This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.
X
MM+cover+small+180914
Categories:Politics,Regulation

Barclays says taxpayers should not bail out banks

  • Print
  • Comments (2)

Taxpayers should not bail out banks that get into difficulties, according to Barclays chief executive Bob Diamond.

Giving evidence to the Treasury select committee this morning, Diamond said banks which run into trouble should be able to be wound down by the regulator.

He said: “No banks should ever be a burden on the tax payer. So we have to make the system safer and sounder and I think that is about risk management and the capacity to absorb losses.

“People talk about the need for regulators to be able to unwind an institution in short order and we agree with that ambition.”

Diamond said he recognisied the benefits for the banks and the wider economy which came from the financial stimulus but said Barclays had not taken “a penny of tax payers money”.

Conservative MP Andrea Leadsom said Diamond was “in denial” as to the extent to which the taxpayer had supported the banking industry.

Diamond told MPs that Barclays had “no intention” of moving its head quarters from London though he stopped short of giving a “iron-clad guarantee”.

He said: “Let me be perfectly clear, We took our first deposit in the city of London in 1690, we have 320 years of history in London we have absolutely no intention of changing that.”

He was giving evidence as part of the committee’s inquiry into competition and choice in banking sector.

The majority of the two and a half hour session focused on bonuses. Diamond said Barclays recognised the need for restraint and that the bank paid bonuses for “performance not for failure”.

He warned reducing bonuses would have an effect on other services bank’s offer and the ability to be competitive in attracting staff.

He said: “We can’t isolate bonuses completely and pretend that action on that won’t have consequences on the rest of the business, we have to balance these things.”

Diamond waived his bonus in 2008 and 2009 but refused to take up a request from Labour MP John Mann to waive this year’s bonus saying that he has not yet been awarded one.Decisions over remuneration are to be taken by the bank in the next few weeks.

Diamond told the committee that shareholders have not asked specific questions about bonuses and that they would not be made aware of the bonus pool size or the allocation of rewards in advance of decisions being made.

TSC chairman Andrew Tyrie said: “On bonuses they (shareholders) do not know what you are paying and they have not asked for it so they are incumbent, half asleep.”

He also told Mann he had not been personally approached by the Prime Minister or the Chancellor and asked to show restraint in the paying of bonuses, though other Barclays staff involved in negotiations with Government over remuneration have. Labour MP George Mudie said it was “disappointing” that he was not directly involved.

  • Print
  • Comments (2)

Daily Email Updates
If you enjoyed this article, sign up to receive the latest news and analysis from Money Marketing.

The Money Marketing CPD Centre
Build your annual CPD - you can log and plan your CPD hours for free with The Money Marketing CPD Centre.

Taxbriefs Advantage
Advantage is a digital reference source giving unbiased, independent, answers to your technical queries. Subscribe to Taxbriefs Advantage.

Readers' comments (2)

  • Given that it was a lack of regulation that allowed certain banks to behave in such a reckless manner as to get them into a position where, if they didn't get support from the taxpayer, they would have gone under, it seems perverse to suggest that the very regulatory authorities which failed to regulate should be given responsibility for winding these institutions down. Put another way, if the regulator couldn't regulate them when they were in reasonably good financial shape, how could anyone have any confidence in the ability of said regulator to wind them down in an orderly fashion without hundreds of thousands of customers losing hundreds of millions of pounds?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @Julian. Personally all the ex senior FSA lads and girls I've met have been top end people. The rules are there, in the handbook for them to act on..... so why did they miss it?

    In my view they were told to look the other way by HMG. New Labour wanted a growing economy, and they were not too bothered about risk mitigation....so, we got the mess have had (and have)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

Fund Data

Editor's Pick



Poll

Have you heard of cases of advised sales being disguised as execution-only?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments