UK banks "still need strengthening"


The Bank of England's Financial Policy Committee says that the UK's big banks do not have enough capital "to ensure resilience in the face of the prospective risks".

So it is advising them to raise external capital as protection against possible future losses "as early as feasible".

In the meantime, this new body - which will soon have statutory powers to enforce its will - is urging the banks to conserve cash, by limiting dividend payments, purchases (or buybacks) of their own shares and cash bonuses.

The reason the Bank of England wants banks to reinforce their protection against shocks is because it fears the eurozone crisis has only been temporarily abated by the trillion euros of emergency three-year loans provided to European banks by the European Central Bank.

The Bank of England says that "questions remained about the indebtedness and competitiveness of some European countries".

Dangerous bubbles

It warned banks with large exposures to the likes of Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland - where risks of "persistent low growth and potential credit defaults remained high" - to be "particularly alert to the need to build capital".

Barclays has the biggest retail banking exposure to Spain and Italy of the UK's banks. So there is likely to be to-ing and fro-ing between Barclays and its regulators about whether it has sufficient capital as a protection against what might go wrong in those economies.

We also learned a bit more today about the formal powers the Bank of England would like Parliament to endow it with to prevent dangerous bubbles being pumped up in the financial system.

It wants the ability to instruct the two new regulatory bodies being created out of the soon-to-be-dismantled Financial Services Authority - the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority - to do three things:

  1. impose higher across-the-board capital requirements in boom years (what's known as a counter-cyclical buffer);
  2. set specific targeted higher capital requirements for sectors that are overheating (such as property lending, for example); and
  3. reduce the ceiling on the amount of gross lending a bank can make relative to their capital when the risks in the system as a whole are becoming excessive (a cap on the leverage ratio).

Strikingly the Bank of England also sees the case for having an additional power to impose ceilings on the amount any lender can provide as a mortgage relative to the earnings of the borrower or the value of the relevant property. It thinks that as and when there's a dangerous house market boom, it should probably be able to prohibit 100% mortgages or homeloans greater than two or three times an individual's annual salary.

However it doesn't feel that the general public (you and me) is quite yet ready for such interventionism by an unelected body like the Bank of England. So it wants to see a proper debate before it acquires the power to restrict what kind of loans we can take out when buying a house.

The Bank of England is worried that its reputation would not be enhanced if it was seen as the killjoy restricting every British person's fundamental freedom to borrow more than he or she can afford.

Robert Peston Article written by Robert Peston Robert Peston Economics editor

Richer at last?

How significant is today's confirmation that earnings are at last rising faster than inflation?

Read full article

More on This Story

More from Robert


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 10.

    Pass a cap around the boardroom.

  • rate this

    Comment number 9.

    Are you telling me that the Bank of England does not think the general public would like a cap on mortage lending under certain conditions?

    I think the public would understand and appreciate something that once happened anyway.

    I do feel there is a lot of back to the future going on which suggests that regulators and govenrment over the years were seriously out of touch.

  • rate this

    Comment number 8.

    Why on earth does everybody dance around banks either throwing money at them or saying they are worried about how healthy they are. They are a cartel and have an effective monopoly. They will either skim money off customers or scab it of the taxpayers. Its the customers and taxpayer we should worry about

  • rate this

    Comment number 7.

    The Problems that may be caused by the Euro could be nothing compared to what will happen when the problems in the Middle East result in a huge reduction in production of Oil by October at the latest.

    The Chancellor knows it is coming which is why he delivered such a no hope budjet. He Knows he can blame the "Oil Crisis of 2012"

  • rate this

    Comment number 6.

    Jul 2007 I was given co-responsibility to a 100% interest-only mortgage ... low interest rates are the only reason my housemate and I haven't defaulted (we joke, fearfully, that by overpaying we probably own a whole brick by now).
    Banks don't do responsible and if they don't people won't either.

  • rate this

    Comment number 5.

    In 1971, I got pilloried for presenting a dissertation stating that the banks were better controlled by use of the multiplier (cap on lending) rather than manipulating Bank Rate......o tempora, o mores....

  • rate this

    Comment number 4.

    Surely there's a provision for a new type of ultra low-risk savings bank that guarantees to match savings with loans and is backed by the government? Of course it's not sexy enough for real bankers and it's probably illegal under EU laws. Bring back the old building societies.........*sighs*

  • rate this

    Comment number 3.

    Its not a case of if but when the Euro zone implodes. The real situation in Spain is worse than the official line, ditto Portugal and Ireland. Greece will need more cash or will fully default. Italy - borderline but likely to suffer higher rates because of the others. Do not under estimate how bad things are in Spain!!

  • rate this

    Comment number 2.

    The last 4 years were spent injecting liquidity into banks that were insolvent, accepting mark-to-unicorn accounting rather than demanding honest accounts, artificially sustaining asset bubbles with ultra-low interest rates to keep rates of bad debt low, giving them subsidies

    With the free market thus suppressed, banks did not do the painfull restructuring needed for survival without BoE support

  • rate this

    Comment number 1.

    Surely preventing the financially unsophisticated from being exploited is exactly what they should be doing.
    Unfortunately if banks are reckless enough to offer the type of load that caused the problem, people will jump at the chance. It is up to the BoE and other bodies to keep the banks in line for the greater good.


Page 8 of 8



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.