RBS was brought down by 0.2% of its staff

At least, that’s what HR Director Neil Roden reckons. In his recent interview with HR Magazine he claims that only 300 of the bank’s 155,000 employees were involved in the activities which brought about its collapse in 2008.

If ever there was a clear illustration of the imbalance in the banking industry this must surely be it. While 154,700 people were going about the boring old business of managing savers’ deposits and lending to companies and householders, 300 pumped-up superheroes were having a wail of a time in the casino of global investment banking. It didn’t matter that there were so few of them because the sums they were handling dwarfed the amounts that the rest of the employees were managing. According to Mr Roden, these 300 employees eventually brought the bank to its knees.

It sounds crazy doesn’t it? But, as we now know, the world of investment banking in the run up to the financial crisis was indeed crazy.

That such a small part of a major bank could bring it crashing down would seem to give ammunition to those arguing for a Glass-Steagall firewall between commercial and investment banking. Opponents are quick to point out that Northern Rock was not an investment bank yet it still managed to destroy itself by investing in CDOs linked to the US sub-prime market. Even so, as the Independent’s Ben Chu argued,  investment bankers in important commercial banks like RBS know that they have a get-out-of-jail-free card. The government will always have to bail out a commercial bank while it can, albeit with some trepidation, let a bank like Lehman go to the wall.  Forcing banks to cut their investment bankers adrift would send a clear message that, in future, they cannot expect government bail-outs.

There are good arguments both for and against a Glass-Stegall separation of the banks. In the end, perhaps the most compelling argument is that such a regulation, if implemented internationally, would simply make banks smaller which must, in itself, reduce the risks for the taxpayer.  Whatever happens, a situation where 300 people can bring down one of the world’s largest banks and blow a hole in a G7 country’s economy cannot be allowed to occur again.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to RBS was brought down by 0.2% of its staff

  1. Jon Ingham says:

    Hi again Rick, yes, that’s another interesting point, and one that I’ve posted on five or six times now (in connection with Dick Beatty’s Differentiated Workforce – see http://strategic-hcm.blogspot.com/2009/11/differentiation-for-workforce-planning.html and http://strategic-hcm.blogspot.com/2009/11/dick-beatty-on-differentiated-metrics_54.html).

    I’m not sure why Roden brings it up however – it certainly doesn’t excuse RBS HR’s failures. If RBS’ strategic roles (to use Beatty’s terminology) consisted of just 0.2|% of its workforce, then to what extent was HR involved in risk management for these positions? Not enough, or at least not effectively enough, clearly.

    Incidentally,

    I’m equally bemused by Roden’s other asides, particularly in regard to RBS’ failure being due to the ABN acquisition. Did Roden warn Goodwin about the dangers of complacency? Did he try to do anything about the bank’s culture of greed and arrogance?

    I’m guessing not.

  2. Pingback: The Right and Economics « Freethinking Economist

  3. TheHRD says:

    Once again, this is HR showing it’s true colours. You want a seat at the big table? You take the collective responsibility. Weak, weak, weak……

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s