Barclays joins rival in cautioning against hiking bank taxes
Group chief executive CS Venkatakrishnan, who is also known as Venkat, said that increasing taxes for banks – or other important sectors of the economy – was not consistent with aims to boost economic growth.
He said banks were already 'among the biggest tax payers in this country' and an important sector to help drive economic activity, with growth 'the primary objective for the UK'.
'There are many other important sectors.
'We want all those sectors to prosper,' he added.
His comments come after Lloyds Banking Group chief executive Charlie Nunn said last week that raising taxes on banks would be at odds with the Government's pro-growth aims.
There has been increasing speculation that Chancellor Rachel Reeves may look to raise taxes, with the banking sector rumoured to be among those potentially in the firing line, as she faces pressure over the UK's public finances following higher-than-expected Government borrowing and U-turns on some spending cuts.
Venkat's comments came as the group revealed that half-year profits jumped by nearly a quarter thanks to an investment banking boost amid financial market volatility sparked by US President Donald Trump's tariff war.
The high street lender reported a 23% rise in pre-tax profits to £5.2 billion for the six months to June 30.
This came despite it booking credit impairment charges of £1.1 billion, up from £897 million a year earlier, after putting by another £469 million in the second quarter.
The bank said the rise was largely due to its takeover of Tesco Bank and a more uncertain economic outlook, especially in the US.
Its results were better than expected for the second quarter, with profits up 28% to £2.5 billion thanks to forecast-beating revenues in its investment banking arm amid market volatility.
Income in its investment banking business lifted 10% to £3.3 billion in the second quarter.
Venkat said: 'We remain on track to achieve the objectives of our three-year plan, delivering structurally higher and more stable returns for our investors.'
Barclays unveiled more returns for investors, with plans for another £1 billion in share buybacks, and said it has cut around £350 million of costs out of the £500 million in savings planned for 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This week in Trumponomics: The Trump slowdown is here
Economists have been warning that President Trump's trade wars will depress growth and hiring. Trump and his defenders say pshaw. But the Trump economy is suddenly looking shaky. Hiring slowed dramatically in July, and downward revisions for the two prior months reveal the weakest job market since the COVID recession in 2020. Employers added just 73,000 jobs in July, with the average for the past three months an anemic 35,000. In 2024, job growth averaged 168,000 new jobs per month. Up till now, Trump has waged his trade war with impunity. His tariffs have raised the average tax on imports from 2.5% to about 18%. That's a hefty tax on some $3 trillion worth of goods, paid by American businesses and consumers. Yet inflation is still below 3%. The stock market flinched in April and May but has since hit a series of new record highs. The second quarter of 2025, however, is now looking like it may have been the last respite before Trump's disruptive policies take their it's not just hiring. Second quarter GDP rose by 3%, which would be solid in normal times. But the numbers are distorted by a surge of imports in the first quarter and a corresponding plunge in the second. Even it out, and GDP growth in the first half of 2025 was a weak 1.2%. That's less than half the growth rate in the first half of 2024, which was a more robust 2.8%. Many companies are beginning to say Trump's tariffs are harming profits, including bellwethers Ford (F), General Motors (GM), and Procter & Gamble (PG). The US manufacturing sector has contracted for five months in a row, and manufacturing employment has dropped for three months straight. Tariff-related inflation might also be materializing. The inflation rate inched up from 2.4% in May to 2.7% in June. There were notable month-to-month price hikes in product categories dominated by tariffs, including clothing, appliances, sporting goods, and toys. Consumers don't normally notice small monthly price hikes, but they notice for sure if price hikes persist and stuff continually gets more expensive. All of these trends are exactly what the many critics of Trump's trade wars have predicted. Tariffs raise costs for any firm or household dependent on imports. Higher costs reduce spending and investment. Trump's episodic tariff announcements also create uncertainty because affected businesses can't predict future costs. That creates an incentive to wait instead of investing, expanding, or hiring. The net effect is lower growth, lower employment, and possibly stagflation. Read More: What is stagflation, and how does it impact you? It's possible that Trump will get the message and wind down his trade wars. But not before more