Sants: Run on Rock could have been prevented


Hector Sants said the personal responsibilities of the Bank of England governor will become excessive.

Hector Sants has something to get off his chest, which has been bugging him for years.

The outgoing chief executive of the Financial Services Authority believes the run on Northern Rock, which in a sense branded the UK as the first major economy to be seriously damaged by the banking crisis, could have been avoided, if his own advice had been followed.

In an interview with me, Sants, who is leaving the City watchdog at the end of June after five years as chief executive and eight years in total, made a number of other striking disclosures:

  1. He believes the personal responsibilities of the governor of the Bank of England will become excessive when the Bank acquires formal responsibility to regulate and supervise banks and big financial institutions next year;
  2. He says that if the eurozone goes for a banking union, with a single supervisor of eurozone banks and a common scheme for protecting deposits, the current system whereby regulations for UK banks are set by the EU will become "unworkable" for Britain - because the British government would no longer have any influence on the formulation of the rules that govern our banks;
  3. He says it would probably have been better to fully nationalise Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds in the autumn of 2008 rather than keeping them as semi-independent businesses with shares listed on the stock market;
  4. He implies that UK banks may not have quite enough capital to deal with all potential shocks that the eurozone crisis may throw at them.

So why does Sants think the run on the Rock could and should have been prevented? Well he said that just before the Rock received its emergency bailout from the Bank of England - which as it happens I disclosed on the evening of 13 September 2007 - and before the Rock's depositors queued around the block to remove their cash from the bank, he recommended that Lloyds TSB should be granted the loan it was requesting from the Bank of England to facilitate a takeover of the Rock.

Sants said: "I think things would have been different if the government and Bank [of England] had taken my recommendation that they should provide liquidity support to Lloyds to purchase Northern Rock. I think that would have made a difference, it would have avoided the queues and it would have changed the general climate in relation to the old building society sector that had moved into the banking sector. So at that early stage if we had avoided the Northern Rock problem, which we could have done through that action, then I think the tone and people's view of the UK banking sector would have been different."

On the weekend of 8-9 September, there was a conference call of the so-called Tripartite of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was Alastair Darling at the time, the then chairman of the FSA, Sir Callum McCarthy, and Sir Mervyn King, who is still governor of the Bank of England. Mr Sants, who did not normally participate in these meetings, was also in the telephonic meeting.

Sants recommended that Lloyds should be given the guarantee it wanted that in the event that lenders to the Rock withdrew their funds in the succeeding months - which was a serious risk in the global credit crunch of the time - Lloyds would be able to fill the gap with loans from the Bank of England. But Sir Mervyn King said the Bank of England would not provide the money. And, I am told, the chancellor said nothing.

The rest is inglorious British banking history: Lloyds dropped the takeover; and Northern Rock was set on its path to nationalisation just a few months later.

As it happens, in November 2007, I asked Sir Mervyn why he opposed giving the loan to Lloyds (at the time I did not know he was going against the FSA's advice). He said Lloyds was asking for a potential loan of up to £30bn for a commercial deal and that was not something a central bank could provide - and he also advised the chancellor not to provide what would have been a massive overdraft facility for Lloyds.

Hector Sants believes Sir Mervyn was wrong to be so dogmatic about what central banks can and cannot do. Which may also help to explain another of his striking views, namely that when the Bank of England receives its additional powers to regulate and supervise banks and large financial institutions, the personal responsibilities of the governor of the Bank of England will be excessive.

Sants said: "We could be concerned that the operational task given to the governor as an individual, of course that will be a new governor by the time the reforms come into place, is just too great... I'm comfortable with the powers given to the institution, but I would have a greater spread with how those powers are divided up."

This will be music to the ears of MPs on the Treasury Select Committee, under its chairman Andrew Tyrie, who have also become concerned at the growing power of the governor.

As to how a banking union in the eurozone would affect the UK, Sants said: "It seems difficult to imagine that the current UK approach can work in the scenario [of a banking union]... We support a single European rulebook... But we supervise locally... Of course that rulebook is created by one country one vote, so if you move to an environment where the majority of the countries were inside the eurozone and so have a different agenda in respect to the rulebook, that would seem to become an unworkable model.

