Business Comment

Rain (AM and PM) 6° London Hi 9°C / Lo 7°C

Jeremy Warner: Bankers make easy scapegoats, but...

Outlook Only MPs on the Commons Treasury Committee could make the quartet of bankers who appeared before them yesterday look like models of reasonable, intelligent and considered thinking. As public floggings go, it was all fair enough I guess, but the MPs failed to land a killer punch, and as Sir Fred Goodwin, former chief executive of Royal Bank of Scotland, said towards the end of the hearing: "You can blame it on me and close the book, but it doesn't come close to explaining what happened."

And though it was hard to figure out amid all the grandstanding, that indeed was the purpose of the hearing – to establish what happened and how it might be prevented in future. In fact, the great bulk of the three-and-a-quarter-hour marathon session was spent point-scoring. Was it individual bankers who were the cause, or were they as much victims of systemic and regulatory failure as everyone else? MPs wanted to pin it all on the bankers, but we were no nearer knowing the answer by the end of the hearing than we were at the start.

With public anger against bankers at fever pitch, we are in danger of falling for a big lie about the main causes of the financial meltdown. Greed, lack of governance and irresponsible risk-taking obviously played a major part, but none of it would have happened but for the climate of easy money, lax regulation and fiscal irresponsibility that fuelled the bubble. Policy mistakes in the early part of the crisis, when central bankers, regulators and governments failed to grasp the enormity of the dangers, may also have contributed to the collapse in confidence that did for the banking system.

No politician is ever going to accept that perhaps they were as culpable as the bankers. With their multimillion-pound bonuses, top bankers make easy scapegoats, and they deserve much of the opprobrium which is reserved for them. But it's not just greed and hubris; it's more complicated than that. Just occasionally during the hearing, you got little glimpses of the true picture. Unfortunately, they were few and far between, and there was virtually no time given to exploring with these disgraced representatives of their trade how things might be improved to stop it all happening again. Maybe they don't deserve their say, but it would have been interesting to hear it, none the less. There is not a single one of them who doesn't every night beat himself up for the mistakes that were made.

I don't want to apologise for Sir Fred and the others. They forgot the basic principles of sound banking in the dash for growth, but they weren't the only ones who thought heavy reliance on wholesale funding perfectly safe, or failed to anticipate the way in which it would break down. The Financial Services Authority and the Bank of England also failed to notice what one MP repeatedly and mistakenly insisted on calling the "siren warnings". That's because, beyond the odd diatribe about the dangers of excessive debt, there were hardly any of them. It suited the politicians as much as the bankers for the party to be maintained at full pelt. You are not going to get politicians taking the punch bowl away just when there is an election looming.

I say there were no "siren" warnings, but in fact there does appear to have been one. The former head of regulatory risk at HBOS, Paul Moore, claims in a memo to the committee to have warned repeatedly against the dangers of overly aggressive expansion of the balance sheet. Eventually, he was sacked and gagged for his trouble. The finance director, moreover, refused to minute his complaints. Mr Moore likens his experience to that of a man in a rowing boat trying to slow down a supertanker.

Mr Moore's insider account puts the blame firmly on a "total failureon all key aspects of governance". No doubt there is some truth in his claims, but the nub of his complaint is not what ultimately did for HBOS. It was not overly aggressive lending as such which sank the bank, but undue reliance on wholesale funding. Even Mr Moore failed to spot quite how vulnerable this was making the banking system.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Where was the tube driver guilt?
[info]lse_scientist wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 06:30 am (UTC)
Contrast the banker quartet point scoring with the guilt of tube drivers after people throw themselves in front of trains. Tube drivers are not responsible for these suicides--but because tube drivers are fully human, they still feel responsible--to the degree that many cannot drive trains again. Jeremy Warner is right: bankers are not responsible--money was thrown out before them--but the quartet showed none of that basic humanity found in tube drivers.

This matters: wait until taxes go up in the next few years--the public hatred of bankers has not even started. That hatred will have negative effects: come 2011 it will force regulation upon banks that is not economically wise but politically unavoidable.

