Hester's successor: the runners and riders emerge

With seven figure salary, job hardly a "thankless task".

A successful sell off the State’s shareholding in Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) seems further away than ever. The RBS share price continues to tank. RBS shares kicked off the year at around 366p each; today they are down to 288p, down 23 per cent for the year to date, the worst performing UK banking share. Take a bow Mr. Osborne.

Since his latest RBS comments at the Mansion House speech on 19 June, the share price has fallen by more than 30p. The kindest interpretation of the Chancellor’s intervention in the past 10 days relating to the future of RBS is that he has created fresh political confusion. Encouraging the RBS board to dispense with Stephen Hester prematurely did little in the short term for the RBS share price.

Just to really put the boot in, Osborne then performed a U-turn of stunning proportions by saying that he would examine a good bank/bad bank split at RBS. This proposal was one that Osborne had argued against consistently despite strong arguments in its favour from such distinguished advocates as Mervyn King and Lord (Nigel) Lawson. If such an argument had merits – and it had three year ago – that time has passed.

A period of silence from Mr. Osborne concerning RBS would be welcome for the foreseeable. Meantime, keep a close eye on possible obfuscation relating to the share price that the government requires to obtain to break even on its RBS share acquisition. The UK government currently holds 81.14 per cent of shares in RBS, having injected £45.5bn. The average government buy-in price was 502.26p.

According to RBS, the break-even price has dropped to 440.6p, taking into account fees that RBS has paid to the government. This does not however take inflation into account. A more accurate breakeven figure would be somewhere about 470p but the RBS website continues to promote the notion of 440p as the magic figure.

One thing that the Chancellor could do by way of damage limitation would be to encourage an acceleration of the process to appoint Stephen Hester’s successor. The RBS board does not have to look too far for the standout candidate. The bank has reportedly engaged the doyen of City headhunters, Anna Mann, co-founder of blue-chip consultancy MWM, to recruit Hester’s replacement. MWM certainly has form: it has recruited 16 of the current CEOs of the present FTSE 100. Ignore the guff in the press about the CEO of RBS being a thankless task.

The job carries a seven figure salary, generous bonuses and guaranteed recognition in a future Honours List for successful execution. The latest odds, courtesy of Ladbrokes, suggest that Chris Sullivan, RBS chief executive of corporate banking, is the favourite at 9/4. Nathan Bostock, RBS’ head of restructuring and risk and the early front-runner – Ladbrokes quoted him as short as 1/2 last week – has drifted like a barge out to 3/1. National Australia Bank Group CEO Cameron Clyne has attracted support and has been backed into 4-1 from an initial show of 6-1. As Investec analyst Ian Gordon argues today in a note to clients, Ross McEwan, CEO, UK Retail at RBS is a stand-out choice. This time last week, his odds were a generous 20-1. This morning, his odds have tumbled to 8-1.

Last Wednesday, just ahead of George Osborne’s Mansion House speech, I asked a group of senior bankers attending a meeting of The Digital Banking Club I was chairing, to name what they reckoned was the world’s leading retail bank. There was strong support for Royal Bank of Canada – a view with which I concurred by the by. Interestingly, the CEO of Royal Bank of Canada, Gordon Nixon, is quoted at 16/1 to succeed Hester.

But the retail bank currently most admired in my straw poll last week was Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Much of the credit for CBA’s current success can be attributed to the work of Ross McEwan. McEwan joined RBS in August last year from CBA where he was Group Executive for Retail Banking Services for 5 years.

If Osborne has to interfere again in the running of RBS – on balance it would be better if he did not – he could do worse than give a nudge to the RBS chairman and to his expensively engaged headhunter – to view McEwan as a worthy successor to Hester.

Hester ousted: who's next? Photograph: Getty Images

Douglas Blakey is the editor of Retail Banker International

Getty.
Show Hide image

Hannan Fodder: This week, Daniel Hannan gets his excuses in early

I didn't do it. 

Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy...

When I started this column, there were some nay-sayers talking Britain down by doubting that I was seriously going to write about Daniel Hannan every week. Surely no one could be that obsessed with the activities of one obscure MEP? And surely no politician could say enough ludicrous things to be worthy of such an obsession?

They were wrong, on both counts. Daniel and I are as one on this: Leave and Remain, working hand in glove to deliver on our shared national mission. There’s a lesson there for my fellow Remoaners, I’m sure.

