Up to 100 staff could go at Sesame Bankhall

9 November 2009 | By Natalie Thomas

Sesame Bankhall Group has revealed that it has started consultation talks with staff which could see up to 100 employees leave the group.

A communication from the newly merged group sent to staff says that the job losses come as a result of the restructure of the Sesame, PMS, and Bankhall businesses.

The consultation process began yesterday with meetings with staff representatives from Bankhall and Sesame.

The company says it is working with staff committees in order to reach an agreement over the proposed restructure of the business.

Discussions of a merger between Skandia UK, parent of Bankhall and PMS, and Sesame were first announced on June 30 with the tie-up finalised on October 16.

In the document sent to staff advising them of the proposed job cuts Ivan Martin, executive chairman of Sesame Bankhall, says : “Our proposals regrettably mean that there could potentially be up to 100 job losses as a result of bringing the two businesses together and creating a new organisational structure.

“However, we expect the final number to be lower as a result of people transferring to new roles elsewhere within the business.”

Martin says that the company want to establish “an efficient organisational structure that will enable Sesame Bankhall Group to be successful in the future.”

But he says there is an element of duplication that comes when bringing two large businesses together.

As a result the group plans to combine a number of central services that will be shared across Sesame Bankhall Group, and also plans to incorporate the Sesame mortgage helpdesk into the PMS operation and the Sesame Direct function into Bankhall.

Sesame Bankhall also is keen to put Bankhall on a “firmer financial footing,” as Martin says that Bankhall has been trading at a loss for some time.

Martin adds: “We also want to assure people that we have not rushed into these proposals.

“They are based on plans that were being developed by Bankhall’s own board and senior management team, as they too recognised the need to address Bankhall’s cost base.”

If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Mortgage Strategy and Follow @mortgagestrat

Readers' comments (6)

Anonymous | 9 Nov 2009 5:11 pm
I think it's a shame that a network like Bankhall has been swallowed up by the Giant Sesame which continues to grow which I dont think is in the best interests of the IFA market. Sesame is just about power and numbers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10 Nov 2009 9:50 am
Its the start of many things to come, the whole industry has become a shambles, The FSA have a lot to answer for and are hell bent on making things worse. It seems that the workers take the brunt of it while the fat cat gets the milk. All Advisors, banks, networks and insurance companies should stick together and boycott renewing registration and resign current to the FSA and not pay any more fees. Strength in numbers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Philip Curnow | 10 Nov 2009 12:59 pm
Sadly, it is a sign of the times that the bigger companies are getting bigger at the expense of real independent and impartial financial advices - and I also feel that the FSA are making matters worse by not understanding the effect - and probably not many people will until far too late. Like some other "Independently" thinking people, I did predict and write in the finance press about the collapse of Northern Rock and the more irresponsible sectors of the mortgage market a year before it happened - but the "experts" (Fat Cats) said it could not happen. Right now, fewer and fewer ordinary people are able to access genuine IFA advice - has anybody really asked the question "Why ?" Personally, I decided to leave regulated finance in 2007 and follow my freelance photo-journalist interests, but I still do some support and consultancy for various companies - so I can look from the sidelines and weep for an industry that used to offer so much help, support and protection to the general public - first it became greedy and then it started to tear itself to bits blaming almost everyone except the fat cats at the top who made obscene amounts of money, without actually generating any real, long term benefit for the general public who were the ultimate source of the wealth generated.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jack Buchanan | 10 Nov 2009 9:01 pm
Really sad news. Its a shame that they haven't cleared out some of the faceless wonders higher up that this firm is full of.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 22 Mar 2010 5:05 pm
Whilst the industry that creats the business shrinks by hundreds the FSA grows by hundreds blindly building the upside down pyramid.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23 Mar 2010 10:34 am
I really fear for the future of small Directly Authorised firms. The FSA is making it impossible for these firms to operate, so much so, that larger firms, like Bankhall, are no longer big enough.

The FSA, I'm sure, has an agenda to ensure that smaller firms are wiped out - after all, it is easier for them to have fewer (larger) firms to police.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment