Should the Treasury keep 'bad' RBS?

 
RBS logo The Treasury is not keen on breaking up RBS

The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards is deliberating on its final report, which - I am told - is unlikely to be published before June.

A tricky issue for it is how to respond to the recommendation from the Governor of the Bank of England that Royal Bank of Scotland should be cleaved in two, with the remaining toxic assets - and they are pretty stinky - retained in the public sector, while "good" RBS is privatised.

As it happens, for all the criticism of RBS, it has done a pretty effective job of shrinking its non-core and poor assets from many hundreds of billions of pounds to several tens of billions of pounds.

But what remains is pretty horrible and hard to shift.

And the argument of the Governor of the Bank of England would be that - by cutting out these poisonous assets - RBS would be strengthened both financially and psychologically.

On the one hand, the ratio of capital to assets would be boosted very significantly in "good" RBS, because some loans and investments with very high risk weights (in the jargon) would have been detached.

And, perhaps more important, both those who work for RBS and those who lend to it would be more confident that some further downturn in economic conditions was not going to generate humungous additional losses.

So RBS might find it cheaper to borrow, and it might also have a greater appetite for risk when lending.

And the UK economy would therefore be a winner.

Stagnant pool

What's more, RBS's board would be pretty happy if the bank was cleaned up in this way, I understand, for a pretty obvious reason.

Clean RBS, minus the toxic assets, would be much easier to privatise than the existing RBS.

So why hasn't it happened? And why is the Treasury still very resistant to the idea of breaking up RBS in this way (which it is)?

Well, as I understand it, the Treasury looked at a break up of this sort just a couple of years ago.

And the primary reason it did not want to go ahead is that it would have to find a way to fund these assets, these loans and investments: the amount owed to RBS in this stagnant pool of assets is matched by funds RBS has borrowed; so the government would have to borrow to cover the written down value of the bad banks' assets.

The amount of new gilts it would have had to issue a couple of years ago to set up the bad bank was prohibitively great. But by the end of this year, the funding requirement would be "just" £40bn.

However that is a large amount of additional borrowing for a government struggling to reduce its annual deficit, or borrowing needs, from an unsustainably large £120bn.

And there might be an unfortunate precedent for the Treasury if it were prepared to borrow £40bn to sanitise RBS, because its critics might question why it won't do the same to finance substantial new infrastructure projects.

But if the Treasury is wary of breaking up RBS, the Banking Standards Commission does not look to me to be keen to drop it altogether as an idea,

If it were to ask the Treasury to properly evaluate the costs and benefits of breaking up RBS, and publish such an evaluation, it would be difficult to see how the Chancellor could refuse.

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

This column...

This column may be a bit quiet for a bit, because I am away from the office.

Read full article

More on This Story

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 101.

    98 CO
    "social Darwinism not Darwinism"
    True, however, by virtue of its very name its parentage is undeniable.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 100.

    A bit of fun. The German economic cycle.

    Hartz 4 is weirdo. It only makes sense in the context of a 15 year cycle of boom to bust. 5 years developing a competitive edge and 10 reaping the rewards. Doing that during global boom or works nicely. Imposing that across the EU during major global economic head winds, simply demolishes competituon within the EU. German cars for all. Let's ask Ford.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 99.

    The thinking behind Austerity in its different flavours is not monetary, it is business practice it is fiscal. It is not economics it is redistribution of wealth and a drive for competitive business. Each of our major trading partners are doing the same thing and it is known, now, that Austerity has cost some 2-3% pa Real growth for seversl years. Move on, Germany is investing huge sums ~ overseas

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 98.

    88.sw

    Social Darwinism is not Darwinism. Society is not wild.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 97.

    92 94 95 96

    The UK government and BoE require a fix & forget solution to a problem that may take 10 years of tax payers commitment to resolve conventionally.

    Our major trading partner ,EU, has admitted their problems are for 10 years of low growth and economic decline. Merkel's top economic adviser has stated the ¥uro will will be finished within 5 years.

    Fix & forget. Let time do its work

 

Comments 5 of 101

 

Features & Analysis

Elsewhere on BBC News

  • bikeWheels of change

    Ten new bikes that are reinventing the humble two-wheeler for the 21st Century

Programmes

  • Hitch-hiking robot HitchBOTClick Watch

    Hitch-hiking robot HitchBOT completes a 6,000km (3,700-mile) trip plus other tech news

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.