NatWest has been running on the spot since the financial crisis, says ALEX BRUMMER

Some 15 years have passed since the Great Financial Crisis and at times it looks as if NatWest has been running on the spot.

In spite of a series of grand panjandrums in the chairman’s seat and four chief executives (discounting Fred Goodwin) the bank’s governance is shot, the share price is tumbling and the Government is stuck with a 38.6 per cent stake.

That may seem unimportant but with a Labour administration around the corner, there must be a risk that NatWest will be suborned for a more political role.

The contrast between NatWest and the Wall Street titans since the financial crisis could not be more startling. The US government took stakes in most of the major lenders. The holdings were disgorged within months.

NatWest, the former Royal Bank of Scotland, discarded assets and curtailed its international ambitions as if there were no tomorrow.

Running on the spot: The bank’s governance is shot, the share price is tumbling and the Government is stuck with a 38.6 per cent stake

In contrast, JP Morgan Chase rescued investment bank Bear Stearns, retail chain Washington Mutual and most recently Silicon Valley lender First Republic. 

Throughout one of most challenging periods in global finance, it has had one boss in Jamie Dimon. Only this week investment bank Morgan Stanley disclosed it would be switching chief executives, with insider James Pick set to succeed Aussie-American James Gorman, 65, after 14 years.

One might have hoped that if anyone was going to stabilise NatWest, it was the combination of chairman Sir Howard Davis, with unrivalled regulatory experience, and Alison Rose with her intense focus on customers and doing good. 

The full story of the poor performance over the cancellation of Nigel Farage’s account at its posh and woke Coutts offshoot was laid bare by the Information Commissioner.

NatWest’s decision to call in law firm Travers Smith to review the circumstances of the Farage bank account closure was an attempt to close down the public debate. Even though the Financial Conduct Authority chose in a statement to describe its report as ‘independent’ when the paymasters were NatWest and is a moot point.

The objective of such internally appointed probes is to plough the field, making it more difficult for regulators to do the job. We can be thankful that in this case the Information Commissioner arrived at the core of the issue before the flaccid Travers Smith study was issued.

NatWest deserves praise for making the report available rather than keeping it under lock and key. 

Nevertheless, the review pulls its punches, arguing that the decision to eject Farage’s account was ‘primarily commercial and therefore legal.’

Readers of the internal Coutts documents, disparaging Farage for racism, sexism, and xenophobia, would reach a different conclusion. Even though Farage’s finances may have fallen below the requirement for new clients, one might have expected the private bank to have shown an existing customer some forbearance.

Rose made an unforgiveable mistake in sharing confidential information with an experienced and highly-respected BBC journalist at a dinner. When the reporter followed up the next day, in line with best practice, he was provided with confirmation. Rose takes comfort from the Travers Smith report largely because it pulls its punches. The disclosure may have been inadvertent but the confirmation was not.

The defence that the ‘impact’ around the Farage disclosure was ‘minimal’ is an argument unworthy of her. If one politician’s personal finance details could be leaked, then customers from the largest corporation to the sole trader could no longer trust that their privacy would remain intact.

Rose distances herself from the Coutts assessment of Farage describing it as ‘deeply unpleasant.’ But there is not a hint of apology for the damage it has done to Coutts, NatWest and all its stakeholders.

A combination of the release of Travers Smith and a downgraded outlook for the bank sent the stock skidding.

Rose clearly is anxious not to say anything which might come between her and a contractual payout of up to £11m made up of her salary and share options. There is a legal and moral case for the bank to claw back a portion of this outsized sum.

Rose prided herself of doing good, turning the Gogarburn HQ outside Edinburgh into a food bank. Taking money from shareholders, including the taxpayer, in a cost of living crisis, would be unconscionable.

This post first appeared on Dailymail.co.uk