I started a Masters in financial journalism in September. I am studying part time so am only attending weekly lectures on a wednesday which should take two years.
So far it has been a whirlwind, I have picked up fascinating information about previous financial crises dating back to the 17th century and gained some good writing tips.
However, the biggest aspect that caught my interest took place today in a heated lecture where the speaker waxed lyrical about how he felt the incompetence and excessive remuneration of bankers caused the latest economic crash. He said the banks should have been allowed to fail, nationalised, split up and sold on once they returned to profit.
This caused a student to storm out.
The student's beef- that is a phrase I have picked up from the listening to the undergraduates on campus - was that this was an overly simplistic way of describing the crisis which neglected the role of the regulators, credit agencies, shareholders and investors, as well as the work some bankers put in and the wealth they created and spent in the economy.
The lecturer retorted that he would prefer they had done less work so less damage was done.
This made me think, is there a place for sticking up for financial services? Has the narrative moved on from the causes of the crash to the cures or are we stuck in a cycle of banker bashing?
Everybody accepts that "bankers" - the catch all term for individuals who involved themselves in risky lending practises - behaved irresponsibly. Some have suffered with regulatory bans, although others have got off with large pay-offs and a nice pension.
Most of the media and academia is full of prose about how the financial services industry did wrong and needs reform. That is inarguable and the process is already underway.
But hardly anyone focuses on the good financial services can and has brought, such as job and wealth creation (in some areas), pension provision, sensible mortgage lending, providing bank account and insurance products, or philanthropy.
Should there be sympathy for bankers having their bonuses or pay cut? Maybe not. What about empathy for those left in the industry at firms now struggling from the prospect of another crash and facing bank failure or redundancy? They also have bills to pay.
I don't think it was just bankers who caused the crisis. The main cause was greed. And that could be found everywhere, from the Square Mile to the regulators in Canary Wharf, from the MPs to the first time buyer on a 120 per cent mortgage, or the man on the high street with a maxed out credit card.
The bankers, or the specific individuals in the finance sector, need to be held responsible, but it must be remembered that they did not act in a vacuum.
It is easy to argue that bankers are paid too much because they do not contribute to society like a doctor or nurse. But how relevant is that point. People can choose their vocation. Is it a banker's fault that the remuneration levels are so high?
Surely that is just capitalism? Is there a viable alternative or do we accept that everybody made mistakes and got fat on greed?
No comments:
Post a Comment