Anyway. It’s week three, and just as I was worrying what I might write this week, Dan has ridden to the rescue by writing not one but two columns making the same argument – using, indeed, many of the exact same phrases (“not a club, but a protection racket”). Like all the most effective political campaigns, Dan has a message of the week.

First up, on Monday, there was this headline, in the conservative American journal, the Washington Examiner:

“Why Brexit should work out for everyone”

And yesterday, there was his column on Conservative Home:

“We will get a good deal – because rational self-interest will overcome the Eurocrats’ fury”

The message of the two columns is straightforward: cooler heads will prevail. Britain wants an amicable separation. The EU needs Britain’s military strength and budget contributions, and both sides want to keep the single market intact.

The Con Home piece makes the further argument that it’s only the Eurocrats who want to be hardline about this. National governments – who have to answer to actual electorates – will be more willing to negotiate.

And so, for all the bluster now, Theresa May and Donald Tusk will be skipping through a meadow, arm in arm, before the year is out.

Before we go any further, I have a confession: I found myself nodding along with some of this. Yes, of course it’s in nobody’s interests to create unnecessary enmity between Britain and the continent. Of course no one will want to crash the economy. Of course.

I’ve been told by friends on the centre-right that Hannan has a compelling, faintly hypnotic quality when he speaks and, in retrospect, this brief moment of finding myself half-agreeing with him scares the living shit out of me. So from this point on, I’d like everyone to keep an eye on me in case I start going weird, and to give me a sharp whack round the back of the head if you ever catch me starting a tweet with the word, “Friends-”.

Anyway. Shortly after reading things, reality began to dawn for me in a way it apparently hasn’t for Daniel Hannan, and I began cataloguing the ways in which his argument is stupid.

Problem number one: Remarkably for a man who’s been in the European Parliament for nearly two decades, he’s misunderstood the EU. He notes that “deeper integration can be more like a religious dogma than a political creed”, but entirely misses the reason for this. For many Europeans, especially those from countries which didn’t have as much fun in the Second World War as Britain did, the EU, for all its myriad flaws, is something to which they feel an emotional attachment: not their country, but not something entirely separate from it either.

Consequently, it’s neither a club, nor a “protection racket”: it’s more akin to a family. A rational and sensible Brexit will be difficult for the exact same reasons that so few divorcing couples rationally agree not to bother wasting money on lawyers: because the very act of leaving feels like a betrayal.

Or, to put it more concisely, courtesy of Buzzfeed’s Marie Le Conte:

Problem number two: even if everyone was to negotiate purely in terms of rational interest, our interests are not the same. The over-riding goal of German policy for decades has been to hold the EU together, even if that creates other problems. (Exhibit A: Greece.) So there’s at least a chance that the German leadership will genuinely see deterring more departures as more important than mutual prosperity or a good relationship with Britain.

And France, whose presidential candidates are lining up to give Britain a kicking, is mysteriously not mentioned anywhere in either of Daniel’s columns, presumably because doing so would undermine his argument.

So – the list of priorities Hannan describes may look rational from a British perspective. Unfortunately, though, the people on the other side of the negotiating table won’t have a British perspective.

Problem number three is this line from the Con Home piece:

“Might it truly be more interested in deterring states from leaving than in promoting the welfare of its peoples? If so, there surely can be no further doubt that we were right to opt out.”

If there any rhetorical technique more skin-crawlingly horrible, than, “Your response to my behaviour justifies my behaviour”?

I could go on, about how there’s no reason to think that Daniel’s relatively gentle vision of Brexit is shared by Nigel Farage, UKIP, or a significant number of those who voted Leave. Or about the polls which show that, far from the EU’s response to the referendum pushing more European nations towards the door, support for the union has actually spiked since the referendum – that Britain has become not a beacon of hope but a cautionary tale.

But I’m running out of words, and there’ll be other chances to explore such things. So instead I’m going to end on this:

Hannan’s argument – that only an irrational Europe would not deliver a good Brexit – is remarkably, parodically self-serving. It allows him to believe that, if Brexit goes horribly wrong, well, it must all be the fault of those inflexible Eurocrats, mustn’t it? It can’t possibly be because Brexit was a bad idea in the first place, or because liberal Leavers used nasty, populist ones to achieve their goals.

Read today, there are elements of Hannan’s columns that are compelling, even persuasive. From the perspective of 2020, I fear, they might simply read like one long explanation of why nothing that has happened since will have been his fault.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @JonnElledge.