Barclays: Almost everything you wanted to know about the bank's £12.8bn capital gap

Barclays logo

For unashamed wonks (that's me, in case you wondered), there's lots of gripping stuff in today's announcement that the Bank of England's Prudential Regulation Authority is forcing Barclays to fill a "gap" in its capital resources of £12.8bn.

Here, in no particular order of importance, is what I think is important. And if you will indulge me, I will supply this gripping stuff (don't smirk) in the form of a question and answer.

Q) Why is the hole so big?

A) Because most big global banks are now perceived to have been running for many years with too little capital in their coffers as protection against losses. And that capital shortfall is seen to have been most severe for investment banks.

Q) So why is there such a big hole for Barclays and not for other big stock market banks?

A) Because Barclays is the one British bank with a large and global investment arm that competes with the likes of JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley of the US.

Q) How is Barclays filling the £12.8bn hole?

Barclays will raise £5.8bn through a new share issue, to shore up its finances

A) By raising around £6bn from shareholders, by selling around £2bn of fancy new bonds (or "cocos", for the cogniscenti - poor you), and by shrinking its balance sheet by up to £80bn (because capital requirements, on the famous "leverage ratio", are set as a proportion of gross loans and investments).

Q) But if Barclays is shrinking its balance sheet, surely that means there will be a credit crunch, a drying-up of vital loans to small businesses and households?

A) Barclays' chief executive, Antony Jenkins, insisted to me that the flow of credit to the real economy in the UK would not shrink.

Q) How can Barclays shrink its loans and investments, and not be meaner with credit to people and small companies?

A) Because the cuts are being made in "potential future exposure on derivatives, securities financing transactions and liquidity pool assets".

Q) Speak English, for gawd's sake. What on earth does that mean?

A) It means Barclays will provide fewer financial transactions to big companies, life insurers and pension funds, inter alia, to help those giant institutions reduce their risks. And to be clear that will represent a tightening of credit for those customers, so there may be a negative economic impact.

Also, Barclays will reduce its involvement in the huge "repo" market for US government debt or Treasuries. That could contribute to an increase in borrowing costs for the US government (an increase in US government funding costs that is already under way for other reasons).

Q) Why on earth should shareholders provide £6bn to Barclays given that investing in banks has been a licence to lose money over the past six or seven years?

A) There has been a recovery in bank share prices in recent months. And Barclays is promising to increase what it pays shareholders in the form of dividends, from 30% of attributable profits to between 40% and 50% of attributable profits.

Q) But hang on a moment, if Barclays would be paying out more to shareholders, won't it be retaining less to augment its capital - and would therefore be doing too little to support future credit growth?

A) That is a risk.

Q) With all these new expensive capital requirements being heaped on Barclays' investment bank, and the planned shrinkage of the bank, will Barclays be put at a competitive disadvantage, and can it stay in investment banking?

A) This is a huge and important question. Jenkins believes there is a profitable future for Barclays Capital, the investment bank. But that future depends in part on whether there will be a level playing field between it and its US competitors.

Plans for new capital requirements on bank holding companies (that famous leverage ratio again) have recently been announced in the US. If they are implemented, Barclays Capital should be viable - in the sense that its costs should not be disproportionately higher than important overseas rivals.

Q) But there is an implication that investment banking is undergoing something of a revolution?

A) That is right. If investment banks are to make an acceptable return on capital in this new world of higher capital requirements, they will probably have to cut the pay of investment bankers (again, don't smirk) and/or increase charges to customers.

Q) Plainly this is big stuff. So who runs Barclays these days, its board or the regulator?

A) Well the regulator has imposed its will on Barclays, and all British banks, in respect of their capital needs, and in a way that rarely happened before the crash. The regulator has shown that it is the boss when it comes to the important parameters for how the banks can operate.

But Barclays' board had discretion over how to fill that huge £12.8bn gap in its capital. And Barclays won a bit of the argument, in that the regulator did ask Barclays for a plan to fill the gap by the end of 2013, but ultimately agreed with Barclays that June 2014 is the deadline.

PS - click here to hear my interview on all this with Barclays' chief executive, Antony Jenkins.

Robert Peston Article written by Robert Peston Robert Peston Economics editor

Living standards not quite back to peak

Living standards for a typical family are back to where they were before the recession, says the IFS, although not for those 30 and under.

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 219.

    @218 You're welcome! Yes, £1,500,000,000,000 is the right sort of figure, and 3% of that is £45,000,000,000, so we're definitely in the right ballpark. I'm hoping to see CET1 pushed still higher over time, by retention of profits. And I hope Barclays moves steadily in that direction without any further intervention from the PRA.

  • rate this

    Comment number 218.

    @216 Grounder
    Thanks. Your answers are always informative.
    70% of 1.5 trillion pounds (the total assets projected to be on balance sheet after these adjustments) (I stand to be corrected) is a large figure especially with a market cap of under 40 billion and with a 12 billion cash call around the corner.
    It is an especially large figure when the assets in question may be opaque to most.

  • rate this

    Comment number 217.

    @210 Yes, it would be naive in the extreme to simply trust in future when our trust has already been abused. That is exactly why accelerating the fulfilment of this modest, internationally agreed safeguard should be welcomed by everyone (including the poor shareholders, whose "suffering" seems an acceptably small price to pay to remain in the putatively profitable business).

  • rate this

    Comment number 216.

    @209 Barclays has no need of "bailing out" but, yes, the investment bank has about 70% of the group assets and so generates 70% of the CET1 requirement. How much of the shortfall is attributable to the investment bank is an entirely separate question, of course, but (ignoring the PRA's adjustments) the UK retail bank seems to generate a requirement for an extra £1bn CET1 on Barclays 2012 results.

  • rate this

    Comment number 215.

    @213 CyranoinLondon
    The IB which is generating 2 billion profit this year, down on last year, is also responsible for an extra 85 billion pounds of leverage exposure under Basel 111 rules, which has led to part of this cash call.
    I hope you are right that we have nothing to worry about.
    Certainly the American IB's caused the crash over there and RBS IB was a major cause of that banks troubles.


Comments 5 of 219



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.