Worst of Both Worlds

Tom Clougherty, on the Independent Commission on Banking’s recent proposals:

I hope this isn’t the case, but if it is, it probably suggests a far more radical regulatory approach than the Independent Commission on Banking has considered. It might even point in the direction of ‘narrow’ or ‘limited purpose’ banking, which would involve imposing strict structural divisions in the finance industry, and require banks to hold dramatically higher levels of liquid reserves. Bank of England governor Mervyn King has nodded in this direction.

Of course, I’d much prefer the free market option, but the trouble with the Independent Commission on Banking’s proposals is – arguably – that they do neither one thing nor the other. They don’t eliminate moral hazard and risk subsidies or restore real market discipline to the financial sector. But they don’t offer a particularly strong regulatory response either. As such, the banking sector is liable to cause more problems in future.

Regulation is the natural and proper response to subsidies. If the government is going to subsidize something, it is only natural that the government also regulates it in order to ensure that the new incentives don’t lead to financial (or behavioral) malarkey. In fact, the general purpose of incentives is not to upend the market, but rather to tweak it slightly. Of course, not all consequences can be appreciated in advance, which is generally why regulation is an inevitable response to subsidies.
As such, there are two proper responses to subsidies: either abolish them, or regulate the recipients. The banking commission appears to have taken the worst approach, which combines the free-market approach to regulation coupled with an interventionist approach to subsidies. One need not be a genius to see that this plan is doomed. If the banking commission desires to be successful, it needs to have a consistent philosophical approach: either free markets or proper intervention. It does not need some half-way measure combining the two. Compromise is counterproductive and damaging in the long-run, and so the commission simply needs to get off the fence.

1 comment to Worst of Both Worlds

  • The Independent Commission on Banking still doesn’t appear to understand how modern banks actually operate.
    When a bank makes a loan it does not take other people’s deposits and lend them out. This would imply that no new bank deposits are created in the economy when a bank makes a loan.
    The truth is that when a bank makes a ‘loan’ it simply types in to its account that the borrower owes it a sum of money – this is the bank’s asset. It also types into the customer’s account that he has a bank deposit.
    Unless the ICB, the Bank of England and the Treasury start to take more seriously the true role of banks as the creators of the overwhelming majority of new purchasing power in the economy, there is little hope for effective reform. Focus instead will remain on propping up a banking model that specialises in speculative credit creation and has become so big that it is underwritten by the taxpayer.
    I highly recommend the readers to look at the Positivemoney.org.uk website which explains further.

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>