Osborne Increases Bank Levy

George Osborne has increased the levy on banks by £800M to £2.5BN.

He claims that he wants to make sure that "banks make a fair contribution to closing the deficit".

The reality is that he wants banks to increase lending.

Project Merlin, the ongoing talks between the government and banks over their behaviour and lending policies, is still dragging on. Osborne, by upping the ante over the bank levy, is showing the banks that he wants to see progress from their side in the discussions.

Read More

Bank Levy

The government has published draft legislation for its levy on bank balance sheets.

The levy (less than 0.1%) will be applied from 2012 on the global balance sheets of UK banks, and the UK operations of banks from other countries.

In theory, it will raise approximately £2.5BN per annum.

It will be interesting to see how the banks "shuffle" their worldwide assets and liabilities in the run up to the introduction of this tax, and indeed how they "reassess" the value of their assets and liabilities.

George Osborne is anticipating some "creative accounting", and is pressuring the banks to sign an anti tax avoidance pledge.

A nice idea, in theory.

However, as any first year accounting student will tell you, tax avoidance is perfectly legal (evasion is illegal). I fail to see how the pledge, if signed, can be enforced.

Read More

Clegg Plays To The Gallery

The coalition Deputy PM, Nick Clegg, has used his party's conference as an opportunity on BBC radio to play to the gallery and indulge in "bashing" banks' bonus schemes.

The Independent reports that he warned the banks that the government would not stand idly by if they paid senior staff "gratuitously offensive" bonuses. He has raised the prospect of a new levy on banks, insisting that the government reserved the right to take "serious action" if banks went ahead with "ludicrous, sky-high bonuses".

All very well as a soundbite.

However, in reality were the government to continue down the path of "punishing" the banks and trying to regulate bonuses schemes, the banks will simply "up sticks" and move their offices and staff to other less "hostile" regions. The resultant fall in tax revenues will far outstrip any revenues that a bank levy might hope to raise.

Read More

The Plans of Bankers and Men

The world's finance ministers from the G7 are meeting in Downing Street today, to discuss how best to avoid a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis.

The meeting has been given added impetus by President Obama's proposals last week to rein in the power and size of the banks.

Lord Myners, the UK's City Minister, wants banks to cover any future bailout costs and favours an insurance levy. A global bank transaction tax is also being considered.

Doubtless every effort will be made to prepare plans against possible future contingencies. However, markets will always rise/fall and economic crises will return no matter what rules and safeguards are in place.

Goldman Sachs, sensing that the political tide is currently not in their favour, have announced that they will cap the pay of their top 100 executives in London to £1M.

That of course leaves their non "top 100" executives free to be paid more than £1M.

Read More

The Pre Budget Report

As Alistair Darling steps up to deliver his "Pre Budget Report", and probably implement an unworkable "bankers' bonus tax" (see below an article from today's HMRC Is Shite), the Office of National Statistics (ONS) reports that Britain's goods trade deficit worsened unexpectedly in October from £6.9BN to £7.1BN (the largest gap since January).

This fall raises uncomfortable questions over the UK's ability to pull itself up out of recession in Q4 this year.

To add to the pressure on Darling, Moody's warned that unless he acts swiftly to reduce the debt the UK's AAA rating will be reduced.

Article from HMRC Is Shite

Good luck to HMRC in trying to levy a "bankers' bonus tax", in the event that Darling implements one in his "Pre Budget Report" today.

Disregarding the fact that taxing one specific "class" of worker is contrary to the concept of taxes being non discriminatory, the tax will be unworkable:

1 There will be a wholesale exodus of banks, other financial institutions and individuals from the UK.

2 What is the definition of a "banker"? Those who currently fall into Darling's definition of "banker" will simply have their employment status/title changed, to eg "admin clerk".

3 Pay rises will be backdated to mop up the bonus pool.

The tax will be shot to pieces, and HMRC will be forced to waste valuable time and resources trying to "pin a tail on the donkey" of the bankers.

Read More

Banks Win

One way or the other the banks were going to win the case for charging "excess" fees for overdrafts.

In the event that they had lost their appeal at the Supreme Court, they most certainly would have started charging for all bank accounts (irrespective of whether they were in credit or not).

As it is, millions of bank customers hoping to be refunded overdraft charges have been dealt a major blow by a Supreme Court judgement.

The court has overturned earlier court rulings that allowed the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the fairness of charges for unauthorised overdrafts.

Notwithstanding this result, I guarantee that banks will start to introduce account charges (one way or another).

I would make one other observation, the banks claim that their charges are for the risk and effort taken by them wrt supplying an unauthorised overdraft.

Fair enough!

However, has not the British taxpayer provided the banks with billions in the form of an unauthorised overdraft in order to bailout the banks as a result of their gross mismanagement of their businesses?

Therefore does not the British taxpayer have the right to levy charges (high ones) against the banks?