"[We would be] dependent on a rulebook that effectively we would have lost all control over. At the moment we only have partial control over that rulebook, but potentially we would have lost all control over it. So I think we are at a tipping point whereby the current approach to eurozone regulation for a non-eurozone country could well be unworkable."

I also asked Sants whether in retrospect the government rescued HBOS, Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland in the right way in the autumn of 2008, when it took huge stakes in Lloyds (which bought HBOS) and RBS, but left them as stock market businesses. Would complete formal nationalisation, 100% ownership by the state, have been better? This is what he said:

"Broadly speaking we did put in the right amount of capital relative to the problems that were likely to be faced domestically… I think the severity of the euro crisis, because it's gone on a lot longer than people expected, has been greater, so in terms of ensuring the banks were properly capitalised against the euro crisis you could argue we could have put in a little bit more... But we got it about right relative to the then problem."

Which rather implies that British banks could need a bit more capital, to absorb losses, given the severity of the eurozone crisis.

But he added: "I do think there's an argument that says it would have been easier to restructure… if the banks did not have minority shareholdings in the private sector i.e. if the government controlled them all, and then there was an argument that says they could have restructured them more radically... But the counterbalance is that the private sector is better in managing that process so it's a finely balanced argument. But I tend to the view that we would have been better off with more direct control."

Robert Peston Article written by Robert Peston Robert Peston Economics editor

End of QE is whimper not bang

As the Fed Reserve ends quantitative easing, those who prophesied that these trillions of dollars of debt purchases would spark uncontrollable inflation have been proved wrong. But QE could still prove toxic.

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 131.

    Another fat cat moaning on only after he has had his money from the job and is now leaving for pastures new,Northern Rock was a accident waiting to happen because it's rapid expansion was allowed to go unchecked by the banking regulators,at least it set in motion the rules we have now so that our banks are alot safer.

  • rate this

    Comment number 130.

    @111 Zipperty
    I think you do your fellows down! Newcastle region had enjoyed a boom & become quite cosmopolitan.

    When lass next door says she heard branch lending manager say that area lending manager was worried when told by his mortgage broker mate that he had had his best month ever unloading loads of 100%+ mortgages to BTLs & first time buyers & there might be problems like the US ...

  • rate this

    Comment number 129.

    Basically he's stating that he should have said all thus a long time ago, however I imagine he'd have been looking out for his own vested interests - which is what he accuses everyone else of being.

    So for the sake of his own financial position, he kept schtum, so it's a case of the pot calling the kettle. Hardly a revelation. Pity he didn't have more backbone and character.

  • rate this

    Comment number 128.

    This confirms the suspicion that demanding that the Bank of England does a proper job is just to much for it.

    It may well be an (unintended) admission that the days of sterling are numbered.

  • rate this

    Comment number 127.

    This interview comes from someone on whose career the sun appears to be sinking fast. What an extraordinary outburst.

  • rate this

    Comment number 126.

    Hindsight's a wonderful thing Mr Sants eh ! what exactly is the point of financial regulators if not to assess and reduce the risks of bank trading practices. Clearly i've missed a trick and should've gone into finance as a youngster, where the only qualififcations are ignorance, stupidity and stating the obvious.

  • rate this

    Comment number 125.

    What I would like to know is why Mr. Sants as FSA CEO and Mervyn King did not do something to curtail the clearly reckless business model pursued by the directors of Northern Rock, where interbank lending was used to finance up to 125 percent mortgages, a very long time prior to the run on the Rock. Were they asleep or what?

  • rate this

    Comment number 124.

    The run on Northern Rock, played into the hands of financiers.
    When they packaged up toxic debt and sold it round the world, they understood what could happen.
    You just have to look at who profited.

  • rate this

    Comment number 123.

