Banker's reckless endangerment

Times

5 hours ago

First, lose your job. Then, lose what's left of your credibility. Jes Staley's decision to challenge his ban by the City regulator over the nature of his relationship with a convicted paedophile may have seen his fine cut by £700,000 to £1.1 million but look what it's really cost the former Barclays bank boss: the career-ending wipeout of his personal integrity.
The independent Upper Tribunal has upheld the Financial Conduct Authority's assessment: that Staley had indeed 'acted recklessly' when he signed off on a letter from the Barclays board stating that he did not have a 'close relationship' with Jeffrey Epstein; and that his 'last contact' with the child sex trafficker, found dead in jail in 2019, was not, as the letter claimed, 'well before he joined Barclays in 2015'.
Why did Staley think that a legal process would result in any other outcome? It goes back to August 2019, when, in the wake of Epstein's death, the FCA first contacted the Barclays board. And, maybe, its inquiries did turn on a nuanced point: whether Staley had been honest with the board over the length of his relations with Epstein and the extent to which they were professional and/or personal. The judgment notes, too, that for Staley the Barclays letter had only one purpose: to inform the FCA that neither he or the bank 'had had any knowledge of or involvement in Mr Epstein's unlawful conduct'.
That wasn't the question, though. And years before his appeal, Staley knew that the FCA had a cache of emails from his former employer, JP Morgan. Did he not guess they'd come out, in gory detail, before the tribunal? One Staley email had him sitting in a 'hot tub with a glass of white wine' at Epstein's ranch near Santa Fe in November 2009, telling him: 'I deeply appreciate our friendship. I have few so profound.' And all after Epstein had been handed an 18-month sentence in 2008 from a Florida court for 'procuring a minor for prostitution'.
Then there was 2010's 'that was fun, say hi to Snow White' email; Epstein's in July 2011 forwarding 'a hyperlink to a press article that related to a woman being accused of cutting off her husband's penis using a 10in kitchen knife'; and Staley's in 2015 likening their friendship to the 'strength of a Greek army'. Does that seem like a purely professional relationship?
On top, there were the exchanges right up to Staley joining Barclays, plus emails suggesting that as late as February 2017 he was using his daughter Alexa as a conduit to keep 'in contact' with Epstein. Plus, one tribunal bombshell: Staley admitting that, 'much to my embarrassment', he'd had sex with a woman who was a member of Epstein's staff.
Throughout, the tribunal found, damningly, that a 'feature of' Staley's evidence was that 'his memory was clear on matters which were helpful to his case, but not so in relation to matters that called for an explanation, particularly in regard to communications with Mr Epstein'. Having also insisted 'contact' only referred to face-to-face meetings, Staley was forced to admit: 'Contact — direct contact is me being in contact with Epstein by email, phone, text et cetera, yes.'
True, the FCA does not emerge unscathed. The tribunal was rightly 'critical' of Jonathan Davidson, the regulator's then head of retail supervision, for failing to make 'adequate records' of what exactly he'd even asked Nigel Higgins, the Barclays chairman, to provide.
And, while it was his predecessor, John McFarlane, who hired Staley, calling him 'a man of enormous integrity', it was Higgins who batted away the FCA in February 2020 to declare the board's 'full confidence' in Staley. By then, Staley had already been fined £642,400 by City regulators for trying to unmask a whistleblower. And even journalists could spot that the Epstein affair was a breach too far, as pointed out here at the time under the headline: 'Enough is enough: it's time to go'.
Staley said he was 'disappointed by the outcome and the time it took for this process to play out'. Yet the evidence, and his dissembling before the tribunal, made the FCA's case for it. He does not come out of it looking like someone to bank on.
Hilarious though it is, Nickyl Raithatha is probably hoping for something better from the Moonpig range than the card that goes: 'Oh you're leaving? Thank f*** for that.'
Sure, the chief executive, stepping down after seven years, did bring the company to market at 350p a share in 2021, valued at a toppy £1.2 billion. And, after the selling shareholders, including private equity firm Exponent, cashed in £500 million-plus of stock, it's yet to deliver the promised moon. The shares now stand at 221p, down 9 per cent on full-year results that Panmure Liberum analysts called 'a mixed bag' and the news that Raithatha's given 12 months' notice.
Yet, to view his tenure only in the context of a lockdown float is unfair. He arrived in 2018, since when sales are up from £85 million to £350 million, adjusted ebitda is up from £16 million to £96.8 million and employees have grown sixfold to around 600. And, today with 12 million active customers, Moonpig is a haven of repeat sales, sending 100 million-plus occasion reminders to drum up new ones.
Aged 42, he insists 'it's entirely my decision' to go — and nothing to do with chairwoman Kate Swann, who said 'Nickyl leaves the group in a strong position'. Indeed, the only real glitch was 2022's £124 million acquisition of the Red Letter Days and Buyagift brands to form an experiences wing, where he admits 'the timing was not great' — bought in a cost of living crisis. It's been written down by £56.7 million.
Swann thanked him for leading a 'successful IPO' too. But, in share price terms, that's still the bit that's missing. It may fall to Raithatha's successor to prove that Moonpig can yet bring home the bacon.