Mark Burgess of Legal & General (the big index-tracker that hold a big chunk of UK equities) has asked the question that has been in my head for months now - why so little accounability in the UK banking sector? In the US several high-profile banking execs have walked (unfortunately often with monster payouts) but in the UK there is nothing comparable.
"We have seen the top 11 executives leave UBS, the heads of Citigroup and Wachovia step down and the chief executive at Merrill Lynch go. But only one UK director has had to leave a UK bank and that was because he had angina. You have to say that is curious," Mr Burgess said.
Steven Crawshaw, chief executive at Bradford & Bingley, which only succeeded in raising rescue funding after three attempts, resigned due to ill health.
But the boards of both Royal Bank of Scotland, which launched the UK's biggest ever rights issue in April, and HBOS, whose £4bn rights issue was only taken up by 8 per cent of shareholders, so far remain in situ.
Mr Burgess said Sir Fred Goodwin, RBS chief executive, and Sir Tom McKillop, chairman, who continue to resist calls for their resignation, were equally to blame for the bank's deteriorating performance following its £12bn rights issue and its €71bn (£56bn) acquisition of ABN Amro, the Dutch bank.
"I think they both have a lot to answer for," he said.
In contrast, in Europe the heads of UBS and Société Générale have stepped down.
The chief executive of Fortis, which was in the consortium led by RBS in the bid for ABN Amro, was forced to resign this month.
I agree with all of that. My question in return though is why have institutional shareholders like L&G not been seeking accountability. In the US this has been happening, often led by unions, but in the UK even institutional investors prefer to snipe from the shadows.
The FT leader today is on this subject, but its suggestion of introducing another advisory vote seems a bit misplaced. Surely it is shareholders who should use their existing rights more effectively?