If the quartet had shown some tube driver guilt, the public might grasp some of what Warner is saying. But the bankers did not: that is going to have tragic results.
Bankers! What Bankers.
[info]lacommentateur wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 08:48 am (UTC)
None of those in the Quartet appearing before the Treaasury Select Committee were real bankers - men and boys. They are just part of the army of 'spivs' and 'smart arse' types bought in to drive their individual banks in a Formula One like race to win the profit top spot in the banking sector. The all important ingedient in the race was to fuel their organisations with as much money as they could no matter from where it came and splash it around in lending and doing flash deals. The art of banking as a profession was dumped as was regard to the regulatory rules. This was made easier by virtue of the general worldwide economic thinking,particularly that eminating from the US including the Basel rule changes bought in by Clinton and used disasterously by Bush and Brown, by New Labour's abandonment of interest and cedit control, by the inadequate rules imposed by New Labour under which the Bank of England controlled rates, by an comatosed FSA, by Brown's obsession with the City crowd who could do no wrong - all this combined together set the scene for the tragedy. The urgent drive for new fancy ways of generating profits paved the way for the subordination of the important issue of bank governance and care. If bankers of some standing had have been in charge then we would probably would not have been in the mess we find ourselves since they would have been aware of the vulnerabilities and may have the moral strength to have protested. The 'spivs and 'smart arses' can only concentrate of one thing at a time. This time it was the profits race and most of them spun off the track taking out most of their investors and customers.
Brown and infantilised electorate guilty.
[info]jake_f66 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 09:28 am (UTC)
Sir Goodwin,Sir Stephenson,Sir Mckillop,Sir Wanless,Sir Crosby. All knighted by Labour. Many for 'Services to the banking industry. Then some appointed in Quango and HMG-advisory positions by Brown. In the case of Crosby to advise on mortgage strategy. Unbelievably Brown had appointed him in a non-executive position at his FSA: so he was a poacher and gamekeeper at the same time.

When a new regime is elected, they should all lose their knighthoods. The likes of Crosby&Wanless&other sycophantic ex-business cronies of Brown should be fired pronto. Then indeed , as Mr Warner has suggested, we should end limited liability for directors, when business&bank failures occur due to reckless behaviour with others' money. Think Marconi and Mayo.

But the FSA and HMG/Treasury Civil Servants and advisors guilty will all still be paid their bonusses. And the MPs will still abuse the expenses rules. Ultimately, in a democracy the buck stops with us, the electorate. We select our representatives, MPs, and they failed in ensuring that the executive designed and practised the right monetary,fiscal,Basel II and banking-regulatory policy. Did McFall et al read the whole of Brown's banking act 1998? Or the Swedish report on its crisis?

Refusing to inform themselves properly and do their democratic duty,much of the electorate only seems to be interested in breeding, bread and games. Preferably provided by a government seen and posing as a mixture of Father Christmas and Robin Hood. Labour rules with just over 20% of the eligible vote and just 36% of the actual one. How do we change all that?
the greed culture
[info]jaffgyp wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 09:28 am (UTC)
in retirement i've watched the self-serving greed culture take over almost every aspect of british life- i doubt if many folk under the age of,say, 45, really understand what has happened, or can imagine a different world; there are very few management structures still in place in public or in private enterprises which rest on anything more than individual reward and self-protection; the attitudes of these younger 'managers'(oh god, everybody is a manager these days) are almost uniformly repulsive to those of us who grew up in the well-intended welfare state with a hope that we were working for the common good-or at least that we were not deliberately and calculatingly working simply for our own good ;
watching those pitiful 'bankers' n the box was deeply depressing- not one of them even considered that maybe they might put on a show of remorse by surrendering some of their personal loot- in fact it was quite clear that none of them could even grasp what all the fuss was about!
What else?
[info]dafyddtaylor wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 11:05 am (UTC)
You say there were other primary causes beyond greed and hubris. Yet you also state "forgot the basic principles of sound banking in the dash for growth". What is the dash for growth besides greed? What made these people think that basic principles no longer applied to them, besides hubris?

The only point you have is that the politicians shared in the hubris. A point you never even touched on is the general population (with their talk of ever increasing house prices) shared in the greed.

But the story is one of greed and hubris and not much else. Even the worship of light touch regulation of the Anglo Saxon system had hubris at its root.
[info]gyhrphy wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 12:14 pm (UTC)
"You can blame it on me and close the book, but it doesn't come close to explaining what happened."

Wll then, Mr know it all - you explain what did happen. You got paid to know.
Bankers "easy targets"
[info]crisjon wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 07:44 pm (UTC)
I think not because if they were they would be having their collars felt as I write this

Maybe as before we'll have to rely on the Americans to bring our bankers to book. I once had sympathy for the Nat West 3 & felt indignant that the Americans wanted to put them on trial while our SFO didn't. Not anymore & I can't wait for more extraditions only on a much larger scale because the SFO are useless