    Yet again the myth of low interest rates has been quoted. Once again then... The ONLY low interest rates are the BoE base lending rate and, the rate YOU get for your savings. All the rest are the same or higher than before the crash i.e. 8 to 50 times the BoE base ending rate. Nationalise them all now before it's too late, they cannot be controlled without it, the trough is nearly empty.

  • rate this

    Comment number 122.

    102 We don't agree on much - but - dead on. Every single word

  • rate this

    Comment number 121.

    We should not forget that Mr Sants was at the regulator for 8 years and responsible for the supervision and regulation of the Rock and the banking system. Its good of him to have suggested a solution to a problem that should have been spotted years in advance. No wonder that Mervin King didn’t listen to him!

  • rate this

    Comment number 120.

    "Hector Sants said the personal responsibilities of the Bank of England governor will become excessive."

    Presumably, based on his record, he doesn't think any public official should have any responsibilities concerning the economy because "the private sector is better in managing that process".

    Looking at his picture, you can almost see the strings.

  • rate this

    Comment number 119.

    The FSA was a bad joke under Mr Sants and we should count our blessings that he did not get the top job at the Bank of England he sought. The FSA hturned out to be a bunch of yes men set up under Labour and now dismantled under the Condems. The FSA managed to spectacually fail the public and Mr Sants has a lot to answer for that dismal performance. As for Mr Sants ... once a banker always a banker

  • rate this

    Comment number 118.

    Another future babbler of a failed organisation seeks to mitigate his part in the biggest financial cock up of the modern era. No doubt his financial pain will not be terminal as it has been to some. As for Mervyn King was his refusal to at least listen to Sants part of his plan to extend his power base at the expense of the FSA? Unlike bookmakers these people continue to gamble with others money.

  • rate this

    Comment number 117.

    Anyone can be a genius if they are armed with hindsight!!

  • rate this

    Comment number 116.

    And why saving NR would have been good thing?
    I would say NR going bust was the right way, too bad RBS and HBOS didn't follow.
    THAT would have led to a different world today, perhaps avoiding the EZ crisis even.
    But maybe this is exactly what they wanted...

    And BTW, why would be the head of FSA advocating for Lloyds? Did he then press on ("told you so") for HBOS take-over?

  • rate this

    Comment number 115.

    112. JCisJD
    Re nationalisation/privatisation

    Some have long argued that allowing FRB, lets bank's profit from an increase in the money supply, which in turn leads to less purchasing power/inflation which is another form of tax.

    I have always argued you don't need to nationalise the banks just the money supply. Let banks operate the way most people think they do now, lend out existing money.

  • rate this

    Comment number 114.

    2.He says that if the eurozone goes for a banking union ... the EU will become "unworkable" for Britain - because the British government would no longer have any influence on the formulation of the rules that govern our banks
    Sants is largely wrong again - as Britian's future depends on its govt's ability to manage the 'UK fiscal island' in terms of GBP interest & exchange rates, capital etc

  • rate this

    Comment number 113.


    Substitute bonus for football, wine for beer, coke for fags and a NE saver becomes a SE banker?

    No, Geordies are much better than that.

  • rate this

    Comment number 112.

    OK I am coining a new phrase NATIONAL PRIVATIZATION

    Its where the taxpayer & customer, being 1 in same gets fleeced TWICE OVER, whist having no rights of accountability

    Example buying a rail ticket or BT broadband BOTH part funded by the taxpayer

    As for the banks well as TAXPAYERS we now carry THEIR risk but R paying for it through high inflation & as buyers & low interest rates as savers


Page 1 of 7



  • Man's hands putting ring on woman's fingerName changer

    Why do wives take a man's name after marriage?

  • Mobil canopies on the A6 at Red Hill, LeicestershireEnglish heritage

    Zebra crossings to bus stations: unusual listed buildings

  • Man with typewriterLove to Patrick

    The official whose over-familiar letters infuriated his boss

  • GoFig india violenceGo Figure

    The week in numbers with our Go Figure images

  • Arlene Phillips Top 10 tips

    How to be a successful choreographer

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.