Connect with us

Published

on

Davos, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and its founder, Klaus Schwab, have become more famous than ever before in the past couple of years – albeit not for the reasons they might have wanted.

As COVID-19 spread and the world battled the pandemic, Mr Schwab and the WEF, not to mention regular delegates such as Bill Gates, became the subject of a suite of outlandish conspiracy tales, most of which came back to the premise that they were hell-bent on world domination.

Leaving aside the lurid detail of these stories, they seem to have missed the most important point of all, far from becoming more powerful than ever before, Davos is failing.

Before we go any further it’s worth pointing out that pinning down what Davos “is” is surprisingly tricky.

At its core, it is a four-day-long meeting of businesspeople, politicians, academics, campaigners and, yes, celebrities, up the mountain in a Swiss ski resort.

There are speeches from world leaders, forums where people talk about the big issues of the day, from poverty to climate change to inequality and countless meetings and parties outside the official World Economic Forum cordons.

Bankers come here to meet potential clients and do deals in hotel suites, politicians have quiet bilateral meetings with their peers and with businesspeople.

More on Davos

Read more:
What is Davos and what happens at the World Economic Forum meeting?

But there are two overarching reasons why Davos matters. The first is: convening power.

It stands and falls on whether it can persuade enough influential people to come here, so that the other influential people can rub shoulders with them.

The second is something deeper: most of the delegates here benefit from a world where capital and trade move freely from one part of the world to another. This place is not the explanation for the globalisation of the past few decades, but it has certainly thrived in that world.

And on both of these fronts, things are not looking good for Davos.

There are plenty of A-list delegates coming to the forum this year, from German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to US climate envoy John Kerry, not to mention the business mainstays like JP Morgan chief executive Jamie Dimon and, of course, Bill Gates.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates (L) talks to Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos in 2008
Image:
Microsoft founder Bill Gates (L) talks to Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos in 2008

But the guestlist this time around looks considerably less heavyweight than usual.

There is no US president, no UK prime minister and even Emmanuel Macron is giving the meeting the cold shoulder – little wonder given these nations, and so many others, are battling a cost of living crisis back home.

The end of globalisation itself?

But more important still is the fact that the very world Davos thrived in is disintegrating.

There is a war in mainland Europe. Indeed, some have described the conflict in Ukraine as simply the earliest movements in a world war.

Relations between China and the West are at a new low point. Countries around the globe are re-engineering their supply chains, and the era of untrammelled globalisation seems to be ending.

Davos has been written off many times before (possibly including by yours truly) yet it has managed each time to defy such prognostications.

A lot of people thought Donald Trump‘s election would spell disaster for the forum, yet he attended it more than once, and was here at the last winter meeting back in early 2020.

Yet there are two other reasons, on top of the two above, why Davos is facing its biggest threat yet.

COVID’s blow to face-to-face events

The first is the pandemic that erupted shortly after that last winter meeting, which has undoubtedly dealt a blow to face-to-face events such as these.

Davos may be leagues bigger and more influential than most corporate jamborees, but at its core that’s ultimately what this event is, and thanks to Zoom and remote working the corporate jamboree sector is trapped in a deep recession of its own.

The other issue comes back to something Klaus Schwab, the forum’s founder, has often talked about before: the stakeholder economy.

This idea, his brainchild from decades ago, is that businesses do not exist in isolation: they are at a nexus of various different groups, from shareholders to customers to employees and, for that matter, the state and society in which they operate.

People by the logo for the World Economic Forum

The idea was that by engaging more sensibly with each of these parties the stakeholders could all get along. The Forum’s official motto is “Committed to Improving the State of the World” but it might have done better to borrow the old BT slogan: “It’s good to talk”.

Yet in the face of the cost of living crisis, these lines of communication seem to have frayed, or possibly snapped altogether.

There has been more industrial action in recent months than at any time in recent decades.

Dialogue seems to be failing.

On pretty much every front, then, Davos seems to be in deep trouble.

Far from gaining power in the past few years, it is under greater threat than ever before.

There will be fanfare aplenty from this Swiss town in the coming days: Ukraine, the state of globalisation, climate change – all of these issues will be discussed here by A-list panels.

But quietly, almost indiscernibly, this place is becoming less important as the world around it changes.

Continue Reading

Business

Bank chiefs to Reeves: Ditch ring-fencing to boost UK economy

Published

on

By

Bank chiefs to Reeves: Ditch ring-fencing to boost UK economy

The bosses of four of Britain’s biggest banks are secretly urging the chancellor to ditch the most significant regulatory change imposed after the 2008 financial crisis, warning her its continued imposition is inhibiting UK economic growth.

Sky News has obtained an explosive letter sent this week by the chief executives of HSBC Holdings, Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest Group and Santander UK in which they argue that bank ring-fencing “is not only a drag on banks’ ability to support business and the economy, but is now redundant”.

