Finance sector company Aviva is to sponsor the National Theatre Live.

Aviva is a major player in the finance sector and sponsors events both in the field of arts and sports. To further their profile in these areas, Aviva has created a new partnership with the National Theatre. Aviva are now sponsors of the National Theatre Live, taking place in cinemas both in the UK and worldwide.

This is the second season of the National Theatre Live, and was proved incredibly popular in its first. 180,000 people saw films screened on 320 screens in 22 different countries; all broadcast live from theatres and screened in participating cinemas and arts venues.

The National Theatre’s idea to bring theatre to a wider audience is an extremely popular one, and Aviva were keen to sponsor the event in an effort to make sure the second season is just as popular, if not more so, than the last.

"We’re delighted to be supporting National Theatre Live, bringing the best of British theatre productions to international audiences in the comfort and convenience of their local cinemas. As the world’s sixth largest insurance group, Aviva is well-placed to share the National Theatre’s ambition to grow this innovative programme in scale and stature. We look forward to seeing audiences increase over the coming season and enjoying the ‘National Theatre experience’ on the big screen,” says Sally Shire, global brand development director at Aviva plc.

Particular plays are nominated, so that the arrangements can be made to have the cameras at a set time. The broadcasts film the chosen play at the theatre in high definition. It is then broadcast via satellite to the cinemas: in Europe this is live, as well as in a number of US cities, but in other countries it is time-delayed to allow for maximum audience attendance.

The venues can be found in the UK, USA and all across Europe, as well as more far-flung places such as South Africa and Australia.

“We are hugely grateful to Aviva for their support. We could not have initiated the experimental pilot season of National Theatre Live without Arts Council investment; its success has now enabled us to attract a generous corporate sponsor. I very much look forward to a long and exciting international collaboration,” said Nicholas Hytner, director of the National Theatre.

With the sponsorship of the financial sector company, this arts-based idea can continue and encourage other, similar projects worldwide; evidence that different sectors can easily come together in partnership to help one another.

Guest Article by Neil Camp 

Banks are always anxious to ensure a swift and painless succession when it comes to sorting out the top jobs and HSBC is usually the one institution which can be relied upon to get things right.

Yet the hallowed HSBC Boardroom has been ripped asunder by a top management spat which has brought an end to its safe hands reputation. And it now joins other banks which are turning to those in the investment divisions to run things at the top.

HSBC has just announced that Michael Geoghegan, currently chief executive, is to leave the bank and will not, as usually is the historic custom, replace the outgoing chairman Stephen Green.

Mr Green sparked the round of musical chairs after he elected to follow a new career with the coalition government.

City soothsayers are amazed that Mr Geoghegan was passed over for the chairman’s chair which is going to current finance director Douglas Flint. Although Mr Geoghegan was known to be a somewhat combative and outspoken chief executive, few foresaw his being passed over for the top job. He has told the media that given his non-selection to chairman, he had no other choice but to go.

But HSBC corporate spinners were desperate for the outside world not to see the departure of Mr Geoghegan as a strop.

Chairman elect Mr Flint said, in what many might regard as the understatement of the century:
“We need to restore trust in the banking industry by learning from mistakes made in recent years.”

Mr Geoghegan said there were no ill-feelings, saying:
“It’s been historical at this company that the chief executive goes on to be chairman but you have to be asked, and the reality was I wasn’t asked.”

He leaves with £1.42 million in a severance package

Slipping into the chief executive shoes is Stuart Gulliver, formerly head of the HSBC Investment division and a promotion which mirrors the decision by Barclays bank to reward their aptly named investment chief Bob Diamond with the top job.

This worries the Government and some regulators that far from learning from their past mistakes, the banks are leaning towards the investment, and some would say, riskier parts of their businesses and forsaking the comparatively plodding retail parts. Whether this is coincidence, or key executives making sure they are on the right side of the fence should some people in the government get their way and split banks into two, remains to be seen.

Guest Article by Neil Camp 

The recession might not (or might still) be heading for a double dip recession, but the headline, ‘house buyers UK feel more pain’, is still appropriate for most home owners out there.

UK house prices have dipped for the third month in a row and a recent report has revealed that the slowdown is even being felt in the most expensive parts of London. And for those house buyers UK, things are not looking much better across the Atlantic where arguably the whole crisis started.

