Monitoring Employee behaviour - a tricky problem

Despite the rapidly rising number of compliance officers and the tide of regulatory legislation the age-old problem of supervising employee behaviour keeps posing serious challenges to top management of banks and fund management firms. Surely the solution cannot be to put one compliance officer behind each and every trader or fund manager. And who would oversee these compliance officers? and so on....
Only management and an enterprise culture that are dedicated to maintain high standards of conduct can assure that incidents such as this one at are prevented. All-too often management is too far removed from the front line business, occupied with internal politics or simply not stable enough due to constant re-organisation (aided by clueless and inexperienced 'Consultants').

Superbanks - too large to fail, and too large to manage?

Bank managements often argue that losses in far-away subsidiaries could not easily have been foreseen by top management. Such may be the case when Citigroup tries to explain loan losses that may have occurred in its business in Mexico. But is this really a valid excuse? A loss of $ 400 million is quite substantial, even when measured against the bank's total assets of approximately $1.9 trillion. The loss/exposure admittedly is only 0.2 percent of total assets but seen in a different way this would mean that the bank has about 4500 loans (if they would all be the same size). Any organisation should be able to set up a management structure that can cope with this number of transactions. The management pyramid would only about three layers if each senior loan officer is in charge of about 50 loans. Impossible in this age of instant communication? Not in my opinion, one would not even need (expensive) MBA's or PhD's, just honest hardworking employees with a good pinch of common sense.

ECB Banking Review - Moving Deckchairs on the Titanic

More costs borne by shareholders, savers and taxpayers, more jobs for the boys - happy to be an Eurocrat in this age - and still no change to the basic rules of the banking game. Happy New Year 2014!

More Swaps, more Risks

Glad to see that another swap market (Chinese Yuan) seems to be in rude health, but nearly all swaps are facilitated by a bank acting as counterparty - and are these risks not contrary to what current regulatory efforts want to achieve? If some regulators advocate a move to a leverage ratio of 10 where does that leave the gazillions of over-the-counter swaps?

Government Mis-Selling Scandal

Having been on the receiving end of many a sales call trying to convince me of the necessity of buying identity theft protection for my credit cards,I can say that the present hysteria about this issue here in the UK can only be called a modern version of the witch hunt. Given that this dark period is but a few hundred years away it is remarkable that not much has changed in human nature - certainly not in the nature of those who want to bully and nanny the citizen.
Condemning banks in blanket fashion to 'compensate' those who were supposedly mis-sold protection products goes against all notions of legal due process. Only slightly worse is the silence of the guardians of our investment monies who should scream bloody murder as the companies they invest on our behalf get fleeced by regulators. Where is the Governance army hiding when it is really needed?
Government can play a role in protecting the consumer, as can all the worthy or unworthy organisations who claim to have the consumer's interest at heart. But let them issue warnings, educate the public so that people can make decisions that are (hopefully) protecting their own interest. Nobody forced me to buy any product, suitable or unsuitable. And maybe some people might have benefitted from the protection they bought. Who speaks up for them?

Co-op Bank: Slaughter of the Innocents?

Talk of bailing-in holders of certain bonds demonstrates that investors and depositors in European Banks are well-advised to be ultra cautious and not rely too much on reassurances uttered by regulators and their political paymasters. It beggars belief that after the chaotic 'resolution' of the debt crisis in Cyprus there is even talk of applying a hair-cut to the value of certain bonds issued by the Co-op bank. Most of those looking at losses would be retail investors, the most vulnerable and least sophisticated participants in the financial markets. Before their investments are impaired it would be appropriate to seize the full equity value of the bank - and one would hope that there is one.

Apart from this glaring injustice this episode is another sad illustration about the danger inherent in Merger transactions. The list of desasters is a long one, Bankamerica/Countrywide and Merrill Lynch, Commerzbank/Dresdner Bank, Lloyds TSB'HBOS to name the most prominent one

German Managers want banking pay limited - but not their own

A poll conducted by Handelsblatt comes to the conclusion that German Managers favour limiting pay in the banking industry but not in their own companies. How hypocritical can you be? But apart from this questionable aspect limiting pay in the banking industry would mean that only second-rate people would want to pursue a career in banking. This episode demonstrates that the question of pay - especially for senior management - cannot be tackled in specific industries but must be part of a wider solution based on sound management and moral principles.

