Five questions answered on the Co-op's new rescue deal

The bid to plug a £1.5bn gap.

The Co-operative Bank has unveiled a new deal to fill a £1.5 bn gap in its finances. We answer five questions on the deal.

What does the deal consist of?
The deal consists of a "bail in" deal, whereby bond holders will be offered shares in the bank. It will also result in a stock market listing of the bank on the London Stock Exchange.

What does this mean essentially?

It ultimately means that the investors and the group make a joint contribution to the recapitalisation of the bank.

It also means that in the short term bond holders will lose out. However, eventually they will be able to exchange their bonds for shares gaining a minority stake in the bank, which will allow them to benefit from the eventual upside of the bank.

The bank said the number of shares and bonds offered in exchange for current holdings would be finalised in October, when its offer will be launched officially.

How many investors will actually be affected by the plan?

Seven thousand retail investors who own permanent-interest bearing shares (Pibs), which pay dividends of between 5.5% and 13% a year, will be affected by the plan.

If the bank is being listed on the stock exchange, does this mean the bank has changed its original ethos?

Chief executive Euan Sutherlandm, speaking to the BBC, said this was not the case.

"We have always been a PLC [public limited company] wholly owned by the Co-operative Group. The majority of the bank will still be owned by the Co-operative Group. There will be no change to our ethos or the way we run our bank," he told the BBC.

Is the Co-operative group also contributing to the rescue plan?

Yes. The Co-operative group will provide extra capital.

The bank also said it had also approved the plan in full with the banking industry’s new regulator the Prudential Regulation Authority.

Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.