Germany’s financial regulator, BaFin, has confirmed that it is not placing restrictions on the banking operations of Joh. Berenberg, Gossler & Co. KG, including the Hamburg-based private bank’s ongoing dealings with crypto-asset providers such as Tether. While the regulator’s stance provides operational stability for the firm, internal tensions between the bank’s primary owners, Hendrik Riehmer and Peter Ramm, have surfaced following scrutiny regarding the bank’s proprietary trading practices and year-end financial reporting.
Regulatory Oversight and Operational Status
The Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) has maintained its oversight of Berenberg but has not issued any measures to curtail the bank’s business activities. Reports in the German financial press, including coverage from Handelsblatt, indicate that the regulator’s focus remains on standard compliance and internal governance rather than operational sanctions. This includes the bank’s services for high-profile digital asset entities, which have remained a subject of interest due to the volatile nature of the crypto sector.
For clients and institutional partners, the lack of a restrictive order from BaFin functions as a signal of stability. Berenberg, which traces its history back to 1590, remains one of the oldest private banks in the world. Its ability to navigate the intersection of traditional private banking and modern digital asset services has been a key component of its recent growth strategy, although this strategy has occasionally invited closer examination from Frankfurt-based regulators.
Internal Friction Between Ownership
While the regulatory front remains calm, the relationship between managing partners Hendrik Riehmer and Peter Ramm has reportedly faced challenges. At the center of the internal discourse is the bank’s proprietary trading department. Auditors have raised questions regarding the classification and valuation of certain trades, leading to allegations—reported by various financial outlets—that the bank’s leadership may have sought to “smooth” or “beautify” annual results to present a stronger financial position to stakeholders.
Proprietary trading, where a bank trades stocks, bonds, or currencies with its own money rather than on behalf of clients, inherently carries higher risk and requires rigorous accounting standards. The internal debate highlights a classic tension in private banking: the pressure to deliver consistent, favorable year-end performance figures versus the necessity of transparent, conservative risk reporting. Neither Riehmer nor Ramm has publicly addressed these specific internal disagreements, which remain largely confined to the bank’s high-level management committees.
The Impact of Scrutiny on Proprietary Trading
The core of the dispute involves how the bank accounts for gains and losses within its trading desk. When auditors challenge the timing or the nature of these entries, it forces a re-evaluation of the bank’s internal controls. For a firm like Berenberg, which relies heavily on its reputation for discretion and conservative management, any perceived attempt to alter the appearance of its balance sheet carries significant weight.
According to financial filings and industry analysis, Berenberg’s business model has shifted significantly in recent years. The bank has moved away from traditional retail banking to focus heavily on investment banking, wealth management, and corporate broking. This shift necessitates a robust trading infrastructure, but it also increases the bank’s exposure to regulatory scrutiny regarding how those trading profits are realized and reported.
What Lies Ahead for Berenberg
As of this week, there is no indication of a formal enforcement action that would force a change in leadership or a strategic pivot. The bank continues to operate under its existing management structure. The primary challenge for Riehmer and Ramm is to reconcile the differing views within the firm’s upper echelons to ensure that the bank’s reporting practices align fully with the expectations of both the auditors and the regulators.
Market observers will be watching the next cycle of audited financial statements for any adjustments or notes that might suggest a shift in accounting policy. For now, the bank’s operations, including its controversial but permitted crypto-related services, remain unchanged. Any further developments regarding the internal governance of the bank are expected to be addressed during the next annual general meeting or through official corporate communications from the Hamburg headquarters.
This report is based on current regulatory status and ongoing industry reporting. Updates will follow as official statements or further filings become available.
Worth a look