A cataclysmic event in the US housing market, sparked by a series of bad mortgage loans to people who could never realistically make the payments, caused the recent worldwide recession as the debts were packaged up by the City dealers and sold as prime investment vehicles.

And now comes news that new home sales in the US in the month of August has been one of the worst on record since way back in 1963.

America may just be staving off the dreaded double dip itself, but record levels of unemployment, tight credit and low house prices in general, means that there is little money around to buy new homes. Figures released by the US Department of commerce showed that the seasonally adjusted annual sales was 288,000 – static on July 2010. What’s more worrying to experts though, is that had the figures not been adjusted upwards (to take into account the season), then they would have been the worst on record.

The August figure was off the pace by some 29% compared with August 2009, aptly showing the degree of downturn experienced in the US housing market.

And these figures come after a boost from central government which between January and April 2010, introduced tax credits to help things along. It helped, but when the scheme stopped in April, things turned worse again.

On a slightly brighter note, the number of new homes being built is up 29% from April 2009, although this is nearly 75% off the record seen in January, 2006.

So it’s likely that house buyers UK will have to feel the pain for that bit longer over the coming months.

Guest Article by Neil Camp 

Bank loans are continuing to be scrutinised by outsiders as an inquiry is set to consider the delicate question of break-ups.

The lack of bank loans may be one of the catalysts which is causing voices to call for a thorough review of banking and the government inquiry is determined to get to the bottom of the issue. At the heart is the vexed question as to whether banks should be split into two: one side which handles retail business and the other which handles investment business, and never the twain shall meet.

Breaking up is just one of the issues being explored by the Independent Commission on Banking and thoughts are polarised on both sides of the argument. Some say that banks should not be allowed to gamble with the investors money and get into situations which caused the current financial crisis. And that retail money must be protected from investment bankers who instead should gamble with their shareholder funds and not customer cashflow.

Others cry foul, saying that to split banks will in effect ruin capitalist principles in the UK and that many banks would have to up anchor and move to a more favourable regulatory environment. This would decimate an industry in which the UK leads; one of few which brings home the bacon nowadays.

HSBC and Standard Chartered have already fired warning shots across the Government’s bows, saying that if the rules were to be dramatically changed, then they would to move their headquarters overseas.

Sir John Vickers will head up a five strong panel and he was quoted as saying:
“Experience shows that the risks from not asking hard questions about financial stability and competition are far greater than from doing so.”

Sir John is the ex-chairman of the Office of Fair Trading and is joined by another non-banker ex-regulator Clare Spottiswoode who’s the former director-general of Ofgas. Others might raise an eyebrow at the others on the panel, wondering if a few foxes had got into the hen house.

They are Bill Winters, the formerly co-chief executive of investment bank JP Morgan; the chief economics commentator at the Financial Times Martin Wolf; and, Martin Taylor, who is a former chief executive of Barclays.

The first recommendations will be ready about a year from now, in September 2011.

Chief apologist for the banks, Angela Knight, in her role as chief executive of the British Bankers’ Association, trumpeted that the banks had nothing to hide and that they welcomed the commission:
"We believe the UK industry has already taken significant steps to improve its financial position.”

It’s now a matter of wait and see. Bank loans will remain under scrutiny for a good while yet.

Guest Article by Neil Camp 

New research from the Marks & Spencer money shop, known as M&S Money, shows that most of the UK public are very brand loyal.

The money shop cites new research which shows that once shops and businesses have gathered the trust of the shopping public, they tend to stay loyal and return again and again. Some can remain loyal for over 20 years. Whether this be a food brand, a particular shop chain, or a certain doctor or butcher, people keep going back so long as the trust remains.

So why do people stay so long with their favourite professionals or businesses? Most cite customer service as their main criteria for establishing a positive relationship; good customer service apparently keeps people coming back for more. The research done by Marks & Spencer revealed that six out of 10 people claimed customer service as their main reason for staying faithful.

When it comes to doctors, the British are fiercely loyal if they have a good relationship with their GP. The survey indicated that on average the British keep their doctors for 13 years, with a further 10 million returning to visit the same doctor for 25 years. Favourite and trusted hairdressers are coveted by British women, 1.3 million of whom stick with the same hairdresser for over 20 years.

