George Osborne Lets Lloyds Double Banker Bonuses But Blocks RBS

Osborne Lets Lloyds Pay Bumper Bonuses (But Not RBS)
|
Open Image Modal
BIRMINGHAM, UNITED KINGDOM - SEPTEMBER 17: Chancellor Of The Exchequer George Osborne addresses staff at Lloyds Contact Centre on September 17, 2013 in Birmingham, United Kingdom. The Chancellor spoke with staff after yesterdays sale of taxpayer-owned shares in Lloyds Banking Group, £3.2 billion worth of shares were bought up by UK and US institutional investors. The sale means a reduction in the Governments stake in Lloyds from 39 per cent to 33 per cent. (Photo by Joe Giddens - WPA Pool/Getty
WPA Pool via Getty Images

George Osborne will not use the taxpayer's stake in Lloyds Banking Group to stop it paying bonuses twice as big as their pay, but will block the Royal Bank of Scotland from paying out bumper bonuses.

Under the European bank bonus cap, banks can only pay bonuses at the same level as pay, but can lift it to twice that with shareholder approval. The government still has a 25% stake in Lloyds and an 80% stake of the Royal Bank of Scotland.

The Royal Bank of Scotland has been told through UKFI, which manages the Treasury stake, that it will not back a resolution to lift the bonus cap at RBS to twice fixed pay, meaning that it will not be proposed to shareholders at its June annual general meeting.

With other banks currently seeking shareholder approval to pay bonuses at twice the level of pay, RBS warned that the decision now leaves it with a "commercial and prudential risk".

The taxpayer-owned bank said: "The board believes the best commercial solution for RBS is to have the flexibility on variable to fixed pay ratios that is now emerging as the sector norm.

"This would also allow RBS to maintain the maximum amount of compensation that could be subject to performance conditions including clawback for conduct issues that may emerge in future. This position was understood during consultation with institutional shareholders."

Shadow Treasury minister Cathy Jamieson said: "George Osborne is in a terrible muddle over bankers' bonuses. He is spending taxpayers' money on a legal fight in Brussels against the bonus cap and yet imposing the minimum cap at RBS.

"The Government has bowed to pressure on RBS and finally admitted that bonuses of two times salary would be unacceptable at what remains a bank in government ownership. They voted against Labour's motion to impose the minimum cap at RBS in January, but have now been forced to reverse their position.

"But, confusingly, at the same time the chancellor is supporting higher bonuses in Lloyds Bank and elsewhere."

Tory MP Andrew Tyrie, chair of the Treasury select committee, criticised Osborne's decision to block RBS' bumper bonuses.

“The Banking Commission concluded that UKFI would increasingly be perceived as a fig leaf to disguise direct government control of RBS," he said.

"Today’s events appear to confirm this. It is difficult to argue that RBS is operating on an arms length, commercial basis, free from Government interference.

“Well structured bonuses can incentivise better performance and behaviour. It is essential that bankers receive rewards only when it is clear that they have been earned. The Banking Commission also concluded that a bonus cap was not the answer. Bonus caps create upward pressure on base salaries, increasing the fixed-cost base. Fundamental reform of the bonus culture is needed - including much longer deferral and much greater scope for pay to be recovered in appropriate circumstances."

A Treasury spokesman said: "We have made clear there will be no rise in the bonus cap for an RBS still in recovery, but a bonus cap at Lloyds that reflects the progress it has made in getting money back for taxpayers.

"A few years ago, bonuses were out of control, banks needed bailing out and the economy was shrinking. Under this Government's long-term economic plan bonuses are down, the banks are recovering and the economy is growing."

RBS Clifford Chance Report
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."