In the last two weeks the blog and comments have clearly illustrated a business and political (as relates to banking) point of view. In doing so, there has been focus on problems. Moving forward, there will still be focus on solutions as they relate to the industry and regulatory debates that are ongoing. But, we must also offer an alternative view of what a bank could be.
In the next few days we will explore the special responsibilities a large bank has, and what responsibilities any bank has. Of course, this is opinion and some will find it too idealistic. However, when the ideals are lost, the policy is not far behind.
So here goes. I would argue that there are unique responsibilities of large banks that start with safety and soundness as a prerequisite. Betting the bank is profoundly anti-social. The position of the large bank must be understood as something akin to the Kidneys in the body. They are essential. Every smaller bank has a larger bank that serves in various ways to allow it to conduct business. Many of these relate to the processing of back office functions, clearing transactions, technology platforms, the ability to invest their surplus funds, access to liquidity through overnight loans, and dozens of other potential functions. Second, sometimes the largest banks are Trustees, Custodians, Bullion holders, Fiduciaries, 401K Plan or Pension Plan Administrators, etc. So, I would argue the the largest institutions have a responsibility as very protectors of the Free Enterprise system which has been bequeathed to all of us. If they do not protect it, they subject it to risk or ill health. As discussed in 13 Bankers for historical context and elsewhere, this responsibility has been abridged time and time again. There is a magnified effect of any such breach with the largest banks.
Further, the largest banks have responsibilities as role models for the entire system. The truth is they provide a talent pool to the industry, as well as providing operating models to the industry. It is the shame of some regional and community banks that they have accepted and used this talent pool and these methods indescrimanently and have adopted some disfunctional models to the harm of their own organizations. Other institutions tend to think the largest are also the smartest in risk managment and creating profit. Why shouldn’t they think that, up until now? Some believe that if they emulate processes, such as sales management and incentive processes, they will replicate results on the plus side while still retaining some of their individual distinctives to finally surpass the performance by various measures. Maybe they can even acquire and become the next large bank. In fact, what often happens is that they adopt what, unbeknownst, to them are the worst excesses of the largest.
Further, the large bank has the responsibility to occupy the real world. They cannot concoct fantasies either for the investing public, customers, or internally among employees. There has been far too much of this and much of it is newsworthy. They must acknowledge real issues and provide real solutions. In doing so, they should have the interest of the entire system foremost in their minds, then secondarily figure out where they have a profitable role in a sound system. They must not be enslaved to quarter by quarter numbers and must not live in a Through the Looking Glass world. This is no small matter.
In upcoming days we will discuss responsibilities to customers, employees and other stakeholders.
As Ronald Reagan would have said "There you go again!"
Big banks should not have any special responsibilities besides being banks.
And banks are to take risk, and sometimes fail precisely because of that, in financing the small businesses and entrepreneurs that can take us forward, until that moment where the capital markets can take it over"¦ and banks have absolutely nothing to do in the sphere of the AAA rated or in financing the government"¦ and much less when it is not required to have any capital to do that. http://bit.ly/gNemy
Comment by Per Kurowski — April 12, 2010 @ 5:44 PM | Reply
“However, when the ideals are lost, the policy is not far behind.”
And one might add, “the country not far behind that.”
Too bad our politicians and the business whores they bed down with don’t understand this.
Sandi
Comment by Sandi — April 13, 2010 @ 4:25 AM | Reply
In the context in which you’ve framed the discussion – I wholeheartedly agree with all three of your principles for large banks. I also agree with the contextual setting. If the purpose is to find solutions, we have to first identify our goals/ideals – then work toward creating ‘rules for the game’ that incentivize the desired behaviors.
I also agree with Per and Reagan (!), that such requirements are now sorely lacking.
The three principles you’ve outlined are a good start for our conversation re: solutions.
Comment by Lucy Honeychurch — April 13, 2010 @ 9:27 AM | Reply
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Name (required)
E-mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Blog at WordPress.com.
Read Full Article »