It is a list that includes the former HBOS banker Peter Cummings, the former Co-op Bank finance director Barry Tootell and the former Credit Suisse First Boston trader James Archer, son of the author and Conservative peer Lord Archer – and now it includes Jes Staley, the former Barclays chief executive.
Banning someone from working in financial services is one of the ultimate sanctions that can be brought to bear by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). It is a draconian measure and one the regulator exercises relatively rarely.
Make no mistake, this is an absolutely seismic event.
Being chief executive of one of Britain’s ‘big four’ commercial banks – Barclays, NatWest, HSBC and Lloyds – are among the most prestigious roles UK financial services has to offer. Never before, though, has a chief executive of one of the four ended up being banned from the City.
Think about some of the great bankers of the past who have led the four, for example, Sir Brian Pitman at Lloyds or Sir Willie Purves at HSBC. The idea of them finding themselves in such circumstances, being banned from the City, is unthinkable.
The irony is that, when Mr Staley arrived at Barclays in 2015, he was seen as offering the bank stability.
The door into the Barclays CEO’s office had long been a revolving one. Martin Taylor, CEO since 1994, was felled after a boardroom coup in 1998. His successor, Michael O’Neill, lasted a day in the job after failing his medical. Then came Matt Barrett, who lasted until 2004 with just a few mishaps, including telling a Commons select committee he would not allow his children to have a credit card.
Image: Jes Staley was CEO of Barclays from 2015 to 2021
The popular Irish-Canadian’s successor was less fortunate. John Varley, who lasted until 2010, was later charged – and later acquitted – with conspiracy to commit fraud over a financial crisis-era fund-raising. Bob Diamond, who succeeded him, was sacked on the orders of Mervyn King, the then Bank of England governor, over the bank’s Libor-rigging.
Advertisement
Antony Jenkins, CEO from 2012 to 2015, was supposed to mark a change from Mr Diamond, under whom the investment bankers had reigned supreme in Barclays. The former head of the bank’s relatively unsung retail operations, he was nicknamed ‘Mr Nice’ internally, for his efforts to rebuild the reputation of Barclays and to distance it from the legacy issues, chiefly the Libor scandal, that had laid it low.
Unfortunately for him, he fell victim to the revenge of the investment bankers, who had never trusted him.
John McFarlane, the guitar-strumming, Feng Shui-loving, chairman at the time, decided that Mr Jenkins’s successor needed to be someone who understood investment banking as well as commercial and retail banking.
It was for that reason that he reached for Mr Staley, a Wall Street veteran who had spent 35 years at JPMorgan, although much of that time had been spent in the bank’s asset management and private banking divisions rather than in out-and-out investment banking on trading.
Very much a ‘Boston brahmin’ – his grandfathers were a top retail executive and the president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his father the CEO of a chemicals company – Mr Staley initially made a good impression.
But he quickly blotted his copy book, being fined and censured by the regulator for trying to unmask a whistle-blower, which proved an unwanted distraction. So, too, did a long-running campaign by Edward Bramson, an activist investor, who sought unsuccessfully to get Barclays to spin off its investment banking arm.
Image: Jeffrey Epstein took his own life in prison in 2019. Pic: AP
By then, evidence unearthed by the FCA and the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority had revealed he was far closer to the disgraced paedophile than he had let on, with more than 1,200 emails between him and Epstein dating back to his time at JPMorgan containing mysterious phrases such as ‘snow white’.
It subsequently emerged that Mr Staley had even pressed executives at JPMorgan to retain Epstein as a client even after he had been jailed for soliciting sex from a minor.
Shockingly, some of the emails – cited by the FCA today – even revealed that Mr Staley told Epstein he was in talks to take the top job at Barclays, prior to his appointment.
The ban and fine issued today is not the end of the matter.
Mr Staley has appealed against the decision – which is why the FCA today called it ‘provisional’ – and has taken it to the FCA’s Upper Tribunal. It has overturned a number of such bans in recent years, including one in 2021 on the Scottish insurance executive Stuart Forsyth and one in 2019 against Andrew Tinney, a former chief operating officer of Barclays Wealth.
The Upper Tribunal has, in recent times, been highly critical of the FCA’s high staff turnover and decision-making – while the burden of proof faced by the regulator is far heavier than that faced by Mr Staley himself.
Quite apart from his determination to clear his name, this is probably why Mr Staley – who at 66 might be forgiven for wanting to go and enjoy the riches he has accumulated in his career – is persisting with an appeal.
As for Barclays, now being steered by the low-key CS Venkatakrishnan, it probably wishes the whole thing would go away.
The ripping up of the trade rule book caused by President Trump’s tariffs will slow economic growth in some countries, but not cause a global recession, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has said.
There will be “notable” markdowns to growth forecasts, according to the financial organisation’s managing director Kristalina Georgieva in her curtain raiser speech at the IMF’s spring meeting in Washington.
Some nations will also see higher inflation as a result of the taxes Mr Trump has placed on imports to the US. At the same time, the European Central Bank said it anticipated less inflation from tariffs.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:42
Trump’s tariffs: What you need to know
Earlier this month, a flat rate of 10% was placed on all imports, while additional levies from certain countries were paused for 90 days. Car parts, steel and aluminium are, however, still subject to a 25% tax when they arrive in the US.
