View more on these topics

Regulators censure Co-op for misleading investors

FCA interior logo 620x430

The troubled Co-op Bank has been censured by both the FCA and PRA for misleading investors over its capital position.

In a joint investigation with the PRA, the FCA also found the bank “fell short of its responsibility to be open with its regulators”.

In addition, the PRA has published the result of its enforcement action against the Co-op. The regulator says the firm’s “three lines of defence” risk management model was “flawed in design and operation”.

These failings occurred between 22 July 2009 and 31 December 2013.

The FCA says under normal circumstances the bank would have been hit with a “substantial” fine.

FCA acting director of enforcement and market oversight Georgina Philippou says: “Firms have a very basic but extremely important responsibility to be transparent with their investors and with us, as their regulator, and Co-op Bank fell short of this. As a result, investors were left unaware of Co-op Bank’s true capital position and we were left in the dark about intended changes to senior personnel at the bank.

“This is a serious matter, but exceptional circumstances mean a public censure is the appropriate and proportionate response. It is vitally important that Co-op Bank’s capital resources are directed towards improving its resilience.”

In its financial statements for the year ending 31 December 2012, published on 21 March 2013, Co-op Bank said: “Adequate capitalisation can be maintained at all times even under the most severe stress scenarios, including the revised FSA “anchor” stress scenario.”

It also insisted a capital buffer was being maintained to “absorb capital shocks and ensure sufficient surplus capital is available at all times to cover…regulatory minimum requirements”.

In reality, from 15 January 2013 – when the regulator had issued revised capital requirements to the bank – it did not have sufficient capital to meet these new requirements, the FCA says.

In addition, the FCA says there was “no reasonable basis” for stating that Co-op had adequate capital in the most severe stress scenarios.

The FCA says investigations into senior individuals at the Co-op Bank during the relevant period are “ongoing”.

Recommended

2

Nick Bamford: We can’t ignore our demographic destiny

The topic of care fees planning was high on the agenda at a recent team meeting. Our guest speaker, Partnership’s Martyn Halls, shared with us some very interesting statistics. Apparently, there are currently some 431,000 people in residential care homes, out of a population of 3.7 million aged over 65. There are also more than […]

Ian-Gorham-presenting-at-Platforum-conference-2013.jpg

Hargreaves Lansdown hires new CFO

Hargreaves Lansdown has appointed Chris Hill as its new chief financial officer. Hill joins from online trading firm IG Group, where he has been CFO for the last four years. He will take up the role in March 2016, subject to regulatory approval. Deloitte partner Simon Cleveland will continue to act interim CFO during that […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 5 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Rt Hon Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling 11th August 2015 at 10:13 am

    Why, when the malfeasor is a large corporate does Georgina Philippou never refer to the named directors. But when it’s Joe Blogs and his wife’s IFA Company is it Joe who is named and shamed. Company law makes no such distinction.Is the answer (a) because she is Greek of (b) because they are bankers?

  2. Ah. The Effical Bank. As ever all this bleating about ethics is all noise and no substance. This applies pretty universally if you really start to look into it.

  3. So the capital position must be so much better now then if they can’t even afford a small fine……

  4. The troubled Co-op Bank has been censured by both the FCA and PRA for misleading investors over its “capital position”.

    And what about KPMG/John Griffiths-Jones’s part in all this ? they were the auditor paid circa £7 million quid to audit and sign off the accounts ? and then there is HBOS as well !!

    This all is truly very worrying !

  5. At least Dick Turpin wore a mask. These people have the morals of alley cats.

Leave a comment