Significant implications of the Independent Commission on Banking's report for your job (updated)
Today is the day that the Independent Commission on Banking issues its interim report on the recommended future structure of British-based banks. Unfortunately, its website has crashed, so if you want to read the long report in full, you may wish to do so here.
If you don't want to read the report in full, but you do want to know what the implications might be for your career in the City of London, you have no need to go anywhere at all. You may simply read the six points below.
1) If you work for a UK-based universal bank, prepare to be paid less
As has been widely mentioned, the report comes out in favour of ring-fencing UK banks' retail operations.
This would work as follows:
It would require banks to maintain a minimum level of capital within their UK retail operations. Unlike with full separation, it could be designed so that any capital above this level could be transferred internally to wholesale/investment banking. In a situation where the retail banking operations were suffering losses but the wholesale/investment banking operations were generating excess capital, this capital could still be used to support the retail operations, and vice versa. However, if the whole bank did not have sufficient capital, the ring-fence would prevent the wholesale/investment banking operations from depleting the resources of the retail banking operations below a minimum safeguard level.
As a useful graph in the report illustrates, this will have the effect of reducing the rating given to the ring fenced investment bank and increasing its cost of capital. As the cost of capital at the investment bank increases, some activities will become unprofitable and pay will probably fall.
Source: ICB Interim Report
2) If you do work for a UK-based systemically important bank, in a capital intensive area, your job may be at risk
Contrary to what we said originally, banks won't derive any advantages from moving capital intensive businesses overseas (an additional 3% equity capital surcharge on risk weighted assets, taking the total to 10% - above the 7% required under Basel III, applies only to retail banking businesses).
However, as illustrated above the ring fencing of retail banking will mean the cost of capital for investment banking businesses increases, and it will render some businesses unviable. Click here for which business areas are likely to suffer.
3) Prop trading will still be totally fine, assuming banks can afford it
The good news is that the Commission won't be imposing a UK version of the Volcker Rule.
The bad news is that it thinks this won't be necessary: in the light of increased capital requirements at systemically important banks, prop trading will be too costly in terms of capital anyway.
4) The Commission wouldn't really care if banks and bankers did move overseas
The report also makes the point that it wouldn't be a huge deal if banks and bankers did leave London.
This is because:
a) There would be upsides to bankers leaving the UK - they'd pay less taxes, but they'd also consume less in the way of public services.
b) Long term, fewer banks might mean more engineers. Maybe this would be a good thing?
c) If UK banks moved overseas they'd probably just move their headquarters there. Each banks HQ only employs 1,000-3,000 people, or only 2% of its total staff. Equally, the commission thinks there wouldn't be much corporation tax lost to the UK because corporation tax is already levied only on profits arising from activities in the UK - not on all the overseas activities of banks headquartered here.
5) If you work at RBS Global Banking and Markets, you will remain a civil servant for the foreseeable future
Not long ago, there was a suggestion that the government's stake in RBS might be sold ahead of the next election to help reduce the budget deficit.
Today's report suggests that won't happen after all. Any sale of the UK government's 83% stake in RBS is being stalled until it's a bit clearer precisely what's going on.
