No Quick Fix For Standard Chartered

Published in Company Comment on 14 August 2012

Its reputation and rating won’t be restored quickly.

This week is crunch time at Standard Chartered (LSE: STAN). Since being threatened with the loss of its New York banking licence last Tuesday, its shares initially dropped 25% and have since recovered 10%.

The outcome of Wednesday's meeting with the New York regulator might see that partial recovery evaporate, or else Standard Chartered's premium rating return. Or neither.

Kerrang! Kerpow!

DFS regulator Benjamin Lawsky's 27-page dossier reads more like a Batman comic than a legal document. Standard Chartered is a "rogue institution" that "engaged in deceptive and fraudulent misconduct" to move $250 billion through its New York branch for Iranians clients leaving "the US financial system vulnerable to terrorists, weapons dealers, drug kingpins and corrupt regimes". Mr Lawsky's team of Caped Crusaders trawled through 30,000 pages of documents to unearth this evil.

There's a good deal of politicking behind this hyperbole, of course. You can take your pick as to whether it's US versus UK, state regulator versus federal, Democrat versus Republican, or just plain grandstanding.

Where there's smoke...

But the bluster of the ready-made sound bites occludes some really hard questions for Standard Chartered.

The bank has come out fighting. It claims that over 99.9% of transactions complied with regulations and less than $14 million worth were at fault. It says the state regulator is wrong about the law, and wants to negotiate a settlement together with the federal regulators. Five banks including Barclays (LSE: BARC) and Lloyds (LSE: LLOY) have already settled fines totalling $1.8 billion in relation to sanctions violations.

Standard Chartered has also taken legal advice on whether it can sue for damage to its reputation.

At the heart of the allegations are the so-called 'U-turn' regulations, which allowed dollars from Iran's oil industry to be cleared through the US provided they were routed via non-Iranian bank. The crux is whether banks could legitimately strip client details from these transfers before sending them to the US.

Mr Lawson's document makes clear that Standard Chartered knew it was on thin ice. RBS (LSE: RBS) shareholders might be a little miffed at a 1995 memo from Standard Chartered's internal lawyer recommending that it "should use e.g. [National Westminster Bank] who in processing the transaction would breach OFAC regulations and would expose themselves to a penalty". It was certainly aware of the reputational risk, too.

The worst-case scenario is that the bank loses its New York licence. That would have a devastating impact on its business processing, its reputation and its share price.

Mutually assured destruction

But the bank won't take such a big hit without a big fight. It might have grounds for legal action. And it has powerful friends, not just in the West but throughout the developing world. By jumping the gun ahead of federal regulators, Mr Lawsky has possibly made himself vulnerable.

What happens when two sides both have a nuclear option? Of course, the threat of using it is enough to ensure negotiation of a peaceful settlement.

So I believe Standard Chartered's licence is safe. But the outcome will cost it dear, allowing Mr Lawsky his victory. It will be hit three ways:

  • A substantial fine, maybe $0.5bn to $1bn.
  • Management resignations. The regulator might call for the scalp of finance director Richard Meddings, who is indirectly named in the document, but the chairman and chief executive could also be vulnerable.
  • A trashed reputation. Management's hubris over the travails of other banks has turned to nemesis.

Share price

What does that mean for the share price? Retaining the New York licence should protect investors from any catastrophic downside. But there is unlikely to be much of a bounce-back. Standard Chartered's premium rating has slipped permanently as the bank has lost its reputation for walking on water. I suspect current levels are the new reality.

As yet another bank disgraces itself, you might think they are all best avoided. One canny investor who read the runes correctly and sold out of the sector ahead of the financial crash was Invesco Perpetual's Neil Woodford. To learn more of his approach and find out where he is investing today you can download this free Motley fool report “8 Shares Held By Britain's Super Investor". It's free and will be delivered straight to your inbox.

Oils, Pharmaceuticals, Banks, Telecoms -- just where should you invest today? "Top Sectors Of 2012" is the Motley Fool's latest guide to help Britain invest. Better. The report is free.

More Investment Opportunities

> Tony owns shares in Standard Chartered but no other shares mentioned in this article. The Motley Fool owns shares in Standard Chartered.

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

BigJC1 14 Aug 2012 , 9:18pm

Fantastic defence of a great and proud UK financial institution - NOT. You should be mad, you should be screaming, some jumped up little half wit Yank has just lost billions off all of our pension funds and besmirched one of our greatest companies. Re-write the article, research the facts, make reasoned arguments. Heck even the financial page in the Sun gave better coverage than this claptrap,

And stop it with the Neil Woodford is the Messiah BS, readers are getting sick of it. I used to read the Fool daily, now its probably monthly, the quality of the articles and the constant pushing of "free" reports (if they are free just post a link),

TRhere 15 Aug 2012 , 8:27am

BigJC1 - I was more inclined to your point of view, until I read the regulator's dossier. As I said in the article, the over the top style actually distracted attention from some pretty appalling behaviour at SC - the internal memos quoted in it are focussed on not getting caught rather than not doing anything wrong.

As I write, SC has in fact had a quick fix - agreeing a $340m settlement. It seems Batman is open to offers! But I think the reputational damage will stick.

The material point is not that SC, along with most international banks, resented the US's attempts at imposing extra-territorial sanctions. The point is that SC management were willing to take big risks that shareholders didn't appreciate at the time, in order to keep/grow the Iranian business. That makes them look a bit more like every other bank than they did before this crisis broke.

Tony R

goodlifer 15 Aug 2012 , 4:48pm

Stan's boss has admitted that they've "made mistakes."
This strongly suggests they've been up to something criminal

BigJC1 15 Aug 2012 , 4:59pm

Tony R. A few questions:
If it is criminal why are there no charges ?
If it was illegal was it done with the open acceptance and duplicity of the US regulators following their realisation that compliance with the ban would result in oil been valued in euros, the dollar losing its World status and the US losing a vital hold on how oil is traded ?
Was virtually every other major bank, US or Overseas, up to the same tricks ?
It it was so wrong why did nobody ask the question over the last 10 years "How is Iran exporting oil when it is sold in US dollars which have to be cleared in the US"?

BigJC1 15 Aug 2012 , 5:04pm

Goodlifer - God knows, I've made mistakes, I'm no criminal.

Now if they said "we have committed crimes" that would be different.

Do you see the subtle difference in the english language there between "mistake" and "criminal". Check you dictionary, the definition of mistake is not a criminal activity.

TRhere 15 Aug 2012 , 6:36pm

BigJC1,

The regulator's order listed 7 "apparent violations of law" which were the grounds for ordering SC to demonstrate why it should keep its NY banking licence, and which SC has paid $340m to settle.

The apparent violations mainly concern record keeping: not the use of the U-turn procedure itself which was designed to ensure oil was still traded in dollars, but whether SC could legitimately hide the details of Iranian bank transfers before sending them to its New York branch.

Some other foreign banks have also settled. It's hard to tell whether SC was taking bigger reputational and legal risks than other banks were, but it certainly doesn't look like they distinguished themselves by being more risk averse.

goodlifer 15 Aug 2012 , 11:47pm

BigJC1
"Goodlifer - God knows, I've made mistakes, I'm no criminal."

Yes, but you're probably a more or less ordinary person.
Ordinary people often make mistakes.
Sad to say, some of them sometimes commit crimes

Politicians, bankers and bosses never!
When they fiddle the books, launder a few billion quid or do a dirty deal with one another it's just "a mistake."

I'm surprised you haven't noticed.

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.