This has meant the “reboot of the global trading system”, Ms Georgieva said. “Trade policy uncertainty is literally off the charts.”
The confusion over why nations were slapped with their specific tariffs, the stop-start nature of the taxes, and the rapid escalation of the tit-for-tat levies between the US and China sparked uncertainty and financial market turbulence.
More on Tariffs
Related Topics:
“The longer uncertainty persists, the larger the cost,” Ms Georgieva cautioned.
“Unusual” activity in currency and government debt markets – as investors sold off dollars and US government debt – “should be taken as a warning”, she added.
“Everyone suffers if financial conditions worsen.”
These challenges are being borne out from a “weaker starting position” as public debt levels are much higher in recent years due to spending during the COVID-19 pandemic and higher interest rates, which increased the cost of borrowing.
The trade tensions are “to a large extent” a result of “an erosion of trust”, Ms Georgieva said.
This erosion, coupled with jobs moving overseas, and concerns over national security and domestic production, has left us in a world where “industry gets more attention than the service sector” and “where national interests tower over global concerns,” she added.
But the high profits are not expected to increase, according to Sainsbury’s, which warned of heightened competition as a supermarket price war heats up.
Sainsbury’s said it had spent £1bn lowering prices, leading to a “record-breaking year in grocery”, its highest market share gain in more than a decade, as more people chose Sainsbury’s for their main shop.
It’s the second most popular supermarket with market share of ahead of Asda but below Tesco, according to latest industry figures from market research company Kantar.
In the same year, the supermarket announced plans to cut more than 3,000 jobs and the closure of its remaining 61 in-store cafes as well as hot food, patisserie, and pizza counters, to save money in a “challenging cost environment”.
This financial year, profits are forecast to be around £1bn again, in line with the £1.036bn in retail underlying operating profit announced today for the year ended in March.
The grocer has been a vocal critic of the government’s increase in employer national insurance contributions and said in January it would incur an additional £140m as a result of the hike.
Higher national insurance bills are not captured by the annual results published on Thursday, as they only took effect in April, outside of the 2024 to 2025 financial year.
Supermarkets gearing up for a price war and not bulking profits further could be good news for prices of shelves, according to online investment planner AJ Bell’s investment director Russ Mould.
“The main winners in a price war would ultimately be shoppers”, he said.
“Like Tesco, Sainsbury’s wants to equip itself to protect its competitive position, hence its guidance for flat profit in the coming year as it looks to offer customers value for money.”
There has been, however, a warning from Sainsbury’s that higher national insurance contributions will bring costs up for consumers.
News shops are planned in “key target locations”, Sainsbury’s results said, which, along with further openings, “provides a unique opportunity to drive further market share gains”.
US stock markets suffered more significant losses on Wednesday, with stocks in leading AI chipmakers slumping after firms said new restrictions on exports to China would cost them billions.
Nvidia fell 6.87% – and was at one point down 10% – after revealing it would now need a US government licence to sell its H20 chip.
Rival chipmaker AMD slumped 7.35% after it predicted a $800m (£604m) charge due to its MI308 also needing a licence.
Dutch firm ASML, which makes hardware essential to chip manufacturing, fell more than 5% after it missed order expectations and said US tariffs created uncertainty.
The losses filtered into the tech-dominated Nasdaq index, which recovered slightly to end 3% down, while the larger S&P 500 fell 2.2%.
Image: Pic: AP
Such losses would have been among the worst in years were it not for the turmoil over recent weeks.
It comes as China remains the focus of Donald Trump’s tariff regime, with both countries imposing tit-for-tat charges of over 100% on imports.
The US commerce department said in a statement it was “committed to acting on the president’s directive to safeguard our national and economic security”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
13:27
Could Trump make a trade deal with UK?
Nvidia’s bespoke China chip is already deliberately less powerful than products sold elsewhere after intervention from the previous Biden administration.
However, the Trump government is worried the H20 and others could still be used to build a supercomputer in China, threatening national security and US dominance in AI.
Nvidia said the move would cost it around $5.5bn (£4.1bn) and the licensing requirement would be in place for the “indefinite future”.
Nvidia’s recently announced a $500bn (£378bn) investment to build infrastructure in America – something Mr Trump heralded as a victory in his mission to boost US manufacturing.
However, it appears to have been too little to stave off the new restrictions.
Pressure has also come from the Democrats, with senator Elizabeth Warren writing to the commerce secretary and urging him to limit chip sales to China.
Meanwhile, the head of US central bank also warned on Wednesday that US tariffs could slow the economy and raise inflation more than expected.
Jerome Powell said the bank would need more time to decide on lowering interest rates.
“The level of the tariff increases announced so far is significantly larger than anticipated,” he said.
“The same is likely to be true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth.”
Predictions of a recession in the US have risen significantly since the president revealed details of the import taxes a few weeks ago.
However, he subsequently paused the higher rates for 90 days to allow for negotiations.