was In The Clifford Chance 'Whitewash'
RBS didn't play by the book in its valuations(01 of07)
Open Image Modal
The Clifford Chance report reveals that RBS' internal valuations of businesses were not carried out in accordance with best practise as laid out by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, saying: "Internal valuations were not carried out to the standard of the Red Book, but they were undertaken according to set assumptions by qualified surveyors employed by the bank.
RBS may have exploited small firms' debt levels(02 of07)
Open Image Modal
Clifford Chance suggested that RBS should revisit a GRG training manual suggested threatening to remove a distressed business' overdraft as a way to gain "leverage" in negotiations over equity.Or as the report termed it: "using the on-demand nature of the overdraft as a point of leverage in negotiations of equity upsides when the customer is not in breach of its facilities but the business may be experiencing underperformance against expectations/forecasts.But the firm didn't pass judgement, saying: “The circumstances win which it is appropriate for a bank to remove or to warn a customer that it will remove an overdraft are beyond the scope of this report”.
Even Clifford Chance couldn't understand RBS' fees(03 of07)
Open Image Modal
"We found it difficult to understand how the bank calculated the fees which it proposed to customers in any particular case and therefore found it difficult to assess allegations of unfairness," Clifford Chance write. Not a ringing endorsement for a report into how fairly businesses were treated by RBS.
Some perfectly profitable businesses got RBS 'support'(04 of07)
Open Image Modal
Clifford Chance "identified a number of other cases where a customer had been transferred to BRG [Business Restructuring Group] without an event of default having occurred.”In short, the firms were not struggling with their loans, but were still deemed to need help.
RBS used fees to 'encourage' firms to do things(05 of07)
Open Image Modal
Clifford Chance found that RBS "sought to encourage or incentivise a specific course of action by the customer through its pricing such as an exit or sale of assets to reduce the customer’s debt." The law firm decides not to pass moral judgement, saying: "It is difficult for us to say that it is wrong in principle for the bank to use fees as a lever to persuade the customer to follow a particular course of action."
RBS staff were meant to have an eye on money (06 of07)
Open Image Modal
Clifford Chance found that the financial contribution from RBS "relationship managers" in the Business Restructuring Group was "clearly an important part of the performance assessment process" and worked towards its "revenue generation/loss avoidance" objective.Individual RBS staff who generated extraordinary amounts of revenue were "highlighted" at appraisal, especially "cases where they had generated strong revenues". Clifford Chance found that RBS relationship managers were "encouraged to seek upsides" in negotiations, but that they also were made aware of "the need to treat customers fairly.”
And what about West Register? (07 of07)
Open Image Modal
RBS admitted that the fact that a "damaging perception" of a conflict of interest arose due to fact that the bank was effectively able to buy a business' property through its West Register vehicle. And so the bank has decided to sell all assets on its books and wind it down.As the report noted; "In December 2012, West Register's UK property portfolio was valued at £929m. Property acquired from the bank's UK SME customers totalled approximately £400m, less than half the overall portfolio. Between 2008 and 2013, West Register made acquisitions from 166 SME customers13 at an average of approximately 50% of the original loan value at the date of the transfer to GRG."

Clifford Chance's report, which interviewed 138 small businesses managed by the bank's support unit, found that the bank's fees "lacked clarity" in "some cases". RBS is still under investigation by the City watchdog, the Financial Conduct Authority.

In response to Clifford Chance's report, RBS admitted that the process which allowed the bank to bid for ailing businesses’ property that it was auctioning off in order to help get on top of their debts led to a "damaging perception" of a conflict of interest. As a result, the bank decided to wind down West Register, the vehicle through which it would bid on property, and sell all of the assets it has on its books.

In response to RBS' evidence today, Treasury committee chair Andrew Tyrie said he would write to Sir Andrew Large as the bankers had "flatly contradicted an important conclusion, and concern, of [his] report".