Well today the light shines a little brighter. As I was watching Sky News, I now see a stronger and more enthusiastic run to get these bankers under some kind of rational control. Will it work? Time will tell, however there is a start, and it might not take long until a strong voice could stem the tide of greed to a small extent.
We are however nowhere near a good solution. Mr Osborne (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) is about to take a page from a legally valid solution to divide the bank into 2 parts, a good and a bad bank. Yes, Mr Osborne, that will really help to take these billions of bad debt and add them to the tax payer’s burden! Not really a solution, is it?
To add other news moments that the UK economy is out of intensive care is not just wrong; it is a bad insight close to that of the Titanic playing chicken with an iceberg. No, I stand corrected. This decision is worse. You see, the Titanic had a few survivors; this approach might leave people alive, but destitute for a very long time.
So yes, there is a chance that the Royal Bank of Scotland will join Clan Goldman Sachs.
The idea of shares, making public and so on are ideas. I am not in favour of them, but perhaps Mr Osborne does not have a choice. You know, it is unfair for me to just complain, lay blame and not have a solution. What could be done is to keep the RBS nationalised, and remain an operating bank. Do a proper bank job by giving out small loans, do banking functions for those with jobs and create jobs. Also, the money that the RBS bank makes is used to pay off the debts, the bad loans and even create tax fortunes this way. Why not?
It is not like the banks at present are doing anywhere near a decent job.
The so called stated fact that the economy is in a better shape by stating: “Nothing better signals Britain’s move from rescue to recovery than the fact that we can start to plan for our exit from Government share ownership to private ownership.” is in my view horribly wrong. The fact that the UK is not in the red at present is just fortunate (and at less than 0.5%). The fact that most of Europe is down and there is no realistic view that this will improve within 18-24 months is not realistic. I read the claims that some made over the last two years. Good news was always bad news in the end and results had to be corrected downwards every single time. To rely on that a belief that the UK is now in a stage of recovery is in my humble opinion a case of really bad judgement.
How about playing it safe? Instead of quickly selling the good bank so that irresponsible banks can continue to endanger the lives of too many, hold on to it, make it stronger and get it into a shape where it is worth a lot more than it is now.
The current ‘noise’ that bankers are being chased for criminal charges are nice claims to make, yet the true culprits did what they did, and they never broke the law. Until the law changes, they are out of reach. The small fry we do get to prosecute will get nowhere near the punishment that is due. It is best reflected by Paul Moore, former head of Risk, HBOS. “The banking crises drove 100.000.000 people into poverty“. He is correct, what was done should be criminal and those involved require insane levels of punishment. Yet, as I reflected earlier, that will not happen. Lawyer Sidney Myers seems to be in agreement (or more precisely, I am in agreement with him). Mr Myers is not just a somebody in this field. As the head of Berwin, Leighton and Paisner this man wield a formidable legal cricket bat. It would make Colin Cowdrey instantly humble. Mr Sidney Myers is listed as one of the top 500 lawyers, this in a field that has over 120.000 practising lawyers, so we are in well informed top tier company.
To get a person convicted is near impossible. Getting the group convicted must proof all guilty, neither seems to be a realistic possibility at present. So we need to see a legal overhaul that changes the game, and selling of Lloyds and the RBS before that moment is in my humble opinion not a good idea. Sir George Mathewson, former CEO of the RBS has that same view (in regards to the legal prosecuting). He did however state an interesting line. “Where the information is made clear to the board and the shareholders” this comes to collected responsibility. The interesting part is what information? To get a clue on that, we should look at a book called ‘how to lie with statistics‘ written by Darrell Huff in 1954. It is a gem, an eye opener and it actually shows today’s problems. If we react to numbers and if numbers are ‘not incorrectly’ tweaked, then how is managed risk not anything less than misrepresented risk?
The bulk of data miners will look at profitability, but profitability of whom and how?
Uniting the views of Paul Moore and Darell Huff gives us part of this problem. Separate the data miner from the board of directors and we create a Star Chamber situation that lacks accountability for the simple reason that no laws can be proven to be broken. That danger, until countered gives reason for the now nationalised banks to remain as they are. SNS Reaal in the Netherlands is in that same scope. Until legal secure measures are firmly in place, protecting the taxpayer from irresponsible risks, other banks should not be allowed to continue, especially AFTER they move part of their failures into a bad bank.
The idea that the PM David Cameron has mentioned about selling the RBS at a loss is just not an option in my view. They should continue in the setting they are now, offering financial solutions to the UK citizens at lowest base +1% could over time turn the RBS and Lloyds into banks that are no longer in the red. Other banks have no reason and right to complain. They have been making customer services nearly impossible. To get a grip on that, take a look at The Netherlands where getting a mortgage reads like a tale no less imaginary then ‘the Hobbit’. As banks have been banking on higher levels of return on investments, smaller businesses and individuals suffered. They have no issue with credit cards as they charge 11-12%, however getting a mortgage seems to be a lot harder. So as customers come to the rescue of the RBS as they switch credit cards for 6-7% which will aid the government to get RBS back on their feet and even add some coinage into the treasury’s coffers (with a 1 trillion deficit), this could be a possible good solution. Are there any banks complaining? Well, that is the way the cookie crumbles. It is time for them to face the consequences of unadulterated greed.
The issue of holding bonuses for 10 years does sound nice in theory, however, how about appellant case HQ09X04007 and HQ09X05230. A case settled in the Court of Appeal by Lord Justice Elias and Lord Justice Beatson? A case where 104 members, were due their 50 million Euro in bonuses.
In that case I found this: “Bonus awards for all front and middle office employees who received a letter in December stating their provisional award, which was subject to Dresdner Kleinwort’s financial performance targets, will be cut by 90% pro rata to the stated provisional amount.”
However their contract had this little hidden gem “It is common ground that all the claimants, including the three whose employment agreements did not contain any provision with regard to payment of a discretionary bonus, Messrs Sacre, Honeywood and Daley, had a contractual entitlement to be considered for the award of a discretionary bonus.” (Source: Case note)
How soon will that case get quoted in another court case to get a bonus freed up? Some miscommunication through contracts where no one is accountable, yet the bonus is immediately payable? Another option could be that these senior members will start playing musical chairs with friendly banks, switching each year all protecting one another stopgapping large bonuses on an annual basis (in their favour of course).
So how long until we get some level of miscommunication going on? If we accept the journal of Ronald Green from 1993 ‘Shareholders as Stakeholders: Changing Metaphors of Corporate Governance‘ and if we accept that banks and financial institutions fall in that category, then their responsibility is to profit, not to accountability, which means that their acts will focus on non-accountability to endure ruling of profitability. The latter part would be my take on the works of Milton Friedman.
There is the crux. Until serious changes are made to separate the banks, the profit in regards to stakeholders and shareholders, whilst increasing a banks social responsibility, the cut-throat business they now do and the taxpayer currently pays for will continue.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 