chaos. Just as Trump was inking trade deals with Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, and the European Union, he upped the ante on some five dozen other countries by threatening tariffs on their imports as high as 40%, including a new 35% rate — up from 25% — on some Canadian imports. The US stock market had been hovering near record levels on the hope that the worst of Trump's tariff fulminations were over. But stocks sank anew on Aug. 1 on the latest tariff shock, plus the lousy job numbers. There's yet another tariff deadline, Aug. 7, when the latest barrage of tariffs will go into effect unless those 60-odd countries make trade deals with Trump. Some of them probably will. But the new regime of higher tariffs is here to stay, and whether the average tariff rate is 18% or 20% or 22%, everybody's going to have to deal with Trump's new import taxes. Read more: 5 ways to tariff-proof your finances The consolation prize is that the weakening economy makes the Federal Reserve much more likely to cut interest rates in the fall. Odds of a quarter-point rate cut in September jumped from 38% to 81% after the latest job and tariff news, according to the CME Group's FedWatch tool. Trump, of course, has been hectoring the Fed to cut rates, and the weakening Trump economy now gives it a reason to. Most economists think the economy will slow from 2.8% GDP growth in 2024 to around 1% in 2025 and 2026. That's not a recession, but weak growth will make jobs more scarce, keep a lid on wages, and intensify the economic blahs many people feel. It's probably happening now. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
British American Tobacco (LSE:BATS) Reports GBP 4,512M Income with Revenue Growth Expectations
British American Tobacco recently reported steady performance in its half-year earnings, with a slight dip in sales but stable net income. The company also confirmed its full-year guidance, anticipating revenue growth at the higher end of expectations. This positive outlook coincided with a 25% rise in its stock over the last quarter, possibly bolstered by the expanded buyback plan and sales performance of new product categories. Despite broader market downturns, such as tariff-induced investor concerns and weaker jobs data, British American Tobacco's strategic corporate actions likely contributed to buoyant investor sentiment. Every company has risks, and we've spotted 3 weaknesses for British American Tobacco you should know about. Trump's oil boom is here — pipelines are primed to profit. Discover the 22 US stocks riding the wave. British American Tobacco's recent performance and optimistic outlook, as explored in the introduction, highlight its resilience amid challenging market conditions. Over the past five years, the company's total return, including share price and dividends, was 138.77%, illustrating robust long-term shareholder value. In comparison, over the past year, the company's stock performance exceeded the UK Tobacco industry, which returned 40.9%. This strong performance may reflect investor confidence in BAT's innovative product strategies and operational efficiency improvements. Despite broader market headwinds, the company's share price ascent in the last quarter suggests positive investor sentiment fueled by expanded buybacks and anticipated revenue growth from new categories. The impact of recent developments on British American Tobacco's revenue and earnings forecasts is significant. The expansion in new categories and investments in innovation such as glo Hyper Pro and Velo+ are expected to boost future revenue growth. Operational efficiencies and focus on the U.S. market further underpin profit margin enhancement expectations. Analysts forecast earnings to reach £7.9 billion by 2028, a surge from current levels, supporting optimistic future growth assumptions. Despite trading at a slight premium to the analyst consensus price target of £39.0, the current share price of £40.40 reflects investor confidence in the company's future trajectory. The small share price discount to the target underscores varying analyst perspectives on BAT's valuation. It highlights the importance of individual assessment of the company's potential, given its ambitious revenue and earnings targets amidst ongoing industry challenges and regulatory risks. Thus, investors may want to critically evaluate whether recent operational and market developments align with long-term growth expectations. In light of our recent valuation report, it seems possible that British American Tobacco is trading behind its estimated value. This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Companies discussed in this article include LSE:BATS. This article was originally published by Simply Wall St. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Millions set to miss out on car finance compensation after Supreme Court ruling
