The Bank of England’s latest top appointment is not a good look

The amount of white men in Threadneedle Street’s highest echelons who used to work for Goldman Sachs is at odds with the stated aim of being more diverse and inclusive, writes Chris Blackhurst

Andrew Bailey, the Bank’s governor, said in July: ‘We have ... agreed new and stretching targets to increase representation – including at our most senior levels’ (Getty)

So Huw Pill, the new chief economist of the Bank of England and ex-Goldman Sachs, reports to Ben Broadbent, deputy governor for monetary policy and ex-Goldman Sachs. Broadbent was appointed by Mark Carney, the previous governor and ex-Goldman Sachs.

Andrew Bailey, the current governor, explains the Bank’s moves to Rishi Sunak – the chancellor and ex-Goldman Sachs. Should Bailey and his colleagues have an issue with the BBC’s coverage of the Bank, they can complain to Richard Sharp, formerly of the Bank’s financial policy committee and now the corporation’s chair and ex-Goldman Sachs. Sunak used to work for Sharp when they were at Goldman Sachs.

There are eight other banks in the world that enjoy similar status to Goldman in that they’re all classed as “bulge bracket” investment banks, providing financing and advisory services, as well as trading and research across the broad spectrum of financial products. Yet JPMorgan, Deutsche, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and the rest might as well not exist where the Bank of England is concerned.

It is simply not healthy having such a tight connection. Do they share Goldman gossip at the water cooler? Is there a secret Goldman code they use in meetings? Most importantly, do their colleagues feel excluded?

The Bank can’t accuse the Treasury of insisting on Pill – chief economist is the one top job that is down to the Bank

There’s no doubt that Goldman works harder than the others at ingratiating itself with the higher echelons of government. You come across senior Goldman people more often at parties where there will be cabinet members and ministers present than bankers from elsewhere. It’s as if the Goldman bosses are ordered, expected, to schmooze.

There is, too, an aura surrounding Goldman. It’s the most aggressive, the most creative – at least that’s how it likes to see itself and how it likes to be seen by outsiders.

Of course, diasporas are not new, not where the British establishment is concerned. Three more spring to mind: Eton, Oxbridge and McKinsey. Neither is the love of Goldman confined to the Tory ranks. Elements of New Labour were just as enamoured with the US bank.

What is worrying is that in my experience in dealing with Goldman, certainly the chieftains in the UK, they display relatively little interest as to what is occurring in this country. I well remember having lunch with one senior Goldman banker on the eve of the Scottish referendum vote. The nation was on tenterhooks, with the ballot appearing as if it could go either way. Yet when, inevitably, it was raised in conversation, he proclaimed a lack of interest. Goldman, he said, was not bothered who won; it would not make any difference to them.

This attitude was not new. I’d come across it before in discussions with international bankers, but at Goldman it always appeared more pronounced. Britain, for them, if they thought about it all, was a profit centre, thanks to the strength of the City of London, a financial centre for Europe, the Middle East and Asia. New York, its rival, looked after one side of the globe, London the other. And in case you were wondering, the Goldman titan in question was a Brit; it was not as if he was foreign.

As chief economist, Pill will be expected to take a dispassionate view, to stick to charts, flows and numbers. That’s easier said than done, though, when the present prime minister is intent on spending money he does not possess and his chancellor gives the impression of being determined to exercise caution. Pill, 53, formerly of Oxford, European Central Bank, Goldman and Harvard Business School, where he was a senior lecturer, on paper does not display much evidence of relating to ordinary people and their lives.

He’s male and white, and while that matters, it should carry more weight where the Bank is concerned, since it was only in July that Bailey said creating a truly diverse and inclusive Bank was “mission critical” for his organisation.

Bailey was responding to a damning report into the lack of diversity and inclusion at the Bank. He said: “As a first step, we have made diversity and inclusion one of our core strategic priorities for the coming years. This means increased focus, effort and energy from me, my senior team and Bank colleagues more broadly. We have also agreed new and stretching targets to increase representation – including at our most senior levels.”

Pill will join the Bank’s key, nine-strong Monetary Policy Committee, which sets interest rates and is all-white and contains just two women members. Apparently, the Bank asked diversity consultants to seek a replacement for Andy Haldane, Pill’s predecessor, who quit to become chief executive of the Royal Society of Arts.

The Bank can’t accuse the Treasury of insisting on Pill – chief economist is the one top job that is down to the Bank. Neither can Bailey say he was chosen by someone else in the Bank – Pill was appointed by Bailey himself and by Broadbent, the deputy governor and once a Goldman senior economist.

Pill’s recruitment is not a good look. Hopefully, he proves up to the task.