The Independent View: The banking sector needs radical reform but too many cures will kill the patient

For seven days before Christmas it has been an incredibly busy day for the financial services sector. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Draft Financial Services Bill has produced its wide-ranging report into regulatory reform; the FSA has published its Mortgage Market Review consultation; and, last but not least, the Treasury has published the Government’s response to the Independent Commission on Banking.

At least the latter was well leaked – what isn’t these days? – and gave me time to think about the ICB.

The ICB is actually something quite amazing, not to mention something entirely Lib Dem.

Sir John Vickers was given the remit and resources to step back and have a long look at banking. He talked to bankers, regulators and – most importantly – actual people. The final report was a wide-ranging and considered plan to fundamentally change banking in the UK. It is referenced in Paris, Frankfurt and New York.

And now the British government has done something really unusual. It has followed-up. This is no Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction committee in the US – attacked, dissected and promptly forgotten. This external academic study is going to become policy.

A lot of people are unhappy about this. The ring-fence is the main lightning rod for criticism – see Angela Knight and the British Banker’s Association – but the Government is going to implement it, essentially unchanged from how Sir John imagined it, in this Parliament. There’s plenty of time before then and now, however, not least if the Government accepts the Joint Committee’s proposal to wait before implanting higher capital standards.

More time for capital requirements may seem like a sop to the bankers, but many MPs of all stripes have been calling for a slowdown in the pace of reform given the current economic circumstances. That said it’s quite possible that a slower pace for enhanced capital requirements is both a boon to the bankers and good for the economy – unfortunately these things are rarely simple and never black and white.

Whilst the pace of change is under debate the Government has agreed in principle to the need for capital higher requirements than stipulated in Basel.

There have been conflicting reports on whether Britain can implement capital requirements above and beyond those decided in Brussels. The Chancellor thinks we can. Andrea Enria – Chairman of the European Banking Authority – seems less sure.

The problem remains that Brussels regulations are not even close to completion, and even if they do decide upon maximum harmonisation (preventing the UK from going higher on capital) there is more than one way to skin the capital cat.

Ultimately a good day for the ICB then. But there is a wider point. There are hundreds of work streams in London, Brussels and Washington that will impact on financial services. These are all intended to cure the ailing economy and prevent another crash.

In medicine when more than one drug is pumped into the patient there is a chance they can interact in unexpected and sometimes detrimental ways. The likelihood of interaction increases with the number of drugs. Each drug may be used with beneficial intent, but the combined result can be disastrous.

And so it is with financial services. The sector needs radical reform but too many cures will kill the patient.

* Ben Norman works on financial policy at Cicero Consulting.

The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV’s readers. Please email [email protected] if you are interested in contributing.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds and The Independent View.
Advert

2 Comments

  • mike cobley 19th Dec '11 - 9:54pm

    Now perhaps we can move onto currency controls and a financial transaction tax (well, if the city slickers are against it, I`m for it), stringent regulation of commodity speculation, esp oil and food. Faster, quicker please.

  • Very sound; couldn’t agree more

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • Alex Macfie
    Michael Meadowcroft "much more difficult to retain wealthy seats won in exceptional circumstances from the Conservatives and which inexorbly revert...
  • Catherine Jane Crosland
    Matt, I am so glad to hear that you and your Mum are now able to visit your Dad. Your Dad, and your Mum, are very lucky to have you to fight their corner. But ...
  • Simon R
    @Phil Beesley - as I understand it, the ICO are stepping in to investigate whether data security laws are being complied with - and that seems to me a reasonabl...
  • William Francis
    @Michael BG As a matter of fact, I have: https://www.justliberals.org.uk/ownership-for-all/ I am currently writing one going into far greater detail thou...
  • FS People
    Peter Martin "What would be your choice of a term to replace ‘neoliberal’?" You have skipped a question. The first question that needs to be asked is:...