The CEOs’ letter represents an unprecedented intervention by most of the UK’s major lenders to abolish a reform which cost them billions of pounds to implement and which was designed to make the banking system safer by separating groups’ high street retail operations from their riskier wholesale and investment banking activities.

Their request to Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, to abandon ring-fencing 15 years after it was conceived will be seen as a direct challenge to the government to take drastic action to support the economy during a period when it is forcing economic regulators to scrap red tape.

It will, however, ignite controversy among those who believe that ditching the UK’s most radical post-crisis reform risks exacerbating the consequences of any future banking industry meltdown.

In their letter to the chancellor, the quartet of bank chiefs told Ms Reeves that: “With global economic headwinds, it is crucial that, in support of its Industrial Strategy, the government’s Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy removes unnecessary constraints on the ability of UK banks to support businesses across the economy and sends the clearest possible signal to investors in the UK of your commitment to reform.

“While we welcomed the recent technical adjustments to the ring-fencing regime, we believe it is now imperative to go further.

More on Electoral Dysfunction

“Removing the ring-fencing regime is, we believe, among the most significant steps the government could take to ensure the prudential framework maximises the banking sector’s ability to support UK businesses and promote economic growth.”

Work on the letter is said to have been led by HSBC, whose new chief executive, Georges Elhedery, is among the signatories.

His counterparts at Lloyds, Charlie Nunn; NatWest’s Paul Thwaite; and Mike Regnier, who runs Santander UK, also signed it.

While Mr Thwaite in particular has been public in questioning the continued need for ring-fencing, the letter – sent on Tuesday – is the first time that such a collective argument has been put so forcefully.

The only notable absentee from the signatories is CS Venkatakrishnan, the Barclays chief executive, although he has publicly said in the past that ring-fencing is not a major financial headache for his bank.

Other industry executives have expressed scepticism about that stance given that ring-fencing’s origination was largely viewed as being an attempt to solve the conundrum posed by Barclays’ vast investment banking operations.

The introduction of ring-fencing forced UK-based lenders with a deposit base of at least £25bn to segregate their retail and investment banking arms, supposedly making them easier to manage in the event that one part of the business faced insolvency.

Banks spent billions of pounds designing and setting up their ring-fenced entities, with separate boards of directors appointed to each division.

More recently, the Treasury has moved to increase the deposit threshold from £25bn to £35bn, amid pressure from a number of faster-growing banks.

Sam Woods, the current chief executive of the main banking regulator, the Prudential Regulation Authority, was involved in formulating proposals published by the Sir John Vickers-led Independent Commission on Banking in 2011.

Legislation to establish ring-fencing was passed in the Financial Services Reform (Banking) Act 2013, and the regime came into effect in 2019.

In addition to ring-fencing, banks were forced to substantially increase the amount and quality of capital they held as a risk buffer, while they were also instructed to create so-called ‘living wills’ in the event that they ran into financial trouble.

The chancellor has repeatedly spoken of the need to regulate for growth rather than risk – a phrase the four banks hope will now persuade her to abandon ring-fencing.

Britain is the only major economy to have adopted such an approach to regulating its banking industry – a fact which the four bank chiefs say is now undermining UK competitiveness.

“Ring-fencing imposes significant and often overlooked costs on businesses, including SMEs, by exposing them to banking constraints not experienced by their international competitors, making it harder for them to scale and compete,” the letter said.

“Lending decisions and pricing are distorted as the considerable liquidity trapped inside the ring-fence can only be used for limited purposes.

“Corporate customers whose financial needs become more complex as they grow larger, more sophisticated, or engage in international trade, are adversely affected given the limits on services ring-fenced banks can provide.

“Removing ring-fencing would eliminate these cliff-edge effects and allow firms to obtain the full suite of products and services from a single bank, reducing administrative costs”.

In recent months, doubts have resurfaced about the commitment of Spanish banking giant Santander to its UK operations amid complaints about the costs of regulation and supervision.

The UK’s fifth-largest high street lender held tentative conversations about a sale to either Barclays or NatWest, although they did not progress to a formal stage.

HSBC, meanwhile, is particularly restless about the impact of ring-fencing on its business, given its sprawling international footprint.

“There has been a material decline in UK wholesale banking since ring-fencing was introduced, to the detriment of British businesses and the perception of the UK as an internationally orientated economy with a global financial centre,” the letter said.

“The regime causes capital inefficiencies and traps liquidity, preventing it from being deployed efficiently across Group entities.”

The four bosses called on Ms Reeves to use this summer’s Mansion House dinner – the City’s annual set-piece event – to deliver “a clear statement of intent…to abolish ring-fencing during this Parliament”.

Doing so, they argued, would “demonstrate the government’s determination to do what it takes to promote growth and send the strongest possible signal to investors of your commitment to the City and to strengthen the UK’s position as a leading international financial centre”.

Continue Reading

Business

Post Office to unveil £1.75bn banking deal with big British lenders

Published

on

By

Post Office to unveil £1.75bn banking deal with big British lenders

The Post Office will next week unveil a £1.75bn deal with dozens of banks which will allow their customers to continue using Britain’s biggest retail network.

