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+181214
Categories:Regulation

FSA admits RBS failings and calls for tougher penalties for bankers

  • Print
  • Comments (19)

The FSA has admitted it had a significant part to play in the near collapse of Royal Bank of Scotland in 2008.

In its report, published today, the FSA says its supervisory approach into the bank “provided insufficient challenges to RBS”.

The regulator says there were six factors which almost led to the demise of RBS in the midst of the 2008 financial crisis. Among them were concerns and uncertainties about its underlying asset quality, which were subject to little fundamental analysis by the FSA as well as concerns and uncertainties about RBS’s strategy. The FSA also says it underestimated how bad the losses associated with structured credit might be.

The report highlights poor management decisions such as the acquisition of ABN Amro. FSA chairman Adair Turner says had Basel III been in place RBS would not have been able to launch its bid for ABN Amro as well as being unable to pay dividends at any time during the review period. He says the FSA is a completely different organisation to what it was in 2007, with far more resources and skills.

Turner has called for new powers to be introduced in a bid to prevent a collapse of this nature happening in the future. These include stricter rules that would mean heavier fines and bans should a bank fail as well as an automatic incentives based approach, which includes preventing senior directors and executives of failed banks from future positions of responsibility or changes to remuneration to ensure that a very large proportion of pay is deferred or forfeited in the event of a failure.

Turner says: “The fact that no individual has been found legally responsible for the failure begs the question: if action cannot be taken under existing rules, should not the rules be changed for the future?

“In a market economy, companies take risks on behalf of shareholders and if they make mistakes, it is for shareholders to sanction the management and board by firing them. But banks are different, because excessive risk-taking by banks, for instance through aggressive acquisitions, can result in bank failure, taxpayer losses, and wider economic harm. Their failure is a public concern, not just a concern for shareholders.

“We should, therefore, debate policy options to ensure that bank executives and boards strike a different balance between risk and return than is acceptable in non-bank companies.”

RBS is now 83 per cent owned by the Government and has seen thousands of job losses since the crisis.

Six factors are deemed to have led to the collapse of RBS:

- significant weaknesses in RBS’s capital position, as a result of management decisions and permitted by an inadequate global regulatory capital framework;

- over-reliance on risky short-term wholesale funding, which was permitted by an inadequate approach to the regulation of liquidity;

- concerns and uncertainties about RBS’s underlying asset quality, which in turn was subject to little fundamental analysis by the FSA;

- substantial losses in credit trading activities, which eroded market confidence. Both RBS’s strategy and the FSA’s supervisory approach underestimated how bad losses associated with structured credit might be;

- the ABN AMRO acquisition, on which RBS proceeded without appropriate heed to the risks involved and with inadequate due diligence; and

- an overall systemic crisis in which the banks in worse relative positions were extremely vulnerable to failure. RBS was one such bank.

  • Print
  • Comments (19)

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.

Money Marketing Awards 2015
Put your firm forward as the leading practitioner in your field. Adviser and Advertising categories are open to entries - Enter Now.

Readers' comments (19)

  • So who at the FSA is losing their job, as an IFA if I make a mistake I can be fined or shut down, why is no-one at the FSA accountable, must be a great job to be able to screw up a whole industry, and not be held responsible, they are a joke!!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I completely agree with @Brian - where is the accountability for the FSA? Yes, get tough with the Banks, but we need to see the same level of toughness with the Regulator - let's see them get fined, and have their bonuses removed every time they fail to do their job properly.
    Come on Government - the only way you're going to restore faith in the financial system is to make all parties accountable.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The FSA should be shut down for negligence.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Turner says: “The fact that no individual has been found legally responsible for the failure begs the question: if action cannot be taken under existing rules, should not the rules be changed for the future?
    Yes absolutely, particularly with regard to the regulators lack of accountability.
    Turner wants everyone to shoulder responsibility unless they are employed at the FSA.
    The regulator was so busy bullying the IFA sector, who pose no systematic risk, they missed the bigger picture of their buddies at the banks, who were deemed "to big to fail"
    The regulator MUST be held to account. They are spending millions each year and must be held responsible just as they expect us to be.No more double standards Mr Turner. If staff at the regulator lack the skills to do their job, then they should be deemed "not fit & Proper" just as you would quickly label any IFA who, in your opinion lacks the skill to do his job.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well done to Mark M and previous posters - digesting a several-hundred page report in under three hours. Clearly you can all read a lot quicker than me.

    Or is it just that you've completely pre-judged the situation - something you take the FSA to task for all the rest of the time?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The joys of 'light touch regulation'.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The pot calling the kettle black. The FSA as we know is not accountable to any or anything. It has admiited its failure and those at the top should resign. The government should then take a long good look at the regulations proposed and stop them in their tracks Stop RDR and close down the FSA it is useless

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Someone just tweeted -

    "Hector Sants received a performance related bonus from FSA of £114,000 in 2007-2008 - the year he signed off the RBS-ABN takeover. Clawback?"

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Re Adam Smith
    We did not need to read the report.
    We already knew what went on.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If a bank fails, how is it going to be able to pay heavier fines? The money isn't going to be there, is it?

    And, as pointed out by others, how can no individuals (at any of the banks) have "been found legally responsible for the failure" when the FSA clearly has the powers to find individual senior managers of IFA firms responsible and to punish them acordingly?

    Does the FSMA 2000 state that if you're a senior manager at a bank (or indeed at the FSA) then you're untouchable whilst, on the other hand, that if you're a senior manager of an IFA firm, the FSA can do to you whatever it likes? I don't recall ever having read of such selective exemptions from individual accountability. It all smells rather strongly of the Old School Tie Club, doesn't it?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

AXA Wealth


Fund Data

Editor's Pick



Poll

Will providers be forced to pay out compensation over annuity misselling?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments