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, economics editor Article written by Robert Peston Robert Peston Economics editor

Why Coe is set to win BBC race

Why Lord Coe is likely to be next chairman of the BBC Trust, but he may be its last chairman (at least of the Trust as currently configured).

Read full article

More on This Story


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 5.


    @3 - I think you'll find there are already laws against all these things.

    your quite correct however Government have decided that applying the law is optional for the financial services sector.

  • rate this

    Comment number 3.

    "allowing a successor nine months or so to run the bank and develop a strategy,"

    Would this strategy include product mis-selling, interest rate rigging, fraud, corruption, bribery, drug cartel money laundering etc...
    Business as usual then for whoever becomes the latest godfather to join the mob.
    Laws now!

  • rate this

    Comment number 8.

    Why do I think were in the middle of an Oxbridge “sticky bun” fight?

    Make no mistake about it, Hester’s been pushed out (that’s the sack to you and me avoiding any litigation).

    Looks like the “cunning plan” to sell RBS to recover public money in 2014 is now doomed to be an even bigger failure.

  • rate this

    Comment number 9.

    @ 4. EggsBenedict
    @3 - I think you'll find there are already laws against all these things.

    No, there are only 'rules, guidelines and regulations' all of which have been and still are being broken. Hence the loose change fines having no effect.

  • rate this

    Comment number 20.

    The only integrity in this morally squalid and obscene tale of corrupt City politics and finance is the investigative journalism that reports it.

    And whilst Cameron and Osborne hurl abuse at benefit 'frauds' and 'cheats' they have not a word to utter about Libor rigging fraud or bankers bonuses paid by taxpayers. Tremendous, really.....


Comments 5 of 199



  • Krak des ChevaliersSitting targets

    How ancient treasures in Syria are being bombed to pieces

  • Mesut Ozil's tattoo reads "Only God can judge me"Ink explained

    Nine World Cup players' tattoos decoded, and one who refuses

  • Putting a coin in supermarket trolleyMinor annoyance

    Why are Morrisons getting rid of coin-locks on trolleys?

  • Sekhemka statueSelling out?

    The councils tempted to cash in on their art collections

  • Google sweetsName game

    Would Google have made it as BackRub?

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.