If US banks are coining it in now, what's going to happen when the economy really recovers?

The first results come in.

If you look hard enough, you can just about find evidence of the US economy moving in the right direction.

Figures released yesterday highlighted that US banks re-possessed 17 per cent fewer homes in 2012 than in 2011. Meantime, a report from the US Commerce Department showed that housing stats rose by 12.1 per cent in December year-on-year to hit their highest monthly level since June 2008.

The slow rebound in US house prices provides further evidence of possible green shoots of recovery. The huge tide of negative equity has been a disaster for the US economy. Almost 11m US homes, or about 22 per cent of all residential properties with a mortgage were in negative equity at the end of the third quarter. The recent slight rise in US house prices meant that around 100,000 mortgage customers slipped back into positive equity in the quarter running up to Christmas with scope for a further 1.8m US homeowners estimated to have some equity in their homes during 2012.

From the evidence of the first banks to post annual results as the reporting season kicked off this week, US banks are already coining it in.

The largest US bank, JPMorgan Chase reported its highest ever annual profit after tax, $21.3bn, up 12 per cent for the year.

The country’s fourth-largest lender, Wells Fargo also hit a record high net profit: $18.9bn, up 19 per cent from 2011.

Hot on its heels, the fourth-largest lender, US Bank, posted a record full year profit of $5.6bn, up 16 per cent year-on-year.

Stand by, perhaps in a year or two, for commentators and politicians to express moral indignation at excessive bank profits if and when the US economy really does start to recover.

US unemployment remains stubbornly high at almost 8 per cent, but just a 1 per cent fall will feed through into a further sharp rise in US bank profits. At JPMorgan, 2012 earnings would have been even higher but for a $6bn trading loss at the bank last year.

Chase "punished" CEO Jamie Dimon by slashing his 2012 pay package to a mere $11.5m from $23.1m the previous year. He should however be able to jog along on his reduced pay package. At the last count, he owned bank shares worth $263m.

Sky's the limit. Photograph: Getty Images

Douglas Blakey is the editor of Retail Banker International

Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.