We’re bashing the wrong bankers

By Tim Price Feb 10, 2012

Tim Price

Share with
friends:

Comments (5) Print this article

Few sights in British cultural life are more unpalatable than watching our politicians siding with the coarser elements of Fleet Street in criticising bankers.

Admittedly, when it comes to a rather public knife fight between members of parliament and financiers, this is a struggle that you really want both sides to lose. Thomas Macaulay, himself a politician, nailed the issue when he observed that “we know no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality”.

Notwithstanding the righteous indignation of the many, it will be a tragedy if the limits of reform to our financial system end with just a few chastened commercial bankers (now working for the state) declining a few million pounds’ worth of bonuses.

The banks and their balance sheets were allowed to swell beyond all reasonable compass during the credit boom. Loans were extended to all who sought them and to many who could never afford them. Plenty of toxic products were distributed throughout the global banking infrastructure, as if a giant muck-spreader had mated with a perpetual motion machine.

Now that the economies and politicians of the West are belatedly discovering austerity, there is an opportunity to point the finger at the facilitators of all of this mess. They are not commercial or even investment bankers. They are central bankers.

Who was tasked with regulation of the banks in the first place, and with prudential oversight of the broader financial system? Who has been given monopoly powers over money-printing, managing interest rates, suppressing inflation (a particularly sick joke) and currency control? Who, over the past decade, has inflated their own balance sheets by anything from 300% (in the case of the European Central Bank), to roughly 400% (the Bank of England), to roughly 700% (Germany’s Bundesbank)?


Want a fast way to hunt big dividend paying stocks?

Performance table

Easily compare UK shares by sector or index using our free performance tool.

From the FTSE 100 to penny stocks – easily find out here


 

Politicians of late have been pathetically struggling to display their free-market credentials. Why do those same free-market credentials not extend to the single most important facets of the modern economy: interest rates, the money supply, the act of unreserved money-creation itself?

Probably because politicians secretly nurse a huge appreciation of their ‘independent’ friends at the central banks. Without them, politicians would be unable to spend vast sums of public money that they don’t have on projects they could otherwise never afford, all paid for by mortgaging the futures of us, our children and grandchildren, through the medium of the national debt.

For 40 years, ever since Nixon took the US dollar off gold in 1971 and ensured that no currency anywhere would be backed by anything of tangible value, politicians (aided and abetted by central bankers) have gleefully promised the world to voters, and paid them back in ever more devalued currency.

But the credit-fuelled, debt-fuelled, easy money expansion of our time has run into a wall. In underwriting insolvent banks, governments – through the agencies of the central banks under their implicit control – have effectively bankrupted themselves.

As the managers at QB Asset Management point out, the global monetary system is based on debt. The money we use is lent into being by banks. When it is repaid through deleveraging, the money supply contracts. But frustratingly for politicians and central bankers, while base money may disappear, all that government debt built up over years of economic denial and wishful thinking remains.

If government debt is not allowed to deteriorate, it must be deleveraged through the ongoing creation of base money. This is exactly what is now happening. Faced with the equally awful choice between debt deflation and monetary inflation, central banks have voted explicitly for the latter. We may live in a democracy, but nobody thought to ask the real voters, the taxpayers who pay for it all, what they might think.

Explicit inflationism keeps the show on the road a while longer. We can all play the game called ‘there are no problems in the banking system’ even as we double-check the extent of the government’s Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which guarantees our bank deposits. But the genie of inflation, once released from the bottle, may be grotesquely difficult to hammer back in.

James Bianco of Bianco Research points out that the balance sheets of the world’s largest central banks ($15trn) now account for roughly one third of global stockmarket capitalisation ($48trn). Central banks, he says, are now ruling markets to an extent that none of us has ever seen. Collectively, “they are printing money to a degree never seen in human history”.

In an increasingly poisonous environment of mud slinging and point scoring between members of the media, our political ‘leaders’, and our besieged commercial bankers, one interest group of uniquely influential policy makers has remained strangely absent from the fray.