Sky News has learnt the next Post Office banking framework will be launched next Wednesday, with an agreement that will deliver an additional £500m to the government-owned company.

Banking industry sources said on Friday the deal would be worth roughly £350m annually to the Post Office – an uplift from the existing £250m-a-year deal, which expires at the end of the year.

Money latest: ’14 million Britons on course for parking fine this year’

The sources added that in return for the additional payments, the Post Office would make a range of commitments to improving the service it provides to banks’ customers who use its branches.

Banks which participate in the arrangements include Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest Group and Santander UK.

Under the Banking Framework Agreement, the 30 banks and mutuals’ customers can access the Post Office’s 11,500 branches for a range of services, including depositing and withdrawing cash.

More on Post Office Scandal

The service is particularly valuable to those who still rely on physical cash after a decade in which well over 6,000 bank branches have been closed across Britain.

In 2023, more than £10bn worth of cash was withdrawn over the counter and £29bn in cash was deposited over the counter, the Post Office said last year.

Read more from Sky News:
Water regulation slammed by spending watchdog
Rate cut speculation lights up as economic outlook darkens

A new, longer-term deal with the banks comes at a critical time for the Post Office, which is trying to secure government funding to bolster the pay of thousands of sub-postmasters.

Reliant on an annual government subsidy, the reputation of the network’s previous management team was left in tatters by the Horizon IT scandal and the wrongful conviction of hundreds of sub-postmasters.

A Post Office spokesperson declined to comment ahead of next week’s announcement.

Continue Reading

Business

Trump trade war: How UK figures show his tariff argument doesn’t add up

Published

on

By

Trump trade war: How UK figures show his tariff argument doesn't add up

As Chancellor Rachel Reeves meets her counterpart, US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent to discuss an “economic agreement” between the two countries, the latest trade figures confirm three realities that ought to shape negotiations.

The first is that the US remains a vital customer for UK businesses, the largest single-nation export market for British goods and the third-largest import partner, critical to the UK automotive industry, already landed with a 25% tariff, and pharmaceuticals, which might yet be.

In 2024 the US was the UK’s largest export market for cars, worth £9bn to companies including Jaguar Land Rover, Bentley and Aston Martin, and accounting for more than 27% of UK automotive exports.

Little wonder the domestic industry fears a heavy and immediate impact on sales and jobs should tariffs remain.

Money latest: ’14 million Britons on course for parking fine this year’

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Chancellor’s trade deal red lines explained

American car exports to the UK by contrast are worth just £1bn, which may explain why the chancellor may be willing to lower the current tariff of 10% to 2.5%.

For UK medicines and pharmaceutical producers meanwhile, the US was a more than £6bn market in 2024. Currently exempt from tariffs, while Mr Trump and his advisors think about how to treat an industry he has long-criticised for high prices, it remains vulnerable.

More on Tariffs

The second point is that the US is even more important for the services industry. British exports of consultancy, PR, financial and other professional services to America were worth £131bn last year.

That’s more than double the total value of the goods traded in the same direction, but mercifully services are much harder to hammer with the blunt tool of tariffs, though not immune from regulation and other “non-tariff barriers”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

How US ports are coping with tariffs

The third point is that, had Donald Trump stuck to his initial rationale for tariffs, UK exporters should not be facing a penny of extra cost for doing business with the US.

The president says he slapped blanket tariffs on every nation bar Russia to “rebalance” the US economy and reverse goods trade ‘deficits’ – in which the US imports more than it exports to a given country.

Read more: Could Trump tariffs tip the world into recession?

That heavily contested argument might apply to Mexico, Canada, China and many other manufacturing nations, but it does not meaningfully apply to Britain.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics show the US ran a small goods trade deficit with the UK in 2024 of £2.2bn, importing £59.3bn of goods against exports of £57.1bn.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

IMF downgrades UK growth forecast

Add in services trade, in which the UK exports more than double what it imports from the US, and the UK’s surplus – and thus the US ‘deficit’ – swells to nearly £78bn.

That might be a problem were it not for the US’ own accounts of the goods and services trade with Britain, which it says actually show a $15bn (£11.8bn) surplus with the UK.

You might think that they cannot both be right, but the ONS disagrees. The disparity is caused by the way the US Bureau of Economic Analysis accounts for services, as well as a range of statistical assumptions.

Read more from Sky News:
Water regulation slammed by spending watchdog
Rate cut speculation lights up as economic outlook darkens

“The presence of trade asymmetries does not indicate that either country is inaccurate in their estimation,” the ONS said.

That might be encouraging had Mr Trump not ignored his own arguments and landed the UK, like everyone else in the world, with a blanket 10% tariff on all goods.

Trade agreements are notoriously complex, protracted affairs, which helps explain why after nine years of trying the UK still has not got one with the US, and the Brexit deal it did with the EU against a self-imposed deadline has been proved highly disadvantageous.

Continue Reading

Trending