The ‘Sword of Damocles’ Drops on RBS

For months we have been discussing the impending fine that RBS was facing from the US DoJ with regards to their behaviour in the lead-up to the Financial Crisis, and today RBS learned its fate. In this third and final brief post today, we shall look at the details of that fine and examine both the sentiment it creates, and any potential effect it may have upon RBS as it continues its attempt to drag itself from a scandal-ridden decade.

The issue of RBS being fined by the DoJ has been on the table for quite some time, with a number of elements coming in to play as RBS and investors struggled to predict the outcome. We spoke recently about how even the British government had inserted itself into the dynamic (lest we forget, the UK Government is the majority shareholder in the bank), and it seems that for all parties concerned, apart from the victims and the public of course, today’s announcement will be being toasted in the offices of the bank (and likely the Government) at the time of writing. The bank has agreed a $4.9 (£3.6) billion penalty with the DoJ, which led CEO Ross McEwan to proclaim that ‘today’s announcement is a milestone moment for the bank’ and that ‘our current shareholders will be very pleased this deal is done’. That is not surprising given that estimations beforehand were that the bank would be forced to pay anywhere up to $9 or $10 billion.

There was an instant impact, with share prices immediately rising and, as cited in The Guardian, the likelihood now being that the Bank will now be able to pass the Bank of England’s stress testing mechanisms. However, there is likely to be an even greater impact moving forward. In a previous post today we discussed the concept of ‘amnesia’ within the financial sector, and developments such as these are often the very moments that initiate that amnesia. That is not to say, of course, that the bank should be prosecuted consistently, but it is the sentiment that these moments cause which is the issue. The sentiment from the business press, and RBS themselves, have not been ‘let us put this issue behind us finally and seek to really address the underlying problems that caused such poor behaviour’, but more ‘let us put this issue behind us finally and get back to making money and providing dividends’; one may argue those two sentiments are closely related, but they are not. One has within it the conscious effort to re-develop the bank’s obviously transgressive approach, the other has the aim of returning to a ‘results at whatever cost’ attitude that led to the bank being charged almost $10 billion all told – the continuation of these sentiments is remarkable, but only when you do not pay attention to the systemic issues within the sector. It is unfortunate, but as the Bank continues to be the archetypal transgressive banking institution – its performance in relation to the GRG unit is appalling – the reality is that it is just one small component of a larger system that is designed, or has been adopted to continuously milk society; today’s announcement is a victory for RBS and the UK Government, but in truth it is a clear indication that it is ‘business as usual’.


Keywords – Banking, RBS, politics, business, DoJ, @finregmatters

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lloyds Bank and the PPI Scandal: The Premature ‘Out of the Woods’ Rhetoric

Image
Today’s very short post focuses upon the news that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has recently extended the deadline to claim compensation for mis-sold ‘Payment Protection Insurance’ (PPI). Whilst a lot of financial institutions will have to prepare to offset the extended deadline, it is Lloyds that has grabbed the business headlines by apportioning an extra £350 million to offset any further claims that may be made of it – however, this comes only a week or two after the Bank posted its best performance figures in over a decade, as was previously discussed in Financial Regulation Matters . This post will therefore argue that the rhetoric being advanced recently regarding Lloyds – rhetoric like Lloyds represents ‘ a modern day success story ’ is wide of the mark and creates a false sense of security that we simply cannot afford to believe in. The ‘ robust recovery ’ was heralded far and wide upon the publication of Lloyds Bank’s financial performance for the previous fi
Read more

The Analytical Credit Rating Agency: A New Entrant That Will Further Enhance Russia’s Isolation

Image
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
Read more

The Case of Purdue Pharma, the Sackler Family, and the Opioid Crisis

Image
In the first of two short posts today, we will look at the case of the billionaire Sackler Family and their remarkable effect upon American society. The family, who own Purdue Pharma amongst a list of other ventures, have this week seen a massive legal action taken against them by the State of New York who argue that the company is ‘ responsible for the opioid epidemic ’ sweeping through the United States. The attorney-general for New York has called the lawsuit the ‘ nation’s most extensive ’ with respect to the pharmaceutical industry and comes right on the heels of a $270 million suit that was settled in the State of Oklahoma on exactly the same grounds. Whilst the company and the billionaire family who own it did not admit guilt (settling parties rarely do, hence why they settle outside of court) it has potentially opened the trapdoors for litigation. It comes as no surprise then that the company is reportedly considering bankruptcy proceedings in the face of such an onsl
Read more