Lenders have avoided potentially having to pay compensation to millions of drivers after the Supreme Court ruled they are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes. Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, went to the UK's highest court to challenge a Court of Appeal ruling which found 'secret' commission payments paid by buyers to car dealers as part of finance arrangements made before 2021 without the motorist's fully informed consent were unlawful. The ruling in October last year found three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, should receive compensation after they were not told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them. But in a decision on Friday, justices at the UK's highest court overturned the Court of Appeal, though some customers could still receive payouts by bringing claims under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA). Lawyers for the lenders told the Supreme Court at a three-day hearing in April the decision was an 'egregious error', while the Financial Conduct Authority intervened in the case and claimed the ruling 'goes too far'. The three drivers, Marcus Johnson, Andrew Wrench and Amy Hopcraft, opposed the challenge. Giving a summary of the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, Lord Reed, one of five justices who heard the case, said they had allowed the lenders' appeals. He said: 'Each party to the three-cornered arrangement – the customer, the dealer and the finance company – was engaged at arm's length from the other participants in the pursuit of their own objectives.' However, the judges upheld a claim brought by Mr Johnson under the CCA that his relationship with the finance company had been 'unfair', awarding him the commission amount of £1,650.95 plus interest. In their full 110-page judgment, Lords Reed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Hamblen said that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act only in the customers' interest. They said: 'An offer to find the best deal is not the same as an offer to act altruistically.' Following the ruling, a Treasury spokesperson said: 'We respect this judgment from the Supreme Court and we will now work with regulators and industry to understand the impact for both firms and consumers. 'We recognise the issues this court case has highlighted. That is why we are already taking forward significant changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Consumer Credit Act. 'These reforms will deliver a more consistent and predictable regulatory environment for businesses and consumers, while ensuring that products are sold to customers fairly and clearly.' In a statement, Close Brothers said: 'Close Brothers is considering the Supreme Court's judgment and will make any further announcements as and when appropriate.' In a letter to the Supreme Court in December last year, the FCA said almost 99% of the roughly 32 million car finance agreements entered into since 2007 involved a commission payment to a broker. Mr Johnson, Mr Wrench and Ms Hopcraft all used car dealers as brokers for car finance arrangements for second-hand cars, all worth less than £10,000, before January 2021. Only one finance option was presented to the motorists in each case, with the car dealers making a profit from the sale of the car and receiving commission from the lender. The commission paid to dealers was affected by the interest rate on the loan. The schemes were banned by the FCA in 2021, with the three drivers taking legal action individually between 2022 and 2023. Ms Hopcraft, then a student nurse, bought her replacement car in 2014 through an agreement with Close, which paid the car dealership £183.26 in commission. Mr Wrench, described by the Court of Appeal as a 'postman with a penchant for fast cars', entered into two hire-purchase agreements for an Audi TT coupe and a BMW 3 Series, with FirstRand, in 2015 and 2017, respectively, paying hundreds in commission in total. Mr Johnson, then a factory supervisor, was buying his first car in 2017 and paid the £1,650.95 in commission as part of his finance agreement with FirstRand for the Suzuki he purchased. After the claims reached the Court of Appeal, three senior judges ruled the lenders were liable to repay the motorists the commission due to the lack of disclosure about the payments. Lady Justice Andrews, Lord Justice Birss and Lord Justice Edis said last year that while each case was different, 'burying such a statement in the small print which the lender knows the borrower is highly unlikely to read will not suffice'. But in Friday's Supreme Court judgment, the five justices said: 'No reasonable onlooker would think that, by offering to find a suitable finance package to enable the customer to obtain the car, the dealer was thereby giving up, rather than continuing to pursue, its own commercial objective of securing a profitable sale of the car.' They continued: 'We conclude that, to the extent that the Court of Appeal's judgment and the respondents' case depends upon the recognition of a fiduciary obligation of undivided loyalty on the part of the dealer when selecting and negotiating a finance package for the customer, they are wrong.'
