Today’s post is a short reactionary post to the statements made today by the Prime Minister, Theresa May, regarding the potential future of Company Law in the U.K. With regards to the protection of pension funds within large businesses, Mrs May stated that ‘ today I am setting out our [the Conservative Party] plans, if elected, to ensure the pensions of ordinary people are protected against the actions of unscrupulous company bosses ’. In light of this, this post will look at the propelling rationale for this election campaign agenda, and also look at the reality of the situation by asking whether the Government would really punish the bosses of the largest and most influential companies in the country. The reason why the issue of company pension funds is being debated by the leaders of the main political parties in the U.K. is, predominantly, because of the scandal that emanated from the collapse of large British retailer British Home Stores last year. In Financial Regulation

Today’s post reacts to the news that President Trump is seeking to ‘ cut corporate tax to 15% ’ from the current rate of 35%. The proposal, which was announced this week, represents what White House officials are labelling as the ‘ largest tax reform in US history ’ and which has its basis in the (supposed) aim of repatriating taxes on money that major US companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft generate abroad. For this post the focus will be on the larger picture; specifically, the focus will be on the connection between this story and the fears that Brexit will promote the idea that Britain will set itself up as a tax-haven if it is shut out of the single market. The two developments, potentially, point to a much larger issue that has been mentioned time and time again here in Financial Regulation Matters – the escalation in divisiveness within modern politics is playing right into the hands of big business. The plans to cut the US Corporate Tax rate by a massive 20% have

Today’s post looks at the news that Conservative MP and Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, Andrew Tyrie, is to step down at the forthcoming election. Rather than cast aspersions on Tyrie’s political allegiances, the focus for this post will be, primarily, upon his role as Chairman of the Committee. In this role, Tyrie has developed a reputation for being meticulous and thorough when scrutinising the actions of political and business elites, and it is this that is important for our understanding. Therefore, after looking at Tyrie’s performance over the years in the role, the post will look at where Tyrie should go now that he is leaving Parliament, and also the importance of finding a suitable replacement. The caveat to this piece is that it should be a given that politicians could always do more in their roles. Scrutiny is great but, just for one example, the fact that hardly anybody was punished for the Financial Crisis and the endemic fraud that underpinned it is the m

Today’s post focuses upon the upcoming raft of company disclosures in the U.K. that will detail the differences between what Men and Women are paid. The first companies to reveal their internal statistics include Virgin Money, Schroders, and Utilities company SSE, with the headline figure being that one of the companies, Virgin Money, has pay gaps of an extraordinary 36% , which is roughly twice the national average. In this post, then, we will look at the disclosures that are forthcoming and assess whether the actual task of forcing companies to reveal the gender pay-gaps is even something we should be insisting upon, or whether there is more to be done on a much bigger scale – there is clearly much that needs to be done, but the question remains of how it should be done to eradicate the pay-gap once and for all. The new regulations, which will be monitored by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, are aimed at all companies in England (and also public bodies) that employ

Today’s post was intended to move away from the world of politics after a number of posts in Financial Regulation Matters focused upon the actions of the political leaders in the U.K. However, politics and financial regulation, and business matters moreover, are intrinsically intertwined. Therefore, today’s post will remain in this juncture between the relevant fields and look at the recent news that the British Government is about to sell the Green Investment Bank (GIB) to a consortium led by the Australian-based Macquarie Group . So, in this post, we will take a look at the GIB in more detail and see whether the claims from the government that the deal represents good value for the taxpayer really hold true under scrutiny. The Green Investment Bank, which proudly proclaims on its website to be ‘ first bank of its type in the world ’, was created in 2012 after consultations stemming from the 2010 General Election. In 2012 the bank received the authorisation from the European C

Today’s short and reactionary post is concerned with a recent statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, in which he told the British taxpayer, and essentially every citizen, that ‘ we have to live in the real world ’ with regards to the news that the U.K. Government may be ‘forced’ to sell its stake in RBS at a loss. The troubled bank, which the Government pumped £45 billion of taxpayer money into in the wake of the Financial Crisis, has reported nine consecutive annual losses since it was bailed-out and only recently posted a massive £6 billion loss, as was discussed in Financial Regulation Matters , in addition to the looming threat of a massive fine from the U.S. Department of Justice, which some suggest may be as high as $12 billion . So, in this post, we will follow Hammond’s advice and ‘live in the real world’ – by assessing his performance and stance, as well as the situation in this ever-changing and increasingly fractious post-2016 world. For onc

Today’s post could only have been concerned with one news story and that is the news that Theresa May, the British Prime Minister, has called for a General Election to be held on June 8th . For this post, as always, the focus will be looking at the longer vision. We have already looked at the options and the future facing Theresa May in light of the British electorate’s decision last year, particularly with reference to the business arena that may result, and today’s announcement contributes to this future, but in a way that may not be so obvious at first glance. In a slight departure to usual practice, today’s post will start by looking at the politics of the decision, but will then assess the trajectory of recent events in relation to what it means for the relationship between society and big business. To begin with, it is being taken as read that the Conservative Government will have its wish of initiating a general election granted, because first the House of Commons must a

Today’s post is concerned with the issue of banks closing their physical branches up and down the U.K., which has recently led the Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell and other politicians to call for an end to what is being described as an ‘epidemic’ of bank branch closures – McDonnell has pledged that Labour will tackle the issue by only permitting branches to be closed only after extensive consultation and the gaining of permission from the Financial Conduct Authority , should they win the next General Election. However, this post will examine the issue from the obvious point of the need to keep branches open, but also from the point of view of whether it is right, or indeed appropriate to force private companies to operate in a manner which benefits the public but not their own profit margins. Firstly, it is important to note the current state of bank branch closures in the U.K., because the rate is rapidly increasing. According to a House of Commons briefing paper, there wer

Today’s post looks at a subject that has been the focus for many of the posts in Financial Regulation Matters and that is Executive Pay. In recognition of the ever-increasing issue of executive pay despite poor performance, the blog has analysed a number of issues in this field, ranging from BP recently cutting the pay packet of its CEO to Credit Suisse vowing to increase the bonuses it pays to its leading managers . However, as discussed in a post dating back to the 9 th of February, there is an undercurrent of unrest amongst shareholders that is slowly but surely beginning to shape the atmosphere amongst big business. In this post, the focus will be on reviewing the latest tranche of stories coming from the world of big business in relation to executive pay and, ultimately, the post will discuss how the trajectory of this movement to affect the pay packages of some of the leading business figures may continue. The first firm that will be worth discussing is Bunzl , the mul

This short post is based upon a forthcoming article by this author that examines the viability of the latest entrant into the credit rating arena, the Analytical Credit Rating Agency (ACRA). The article, which is due to be published in the European Company Law Journal (and is available here in a pre-published version), looks at the chances of the ACRA succeeding when viewed within the parameters of perception , an aspect that underpins the credit rating sector. For this post, the focus will be upon introducing the ACRA, and then on examining the effect it may have upon the wider political issues affecting the Russian Federation. The Analytical Credit Rating Agency was established in November 2015 and comprises of 27 major Russian companies and financial institutions that serve as its shareholders. The agency, which became the first rating agency to receive accreditation from the Russian Central Bank under the new N 222-FZ Law which was designed to protect investors, has a re