Banks will be pleased to hear that once a customer is loyal, they will be equally as long-staying with the bank of their choice. Men on average stay with their main bank for 14 years, with women staying on for an extra 12 months with an average of 15 years.

"Consumers will evidently stick with businesses and people who deliver great service and look after their customers. Most people can name someone they trust completely, whether cutting their hair, managing their money, decorating their house or fixing their car. People clearly feel strongly about good customer service, reliability and trustworthiness as these are reasons why they stay loyal for so long,” says Colin Kersley, chief executive of Marks & Spencer Money.

So what of the customers of the brand that instigated this research? How faithful are the Marks & Spencer customers?

“After 25 years in business, M&S Money has stood the test of time and we know how important it is to continue earning the loyalty of our customers. While the average relationship lasts nearly nine years, our own M&S Money customers have remained loyal to us for an average of 17 years.”

This established money shop is one of the many businesses and professionals, once they have proved their worth to their customer, will enjoy loyalty for many years to come.

Guest Article by Neil Camp 

Those with bank accounts and loans are over-estimating their balance by £70.73 concludes research from a top UK bank.

Barclays discovered that when customers with accounts and loans thought about what their balance was, most could not accurately say how much money was there at any one time and, on average, over-estimated the figure by £70.73. This was the average amounts for Brits in general, but the research goes even deeper, suggesting that Londoners are even worse. Those living in London overestimate their balance by about £91.62. The research compiled a list of areas of the country where the most out of touch with their bank account live. The top ten included Leicester, Manchester, Edinburgh, Newcastle and Portsmouth.

So why this lack of knowledge when it comes to our bank balance? Barclays’ research indicated that customers only check their bank balance four times a month. To solve this, Barclays’ research suggests that mobile and text banking may be the answer. 57% of people questioned believed that using mobile and text banking would be a way of keeping more on top of their balance.

This is backed up by more of the survey’s findings: 84% who currently used mobile banking were more accurate in estimating their bank balance. Compared with the 83% of bankers with no mobile banking capabilities, only 17% of those with mobile banking admitted they didn’t know what was going in and out of their bank account on a regular basis.

“Being in control of your money starts with knowing how much you’ve got and where it is being spent. Online and telephone banking made that easier and now mobile phone banking is taking it a step further. Mobile phone banking is still a relatively new way of doing your banking but the number of users is growing at a phenomenal rate and simultaneously more features and functionality are being added. It’s really encouraging to see the positive impact it is having on helping people stay in control of their finances in a quick, easy and convenient way,” said Sean Gilchrist, Barclays Digital Banking Director.

Keeping on top of bank accounts and loans is important to ensure you are not overspending and to get a good idea of things such as day-to-day budgets. The Barclays research suggests that things such as mobile banking can be a great help in keeping on top of your finances.

Guest Article by Neil Camp 

Banks, investment firms and insurance companies have all been slapped on the wrists again as The Financial Ombudsman Service releases its third set of six-monthly complaints data.

And banks, like many companies across the financial sector, do not come out of the findings that well.

The report from The Financial Ombudsman Service covers complaints that were received for the first half of the year. The total number of new complaints in this period were 84,212. And nearly 90% of these related to 160 businesses which were financial in nature. The Ombudsman actually covers 100,000 businesses.

To compare with what happened in the second half of 2009, then there were 82,136 received then, so a slight increase in 2010.

What’s worrying, is that five individual groups had more than 3,000 complaints each. Taking as a total, this amounted to over half of all the new complaints.

As to the number of complaints upheld (those found in favour of the person complaining), then 44% were seen to have validity. This compares with 53% in the second half of 2009, which suggests that the complaints although up in number, are not for some reason being upheld so frequently.

A contributing factor may have been that some 15,000 complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges were filed and then closed. This was the only course of action left open to The Financial Ombudsman Service, after the Supreme Court dashed everyone‘s hopes by ruling last year that the Office of Fair Trading’s test case could not be used to challenge the fairness of unauthorised overdraft charges.

The chief ombudsman, Natalie Ceeney, said:
“The latest set of complaints data shows that some businesses are really committed to ensuring that complaints are handled well, and are used to inform and improve the service they offer their customers.

