Skip to main content

Time for remorse

Bob Diamond is a figure who it is hard to love. 


Ever since he made the comment that the "time for Banker's remorse was over", he left a huge hostage to fortune, in the event of anything going wrong at Barclays.


As we now know, something has gone wrong, and in the event, Mr. Diamond's bullishness has become his downfall- the time for remorse is now is the almost inevitable headline in most newspapers.


Yet, although Bob Diamond may not be the most sympathetic creature, the reality is that - as his own resignation shows- he has not been in control of events.


The fact is that the huge banking conglomerates carry within them the seeds of their own destruction. The interconnected nature of the global financial markets has created vast black boxes within the various banks, where few- if any- can understand, let alone control, the risks.


The resulting lack of transparency has allowed financial malpractice and even criminality to flourish unchecked. All the Basel III and other regulations have done has been to increase the insurance premium for a bank failure, without actually tackling a) the financial crimes of the past years and b) improving the efficiency and honesty of the international banking system. Instead of creating greater competition, the governments and regulators have responded to the crisis by forced mergers and shot gun marriages: not only concentrating bank ownership- in many cases into the hands of the hapless tax payer- but also concentrating credit risk, market risk and indeed the risk of fraud, into ever larger institutions.


Now, the LIBOR rate fixing scandal clearly proves large scale collusion of virtually the entire banking system in criminal activity. It is inevitable that inquiries and investigations will find further issues- and the cleaning of the stables will take many years. Unfortunately this will also mean that the repair of the banking system will also take years- and that in turn is likely to mean that credit conditions - at least in the West- will remain tight and growth flat to negative for many years too.


Yet even this necessary catharsis will probably not solve the crisis: that can only come from a large increase in competition and far more transparent market conditions. The regulators should be considering how to break up the financial conglomerates into different, separate businesses.


After the Great Depression, Investment banking was separated from deposit taking. One of the major causes of the crisis has been that investment banks gained control over deposit bases and then used them for both highly leveraged and highly speculative activities. It is clearly time to restore the status-quo-ante and ensure that simple market intermediation can not ever again become position taking businesses based on depositors money.


The fall of Bob Diamond is a satisfying story of hubristic arrogance facing a humiliating nemesis- and sure, I too let out a little cheer at the fall of a seeming villain. However with the sole exception of Vince Cable, there are few who have actually "got" what the problems in the financial markets really are- and certainly the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, with their coterie of hedge fund friends, still seem lost in the face of the repeated hammer blows to the system.


It is not enough for Mr Osborne to announce inquiries, parliamentary, judicial or otherwise: these are, in the approved manner of Sir Humphrey, simply substitutes for real activity. The time has come to draw up a green paper and then a white paper for the wholesale restructuring of the banking system to be carried out by legislation before the next election in 2015.


It is not a time for inquiring what we should be remorseful about: it is a time for legislative preparation in order to avoid some remorseful day that may come again for us in the future. 


It is a time for action, not emotion. Action this day.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...