Skip to main content

When banking incompetence is criminal

It is a matter of public record that banking crises usually reveal criminality as well as incompetence. "when the tide goes out, you can usually see who lost their swimming costume" as the old joke has it. In the course of the credit crunch, it was not just Bernard Madoff- a name straight from Dickens central casting- who was the criminal.

What the crisis revealed was systemic criminality.

These latest allegations against Goldman Sachs are not receiving front page coverage, but they should, because what is alleged is that the "Vampire Squid" is not so much a legitimate business as a conspiracy to defraud its customers. Goldman, remember, is the pre-eminent investment bank in the world: these allegations could hardly be more serious. If Goldman willfully and knowingly cheats its customers, then the whole investment business is nothing more than a multi-trillion racket which not only serves not useful purpose, but is actively malign to society at large. It is not the faintly comic "vampire squid" image, it is instead a deadly social cancer.

Do I believe that the system itself- the system of capital allocation through free markets- is a criminal racket? The answer is that I do not, but as with any aspect of human society, there have to be rules. Rules that can be effectively enforced, and therefore I firmly believe that capitalism can only work within a framework of law. If that framework is eroded, then the possibilities for the rich and powerful to create an exclusive and unfair society can eventually destroy the fairness that underpins both capitalism and democracy itself. Instead of prices being arrived at by free and unfettered competition, we find a situation where prices are manipulated for the advantage of a small group at the expense of the rest of the market.

I have been involved at a senior level in investment banking for over twenty years, and it is becoming quite clear to me that there is insufficient competition in the investment business. Investment markets are supposed to be regulated in order to prevent the accumulation of excessive risk, but in fact regulation of financial markets has largely become a box ticking exercise that eliminates competition from an ever larger group of securities. For example, an investor is now almost always better off buying an index tracker fund than buying a supposedly actively managed investment vehicle that trades in the same markets as the index. Despite the repeated and obvious failure of actively managed vehicles, they continue to gain investors, because in many cases there is very little choice: either a sub-standard exposure to a market is available, or no exposure at all.

This is not a free market.

Across the finance business there are huge numbers of rigged or partial markets, with investment subscription fees being a particular bug bear of mine. The fact is that finance is not delivering to investors the wealth that it delivers to its practitioners.

It is wrong that the employees of investment houses, who do not put up capital, should be receiving a multiple of the return that shareholders or investors, who do provide the capital, receive. It is even more outrageous that those employee returns continue, even when firms make a loss, and especially when those losses are funded by society at large through a taxpayer funded bailout.

If the system is too complicated to be regulated, then it must be restructured until it can be regulated. Vince Cable is quite right: the banking and investment market should be restructured until it actually does provide competition and not manipulation.

If Goldman Sachs, or any other market actor, is found to be a price manipulator, then the solution is clear. They should be prevented from participating in the market.

If Goldman Sachs, or any other market actor is found to a systematically criminal organisation then the solution is clear. They must be bankrupted and eliminated- totally.

When it comes to financial crime, I believe in the corporate death penalty.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Concert and Blues

Tallinn is full tonight... Big concerts on at the Song field The Weeknd and Bonnie Tyler (!). The place is buzzing and some sixty thousand concert goers have booked every bed for thirty miles around Tallinn. It should be a busy high summer, but it isn´t. Tourism is down sharply overall. Only 70 cruise ships calling this season, versus over 300 before Ukraine. Since no one goes to St Pete, demand has fallen, and of course people think that Estonia is not safe. We are tired. The economy is still under big pressure, and the fall of tourism is a significant part of that. The credit rating for Estonia has been downgraded as the government struggles with spending. The summer has been a little gloomy, and soon the long and slow autumn will drift into the dark of the year. Yesterday I met with more refugees: the usual horrible stories, the usual tears. I try to make myself immune, but I can´t. These people are wounded in spirit, carrying their grief in a terrible cradling. I try to project hop

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo

KamiKwasi brings an end to the illusion of Tory economic competence

After a long time, Politics seems to be getting interesting again, so I thought it might be time to restart my blog. With regard to this weeks mini budget, as with all budgets, there are two aspects: the economic and the political. The economic rationale for this package is questionable at best. The problems of the UK economy are structural. Productivity and investment are weak, infrastructure is under-invested and decaying. Small businesses are going to the wall and despite entrepreneurship being relatively strong in Britain, self-employment is increasingly unattractive. Red tape since Brexit has led to a significant fall in exports and the damage has been disproportionately on small businesses. Literally none of these problems are being addressed by this package. Even if the package were to stimulate some kind of short term consumption-led growth boom, this is unlikely to be sustainable, not least because what is being added on the fiscal side will be need to be offset, to a great de