“However, the complaints data also shows there is still more that some businesses need to do to ensure that complaints are properly investigated and fairly resolved. The ombudsman is keen to continue to play its part and help businesses draw lessons from the complaints that we see, so disputes can be sorted out at the earliest opportunity.”

As for which banks got the worst marks, way out in front is the UK’s largest bank, Lloyds TSB. Of the 12,750 complaints about in the first half of 2010, some 45% were upheld. And although Barclays was second with 7,991 complaints, a whopping 61% of those were upheld. Third on the name and shame scale was Halifax/Bank of Scotland, with 6,211 complaints, although only 23% were upheld. Ironically, with Halifax/Bank of Scotland being part of Lloyds TSB, put those figures together, and the group wasn’t very popular at all.

Santander customers like to complain, but with only 19% of 4,881 complaints upheld, the Spanish banking group, coming in at number four, might have averted a PR embarrassment.

Fifth on the list is the bank that likes to listen to its worldwide customers, but obviously not enough, because 3,286 customers didn’t like what they were being told, although only 34% of the complaints were upheld.

Bringing up the rear of the top six worst offenders – no doubt due to those nauseating television adverts about their friendly bank staff – was NatWest with an not too unrespectable 2,810 complaints and 43% of those were found to be valid.

So complaints up, but numbers of those upheld down, so maybe there’s hope for the remainder of the year.

Guest Article by Neil Camp

Customers may like to rank their bank, but the European regulators and central banking governors have just done the same thing.

But how they rank their bank is far more exacting, as senior European regulators have got together in Basle, Switzerland, and created new stringent capital rules.

It comes down to how much capital a bank should hold in case it hits a financial problem. The financial crisis in 2008 highlighted how the banking system – not just in the UK, but across the globe – could not cope with a crisis, such as the US mortgage collapse.

It has been agreed that banks should now put aside some 7% of their loans and investments in reserve to cope with financial wobbles, without having to run to their respective governments for taxpayers help. The figure used to be 2%, which proved completely inadequate as the banks stood on the verge of near collapse.

But for some commentators, the newly found prudence could ironically lengthen recession, and might actually cause the double dip most economists fear. The argument goes that if banks have to spend more of their cash in bolstering their reserves, then that means less cash for the consumer on the street, or for hard-strapped businesses.

The UK’s chief money regulator was pleased though, with the Chairman of the Financial Services Authority Lord Turner saying that the changes were: “…a major tightening of global capital standards and will play a major role in creating a more resilient global banking system…”

Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank, added his weight to the proceedings, declaring that the new rules were: “…a fundamental strengthening of global capital standards. The transition arrangements will enable banks to meet the new standards while supporting the economic recovery.”

The US added their congratulation as well; it’s been known for a long time that Barak Obama, the American President, is in favour of more stringent banking rules worldwide.

For those worried that the new rules could bring about a double-dip recession, their fears should be somewhat calmed with the news that the Basle III – as the new guidelines were called – do not come into force until 2013 and will still then take several years to be gradually be introduced. Banks will not have to immediately squirrel away millions of pounds into their vaults.

And Basle III still needs the final ratification from the heads of governments who attend the G20 summit in November.

The reactions from the individual banks has been mixed. Many UK banks already discipline themselves to reserves pegged at around 9%, which possibly highlights the inadequacy of the new rules. But mainland European banks are going to find it more difficult, as they have operated traditional with lot lower reserves.

Indeed, the Swiss, UK and US authorities were lobbying hard for 10% and feel that 7% is just not onerous enough and will not deflect the next major stress test.

So from now, you can rate your bank from a new perspective.

Guest Article by Neil Camp

The term savings fixed rate will be uncomfortable for many of the over-55s if a new report from Aviva is to be believed.

The report concludes that around 25% of over-55s are having to take the unwanted step of dipping into their income-generating savings in order to pay for life’s unexpected expenses. And for those whose financial plans embody the savings fixed rate schemes, there could be a tightening of the purse strings in the future.

The report revealed that the majority of over-55s (92%) have faced unexpected expenses in the last five years. What’s more, for this age group, the biggest financial fear is the rise in the cost of living. Some 64% cited this as the thing that keeps them awake at night. And given that this worry has gone from 18% of those asked in May 2010, to 64% in the latest survey, then this demonstrates the sense of panic and bewilderment caused both by the effects of the recession and the Government’s plans regarding the austerity measures.

