Banks are afterward once more in the works to their obsolete tricks. It seems as the comings and goings of 2007, 2008 and 2009 have been forgotten. hoarding seems to have taken precedence once once again prompting the question of bankers and their conscience.
The undertakings higher than these subsequent to two years have set me thinking. Just find what we have seen since the summer of 2007. Starting as an concerning imperceptible murmur of thunder exceeding the horizon, we have been subjected to a violent tempest which has swept the globe. The worst financial crisis in the past the good Depression! And the storm is not nevertheless over. The churning maelstrom that yet surrounds the financial system is going to endure a cumulative even if longer before it settles next to and a within your means wisdom of tranquility returns.
As activities progressed through 2008 into 2009, many of the surviving icons of the financial world began to revert to their old form of deafening profits, meaninglessly huge staff bonuses, and a nauseating wisdom of self importance. every of this thanks to the graciousness of various governments who had squandered big amounts of taxpayers allowance to keep the system afloat. And this to the determent of the real economy.
Just watching some of the goings on, such as the billboard of invincible bonuses to staff or the encouragement of Goldman Sachs boss that his paperwork was doing Gods work prompted the question; Do bankers have a conscience?
Just rule the facts. Banks are supposed to be financial intermediaries. This means that they understand in deposits from those folk who happen to have surplus funds and they later lend this to those folk who are rude of funds, be it temporary, in the same way as a definite who needs maintenance to lid cyclical fluctuations such as paying weekly wages even though they wait for creditor payments. Banks along with lend long term such as for mortgages. Either way, since it lends, a bank is supposed to declare the risk that it faces in making the loan. Can the borrower suitably be standard to be accomplished to meet the onslaught conditions and repay the loan? pretty basic stuff.
There is nothing wrong subsequent to the theory. Along the mannerism the bank should be dexterous to gain from its activities. A caveat here though; basic economic theory does not see a bank precisely as one sees a firm. Banks are financial facilitators while firms are there to make a profit. Naturally this is every nonsense. Banks are firms bearing in mind any supplementary and are acceptable to create a profit, albeit a reasonable one.
However, looking urge on at the comings and goings of the in the manner of two years, the enthusiastic of many banks was (and nevertheless is) absolutely not anywhere close how it was supposed to be.
Banks had evolved (degenerated is probably a bigger word to use), and in the process had created in-house casinos, the sole take steps of which was to make money by taking dangerous risks. This other type of issue had categorically tiny to get behind the real economy.
For the uninitiated, in the terminology of economics, the real economy refers to deeds that build commodities. Commodities are goods and services for household consumption. This is in contrast to the financial sector that does not manufacture commodities. The financial sectors role had been to put up to the genuine economy through financial intermediation (the redirection and portion of child support from lender to borrowers). But this had every changed.
As ration of this transformation banks turned their standard view of risk upon its head. Traditionally banks were risk averse riskier loans carried a well ahead engagement rate. Often loans were not made because the risk of the borrowers viable default was just too high. below the additional casino government style, banks started to look risk as an opportunity to make maintenance and not something to be avoided. And afterward this came every sorts of new products, once derivatives and securitization, supposedly to diversify the risks. Risk became practically commoditized. Risk became something that one could purchase and sell. Banks ceased to try to avoid risk; upon the contrary they wanted to get more risk.
The products that the banks created to realize this had nothing to do in the manner of helping to relief trade, commerce or industry the production of goods and services. These other bank products were synthetic. They had nothing whatsoever to do following taking on the risk of entrepreneurship in the real economy.
The banks however did not look what they were play a role as gambling. upon the contrary they saw these risks as physical thoroughly diversified for that reason that nothing truly bad could happen.
Of course this last view was nonsense and should never have been entertained by a prudent banker. It could, and as we know, did go incorrect awfully wrong!
As conditions worsened a reflex recognition kicked in. As the financial positions of the banks bets turned barbed banks took upon even greater than before financial risks to try to bail themselves out. Of course this tactic can never take steps as you clearly dig a better hole for yourself, organization and the economy; Gambling on Resurrection as Dr. Catherine Cowley of London academe has so aptly called it.
These new products are not joined to the real economy. They are aimed at producing profits for the financial sector itself, to the detriment of the genuine economy.
So, accomplish banks realize bankers have a conscience?
In fresh of huge bonuses for staff of questionable talents; turning a blind eye to the financial requirements of the real economy; and seeing themselves as fulfilling some vanguard target the reply has to be a positive No. No doubt there are exceptions, but these bankers seem to be skillfully hidden.
It will be interesting to see how banks will try to wriggle out of this one.
Post a Comment