Central bankers float mysteriously and invulnerably above the rest of us, neither well known nor remotely understood. Will central banks and their chiefs be able to withdraw trillions of dollars, pounds and euros from our monetary system before inflation or market confidence spiral out of control? We are about to find out.

• Tim Price is director of investment at PFP Wealth Management. He also writes The Price Report newsletter .

This article was originally published in MoneyWeek magazine issue number 575 on 10 February 2011, and was available exclusively to magazine subscribers. To read all our subscriber-only articles right away, sign up for a three-week free trial now.

Comments (5)

Share with
friends:

Comments

  • 1. FC

    (12 February 2012, 06:04PM)  Complain about this comment

    Smashing stuff Tim, agree on all counts. The fact that the BoE is undemocratic (we can't vote against money-printing) is a favourite rant of mine lately. The money that doesn't exist yet that has been transferred from ordinary people to pay the bonuses of the till-operators via oversized mortgages will surely have to be brought into existence via more and more QE. Happy days, these are not.
    This article needs to be non-subscriber only so it can be seen by more people.

  • 2. 4caster

    (14 February 2012, 05:31PM)  Complain about this comment

    I agree wholeheartedly with the article. We should also "point the finger at the facilitators of all this mess", as Tim puts it.
    But the headline is misleading, as he is not absolving those bankers who are being bashed. After all they were motivated by the promise of bonuses to lend so recklessly; the facilitators just sleepwalked into the mess, and governments had created regulatory frameworks that had gaps in them.
    I also like the quote from the Economist on page 40 of MoneyWeek "How to spot banking talent". Look for someone who says "No" to the expansion plans of subordinates .... and isn't motivated by "getting rich quick".

  • 3. SteveH

    (21 March 2012, 05:19PM)  Complain about this comment

    In answer to your opening salvo
    >Who was tasked with regulation of the banks in the first place, and with prudential oversight of the broader financial system?<
    It was the FSA, not the Bank of England.

  • 4. Chris

    (22 March 2012, 10:22AM)  Complain about this comment

    "We’re bashing the wrong bankers"- IMO, the headline is rubbish. Commercial bankers may have been given too much regularity slack but that did not force them to take all of it- landing taxpayers with a huge liability. In this case you can ignore morality and look at a hard headed case of deciding whether we are going to let a small minority 'take a ride' at the expense of the majority.
    I agree that chastening a few commercial bankers, like Steven Hestner who was being rewarded in a standard way for the industry, is a piecemeal outcome and papers over the cracks. That is why there should be a repeat of the bankers bonus tax and corporation tax should remain at 28% for financials- to recover some of what the industry has cost until it is suitably regulated with a reward structure that rewards creating genuine long term value.

  • 5. 4caster

    (27 March 2012, 02:15PM)  Complain about this comment

    To blame the central bankers is just like blaming the police for failing to prevent your house from being burgled. And in the UK's case the FSA, not the BofE, were supposed to be policing the banks.
    THE BLAMEWORTHY ONES ARE THOSE WHO GOT AWAY WITH THE LOOT, through robbing shareholders, clients, and above all, taxpayers. Just because "the banks and their balance sheets were allowed to swell beyond all reasonable compass during the credit boom" did not make it right to do so. They showed no moral responsibility. They were just irresponsibly greedy, having been incentivised to be so.
    The authorities merely took their salaries and pension contributions and in some instances failed to watch the ball.

Leave a comment

This will be the name displayed with your comment.

This helps us verify comments are genuine. It will not be displayed anywhere on the site and is stored confidentially.

Please keep your comment within 1,000 characters and relevant to the main topic. We encourage healthy debate, but we don't allow insults or bad language. Anything off topic or unpleasant, we'll remove. Enjoy the conversation! Thank you.

captcha To prevent spam-related comments please enter the characters shown in the 'Captcha' box to the left.

By leaving a comment you accept our terms and conditions.


FREE - MoneyWeek's daily investment emailJohn Stepek

Our free daily email, Money Morning, is an informative and enjoyable analysis of what's going on in the markets. Written by our Editor, John Stepek, and guest contributors.
Sign up FREE to Money Morning here.

>