And when it comes to financing those unexpected expenses, most of the over-55s dip into their emergency savings funds to foot the bill. A quarter use income-generated savings to fund the payout; some 17% cut back in other areas to make savings; just over 10% organised a loan, or paid by credit card; and, 6% sold assets.

Aviva’s Clive Bolton, a director of the company focussing on retirement, said about the findings of their report:
“Over the last thirty years, people have generally seen retirement as an opportunity to relax after a long working life and enjoy the fruits of their labour.

“However, when you consider that for a savings pot of £16,296, you would get an annual gross income of just £117 from the standard branch based notice account, you can understand why many over 55s are very worried about their finances. In fact these figures reveal that one in five over 55 households is struggling to get by on almost a third of the national average income.”

She went on to explain that:

“Retirement income is also relatively fixed which is why any rise in the cost of living is particularly concerning for this age group. This coupled with the fact that people often have to pay for unexpected expenses for which they have made no provision highlights how vitally important it is to build up retirement savings over your entire life.

“The Aviva research shows that as longevity increases individuals will spend longer in retirement. As such we want to help them plan their retirement finances so that they can enjoy the best possible lifestyle in their later years. At Aviva we offer a range of saving and investment solutions, as well as access to financial planning tools, to help individuals save for both planned and unplanned future expenses.”

In short, a worry for anyone with savings fixed rate plans.

Guest Article by Neil Camp

Mortgage investments continue to haunt the giant investment bank Goldman Sachs after UK regulators have followed on from their US counterparts and levied a fine of $31 million.

The Financial Services Authority has slapped the wrist of the Goldman dealers because they failed to disclose that they were under investigation for alledged fraud by the US regulatory authorities. It all harks back to the infamous mortgage investments which were basically dodgy bets dressed up to look like A grade opportunities. For many observers, this was the straw that broke the Camel’s back and sent most of the globe into a massive recession which kicked-off in 2008.

The fine is just a fraction of the $550 levied by the US authorities – the Securities and Exchange Commission – but is concerned more about disclosure, than any wrong doing that might be discovered, including the alledged fraud.

Goldman Sachs should have come clean say the UK about the charges in the US. The mortgage investments in question were complex mechanisms designed to put the best possible light on a worrying housing crisis in the US. Many of the investments were sold just prior to the US housing market suffering a major rupture and becoming completely unstuck within months.

The problem arose because the mortgage borrowing market was being ‘alledgedly’ rigged, effectively allowing anyone to gain a mortgage. Previous safeguards such as credit checks went out of the window. Unlike the UK, householders in the US can just hand back the keys and walk away from the borrowing commitment, meaning that the whole situation was being built on a fragile and weak base. Catastrophe seemed the only likely result.

The FSA fine is one of the largest ever imposed by the authority. They were annoyed particular that a trader under investigation in the US who was said to behind the allegedly ‘dodgy’ mortgage derivatives, had been moved to London and therefore came under the auspices of the UK authorities.

Goldman Sachs has kept mum about both fines and has always maintained that it has not done anything wrong legally. The US case centres on the fact that a Goldman Sachs client had major input into a mortgage portfolio which was then sold to clients. What the Bank did not do was then admit that its client – a major hedge fund – had then bet that the value of the securities (which they had helped choose), would fall. The mortgage vehicle known as Abacus went onto lose around £1 billion when the US housing market suffered its inevitable collapse.

The huge US fine did not see any admission of legal wrong-doing from Goldman Sachs, who instead claimed that the marketing material for the Abacus fund had been incomplete.

Many experts feel that Goldman Sachs were given not so much a get out of jail free card, but nonetheless should have been more aggressively prosecuted for fraud. They say that the fines should be seen against a backdrop of profits which saw the Bank book a staggering $3.5 billion gain in the first three months of 2010. And although profits dropped to just over $600 million for the next three months, no-one can say that Goldman Sachs is near the bread line.

One thing is for sure, the US mortgage debacle is likely to haunt Goldman Sachs – and indeed Wall Street and the City of London – for many decades to come.

Guest Article by Neil Camp