|

How UKFI lost its nukes

October 6th, 2009

Stephen Hester, image courtesy of Daily Mail

Does anyone know why Gordon Brown’s government created UKFI as a hands-off organisation with zero interest in pushing for real change at the two basket-case Scottish banks it owns? Why UKFI has done nothing to root out the corruption that became endemic at Bank of Scotland Corporate and probably elsewhere? Or why UKFI green-lighted Stephen Hester’s obscene £9.7m pay package?

The answer, my friend, is simple.

When Hester, a gardening fanatic and former CSFB investment banker, was tapped on the shoulder to take on poisoned chalice of succeeding Fred “the shred” Goodwin at the helm of the bankrupted RBS, Hester basically told Alistair Darling, Lord Paul Myners, Baroness Shriti Vadera etc that he would only accept if they guaranteed that UKFI would be a “hands off” owner.

Hester informed Labour’s top brass he wouldn’t be leaving British Land unless they promised that UKFI would be a “commercial” investor and absentee landlord that would give him and the new RBS board free rein to manage the crippled bank as they saw fit.

Of course Brown and Darling caved in — what else would one expect of a duo which, despite a degree of toughness last October and some recent pre-election bluster and rhetoric, remain firmly in the bankers’ thrall?

Other Labour MPs are clearly perplexed by this. Why should a government that purports to care reforming banking or about the lot of ordinary people have allowed Hester (who is incidentally already a very wealthy man and owns a magnificent arboretum in Oxfordshire) to get his way and effectively write his own pay cheque?

Sally Keeble, a Labour MP recently touched on this in an article in Progress magazine. Here’s the relevant paragraph:

“Now that the government is majority shareholder in two of our largest banking groups, RBS and Lloyds, we have an opportunity to help create a different culture. Yet UKFI, which manages the government’s interests, has set out a high level strategy strong on financial targets and weak on any social or ethical criteria for investment decisions, and has not delivered financial help to struggling businesses.”

Sally, hopefully part of your answer is above (and by the way, the notion that existing banks can be transformed into ethical or socially-responsible organisations is hopelessly idealistic. These are rapacious organisations with lax morals which are incapable of being reformed).

By the way: one should also treat all claims that UKFI is “Fidelity with nukes” with caution. In my view this is thinly disguised government spin designed to lull us into thinking that UKFI is in some way a responsible or interventionist owner.

Short URL: http://www.ianfraser.org/?p=936

Posted by on Oct 6 2009. Filed under Blog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

2 Comments for “How UKFI lost its nukes”

  1. Because we, the poor old taxpayers and private sector workforce, would rather see profitable banks that can be sold at a profit. Rather that than limping state-owned institutions that
    – can never be sold
    – are forced to make bad investment decisions by politicians (and yes I do know that the banks track record on good investment decisions ain’t that great)
    – can’t pay enough to attract good employees
    – can’t get rid of mediocre employees

  2. […] achieve this, the government and UKFI ordered the bank to focus on short term maximisation of profit and shareholder value. And Darling […]

You must be logged in to post a comment Login