Banks 'guilty of serious failings' in small-business sales

 

Just when Britain's banks would have loved some positive publicity, the City watchdog - the Financial Services Authority - has said they were guilty of serious failings in the way they sold complicated products to small businesses that were supposed to protect those businesses from sharp rises in interest rates.

In practice, some of these swaps or interest-rate hedging products increased the borrowing costs of struggling companies or prevented them from taking advantage of the sharp fall in interest rates since 2008.

The FSA has found that 28,000 of these products were sold to small businesses since 2001. It said it found instances where the banks failed to explain the risks the customers were taking on, or did not disclose the big costs of cancelling in a proper way, or forced customers into naked speculation on the direction of interest rates.

Banks were motivated in these sales, said the FSA, by "rewards and incentives" for individual bankers, rather than the interests of clients.

Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds and RBS have all agreed to stop selling the most complex products, called structured collars, to retail clients, and to provide redress to those that bought the most complex products. The FSA will appoint independent reviewers at each bank to verify that the banks are providing restitution in an expeditious way.

But there was a little bit of respite in what has become almost the national sport of bashing Bob Diamond, the chief executive of Barclays.

Martin Wheatley, managing director of the FSA's Conduct Business Unit, said: "I am particularly pleased that the CEOs, Bob Diamond, Brian Robertson, Antonio Horta-Osorio and Chris Sullivan have provided a personal assurance that they will have responsibility for oversight of this [restitution] work and will ensure that complainants are treated fairly."

The devil will of course be in the detail, and one outstanding question is how ruthless the banks will be in restricting redress to those small businesses that are so small that they are the equivalent of retail customers in the FSA's rules.

You may recall that in the spring I highlighted the plight of Adcocks, a small electricals retailer in Norfolk, brought to the brink of collapse after it bought one of the notorious structured collars from Barclays.

It had one employee too many to be considered a retail customer, so it is not clear whether in future Barclays would be banned from selling this hedging product to the likes of Adcocks or whether the owner Paul Adcock will be able to escape from the financially crippling contract.

 
Robert Peston Article written by Robert Peston Robert Peston Economics editor

UK living too high on the hog (again)

How worried should we be by the UK's record current account deficit, our inability to pay our way in the world?

Read full article

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    -12

    Comment number 36.

    I have little sympathy for those who bought these products. I was an investment banker for 19 years and I understand swaps, caps, collars et al. I wouldn't take one or recommend one to any client except in the most particular circumstances. And I don't use them in my own business. Small businessmen who took these products made poor decisions and should live with the consequences, Caveat Emptor

  • rate this
    -11

    Comment number 18.

    17 dds-qd
    Don't make this political. The last lot were at least equally as bad if not worse. This stuff has been going on for at least a decade. Taxing the moneylenders has always been the reward for governments. Govts have had a lot of money out of the banks. What are they going to do without that income stream if it dries up?

  • rate this
    -7

    Comment number 79.

    You are a business editor but at least three quarters of your blogs are about banks. These either point out they need to be bailed out, have commited some sort of fraud, or have management paying themselves obscene amounts of money.

    Can you mention the productive parts of the economy a bit more often ?

  • rate this
    -6

    Comment number 41.

    Look, am I missing something here? I don't doubt the Banks were more interested in their profits than helping the businesses they sold these collars to but why isn't this simply a case of Buyer Beware? Small business owners are self employed, are advised by their accountants and have many tax benefits as as result etc If interest rates had gone up not down would they be raising this Parliament?

  • rate this
    -5

    Comment number 19.

    If someone is who is able to run a small business (and that can have up to 50 employees) then they should be sufficiently financially literate to know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. You take out the swap to protect the downside but do so by giving up the upside. You can't have it both way, that's just naive.

 

Comments 5 of 393

 

Features

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.