Who pushed Hester?


Here is why RBS's board negotiated the departure of Stephen Hester.

A month ago, the chairman of UK Financial Investments, Robin Budenberg, told the chairman of RBS, Sir Philip Hampton, that the Treasury wanted to begin the privatisation of the bank at the end of 2014.

UKFI manages the government's 81% controlling stake in RBS, so Sir Philip is in no position to ignore what it says.

Mr Budenberg added that this timetable implied that the time had come for Mr Hester to stand down as chief executive of RBS.


Well by the end of 2014, Mr Hester would have been RBS's boss for six years.

Which means that no investor would then believe he would stay much longer.

Mr Budenberg, a former investment banker, told Sir Philip that it would be much harder to privatise RBS - to sell shares in the bank - if there was widespread speculation at the time that the chief executive was poised to quit.

There would be too much uncertainty about the future direction of the bank.


Far better therefore for Mr Hester to depart by the end of 2013, allowing a successor nine months or so to run the bank and develop a strategy, prior to the government beginning to offload its stake.

Sir Philip and RBS's board accepted UKFI's argument, which sealed Mr Hester's fate.

Oh, and there is another thing.

It is an open secret in the City that Mr Hester and the chancellor don't get on.

That had two consequences.

First, it was made clear to Sir Philip that the chancellor was keen for Mr Hester to be replaced.

Second, the RBS board was not very resistant to the idea of Mr Hester going, because the directors felt it wasn't optimal that its chief executive should be on difficult terms with any chancellor of the Exchequer, let alone one who is - in effect - their biggest shareholder.

Update 1835:

The Treasury insists that there is no formal timetable for privatisation and says it never told Sir Philip it had to happen at the end of 2014.

But as it happens that is consistent with UKFI telling RBS it has to be ready for sale by the end of 2014.

The other interesting thing that the Treasury has confirmed is that - as Stephen Hester told me yesterday - the process of selling all the 81% taxpayer stake will probably take several years.

Also, for what it's worth, a friend of the chancellor insists that their relationship isn't bad. Even today, he said, Mr Hester and Mr Osborne had a "friendly and good-natured" chat.

Which makes it all the stranger that everyone I've spoken to around Mr Hester says the two don't get on.

Robert Peston Article written by Robert Peston Robert Peston Economics editor

Will this be history's dullest budget?

The LibDems are intent on preventing George Osborne announcing any serious tax or spending reforms in the budget.

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 199.

    @198 You must forgive the eternal optimist for not sharing your bleak vision. I admit I was too optimistic when Northern Rock failed, thinking Robert's prognostications too gloomy. But when RBS came to be bailed out, I thought the prospect of a Swedish profit too optimistic. Five years on, both the bank and British society have done much better than I feared then; so I hope, now, for better still.

  • rate this

    Comment number 198.

    Grounder @197
    "Best… for future taxpayers"
    Reducing liability... for those few still 'shouldering the burden'?

    The burden shrunk to whatever infrastructure necessary… for containment of the poor... for any other services-in-common… police, prisons, lawyers, military by then privatised… 99% of us 'spared taxes', no call then to be 'represented', some in receipt of free lottery tickets?

  • rate this

    Comment number 197.

    @196 "Best", we may hope, for future taxpayers, being measured by optimal medium term reduction to the national debt.

    This means UKFI must take account of the likely trajectory of gilt yields as well as the RBS share price when discounting (for comparison) the value of later disposals. An interesting challenge, that, when both depend on the timing of any unwinding of QE (so let's assume none).

  • rate this

    Comment number 196.

    Grounder @195
    "We must take Robert's update at face value"
    Oh, but we do!

    The new account is entirely compatible with the old, as you gently hint with a return of shares to "begin - slowly - at any time". Rather as we can be sure that GCHQ has no need 'to request' data of interest from the US, and vice-versa.

    Best "for the taxpayer", or the avoider? The 'best' weighted by stake?


  • rate this

    Comment number 195.

    @194 We must take Robert's update at face value. The true future of RBS lies in the hands of its employees. HM Treasury confirms UKFI's assumption that the return of shares to the private sector will take years. (Surely, it could begin - slowly - at any time?) This is probably best for the taxpayer, which it is UKFI's duty to ensure when it makes recommendations to the accountable Chancellor.


Comments 5 of 199



Copyright © 2015 BBC. 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.