What goes around comes around!

Read More

Pre Funded Pot

Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, has told the Treasury Select Committee that banks should pre fund a compensation pot that would cover customers' losses in the event of another Northern Rock collapse.

He believes, quite rightly too, that the lack of a 100% guarantee of savers' deposits contributed to the run on the bank last year.

The current scheme is funded by the banks, which pay an annual levy. However, it does not hold enough money to compensate savers in the event that a bank collapses.

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme currently guarantees 100% of the first £35K of savings each person has at a bank.

That of course is not enough given the size of many deposits.

Mr King's suggestion is welcome. However, given the large number of people who have now deposited savings offshore with higher interest banks (eg in Iceland), this guarantee will not cover those in the event of a failure offshore.

It is very likely, given people's naivety about money, that these depositors are blissfully unaware that they are exposed to the collapse of their foreign banks.

That again could have disastrous effects on the economy.

Read More

Treasury Plans For Depositors' Savings Attacked

Alistair Darling revealed last week that the Government was planning to increase its guarantee on depositors' savings from £35K to £50K.

However, banks have rounded on the plans saying that they are unrealistic.

The plans would see taxpayers initially foot the bill for paying out deposits, within the first week of a bank going under. The cost would then be recouped by selling the failed bank's assets, and imposing a levy on other banks.

However, banks warn that the government would need to develop a costly centralised database that would store the details of every account and was updated constantly.

Additionally they have warned that transferring customers between banks generally takes three to four weeks, a failing of the banks rather than the government, as such the seven day deadline would be unworkable.

Another fault line within the plan is that it represents a change in the order of creditors when a company goes bust. As such, it would require a large amount of secondary legislation.

The best laid plans of mice and men!

Read More

Fighting Fund Set Up

Who would be a banker in today's Britain?

Gone are the days when the bank manger was a respected gentleman, in the Captain Mainwaring mould. Now the image of banks and their staff is that of a tacky used car salesman, trying to dishonestly screw the hapless customer out of every penny they own.

Another nail has been knocked into the coffin of the banks' credibility, by the launch of a £100,000 fighting fund to encourage people to launch legal challenges against what they say are illegal bank charges.

The money has been pledged by MoneySavingExpert.com and the Consumer Action Group, as well as private individuals.

The theory being that the funds will be used for claims that could set a legal precedent, in the fight against excess overdraft charges. The move comes after two county courts ruled against two customers of Lloyds TSB.

In the first, a district judge at Birmingham County Court dismissed a claim Kevin Berwick brought against Lloyds TSB on the grounds that charges were a legitimate part of the current account service and found that he had failed to lodge sufficient evidence.

The second ruling, made against a claim for £3,000 brought by Julian Rudd, came on 11 May. A judge at Lancaster County Court also found Mr Rudd, a builder, had failed to state an adequate claim.

Claims from customers have risen by 40%, according to the Financial Ombudsman. Hardly surprising, given the amount of media coverage now given to the issue of bank charges.

Which? claims that the penalty charges earn British banks £4.75BN a year.

The fund will be held in a trust by the Govan Law Centre, and will be activated when the right case presented itself.

Marc Gander, the co-founder of the Consumer Action Group, said:

"Those who do go to court usually win by default. Yet for the rare few where the bank does put up a defence, the big lesson to learn is that even where [the banks] don't show up in court, it is still worth doing proper preparation."

We shall see.

It should be remembered, as I have stated many times before, that banks are not charities. In the event that penalty charges are reduced, or capped, they will find other ways to levy charges on their customers. The most likely avenue being an end to free banking.

What will the campaigners say to that?

Read More

5,000 Complaints A Day

The financial ombudsman is receiving up to 5,000 complaints a day from angry bank customers, in respect of high penalty charges.

It seems that, as the numbers of complaints are rocketing, there is something of a "customer revolt" over bank charges.

A year ago the Ombudsman received about 100 calls a day from the public over bank charges.

The FOS said the number of complaints it is receiving is unprecedented.

A spokesman said:

"It has even eclipsed mortgage endowment complaints. We usually get 200 to 250 of them a day, so it has well surpassed that."

Martin Lewis, financial pundit, said:

"The campaign to reclaim has been given huge impetus this week by the angry response of UK consumers to the enormous profits being reported day after day by Britain's banks, who are taking money unfairly from people's accounts.

This week it hit tipping point, as a whole new band of Britons grit their teeth to get their money back."

The banks are also waiting for the results of an investigation by the OFT on the issue of charges.

Earlier this week Barclays posted £7BN in profits, and analysts predict the "big five" alone will report more than £38BN in profits from last year.

Whilst the "consumer revolt" gathers momentum, those who manage to reclaim their charges should remember that banks are not charities. In the event that the banks are blocked from making money by levying charges for unauthorised overdrafts etc, the banks will find other methods of making money, such as abolishing free banking.

Read More