Salz Report on Barclays - another Figleaf for the Establishment

The lengthy - and ridiculously expensive - Salz Report has to be seen in the long English tradition of conducting expensive and lengthy enquiries when the solution to the problem would just have taken common sense and a willingness for decisive action. Both ingredients are missing. It is not clear why there would have to be an enquiry into Barclays Bank and not into any of the other major banks, investment institutions, regulators and politicians who must certainly share a large part of the blame for problems in the financial sector - and wider economy - that have evolved during the past few years. The proverbial blind man could see that executive pay in banks - but also in investment firms and major listed companies - has spiralled out of control. It leaves a sour - not to say salty - taste in one's mouth when one sees that the costs of the report are such that the 'solution' is part of the (pay) problem. How can anyone justify that a 244 page report that any junior management consultant with his head screwed on could has put together can cost £17 million! And how much of that did go to the City 'Grandee'?

Deutsche Bank - Vorwaerts mit Achleitner?

The write-offs published in DB's results show that despite all the market-leading positions the Bank may have in certain business segments the size of the company makes it inevitable that some major air pockets are hit in various parts of the far-flung empire. This is a problem that all banking behemoths face. Add the incentives to make more profits every quarter (and a corresponding bonus) and you have nearly guaranteed that some transactions will lead to losses. So it is problematic when an institution such as Deutsche Bank finds it necessary to put Paul Achleitner into the role of chairman of the supervisory board after he has managed to display less than excellent flair for managing the finances and investments of Allianz AG. Do I need to mention Dresdner Bank to anyone?

UK: Hellbent on destroying its banks?

Readers know my scepticism with respect to the LIBOR witch hunt (and the PPI/payment protection insurance brouhaha that is completely blown out of proportion and turns all notions of individual responsibility on its head). But if there is any truth to it that the regulatory jobsworths (and their political puppetmasters) put pressure on Royal Bank of Scotland to get rid of two senior executives than one really has to say that the 'Coalition' here in the UK is hellbent on destroying what is left of indigenous UK banking institutions. Cameron and Osborne (and with a little bit of luck Nick Clegg as well) will find themselves cushy jobs with their Etonian or City friends and hangers-on after (as I would expect) they lose the next election. But the taxpayer and citizens of the country would have seen their (involuntary) investment in RBS go down the tubes.

Libor Trades - Simplistic Calculations

Reports about the profits that Deutsche Bank is supposed to have made (where can we finally expect to see a hard copy of dollars and cents?) are simplistic to say the least. Of course, ALL trading houses will (hopefully) have made money from 'Libor trades'. The alternative would have been to have lost money in these trades. But as even any intern serving in an investment firm knows, that does not mean that any profit has been made in an improper fashion. Have any of the critics in the media, politics and regulators even had a good look at the acres of office space trading desks occupy? do they know how many different desks and investments are linked to Libor? Then they would understand that even the efforts of a group as large as the (supposed) group of UBS staffers can hardly have shifted the actual Libor rates produced collectively by ALL the contributing banks by more than a tiny amount. And even within UBS, for example, there would have been winners and losers on any given day, just that the people responsible for Libor quotes may have gained a small advantage at their expense. But for that I still would like to see actual proof and not general displays of shock, horror etc

Banks: Time to get out of Europe!

Recently 500 (in words: five hundred!!) policemen were delegated to conduct a search at Deutsche Bank's headquarters. Anyone with half a brain will realise that to set loose such a large group to do a job for which they are less than qualified can only be motivated by political reasons. So it would be only natural that the Co-CEO of the business - which is after all a significant employer and taxpayer - would be in his rights to lodge a complaint with the political overseers of the judiciary and police. After all, the temporary 'constitution' of Germany is less than punctilious about a proper separation of the powers of government. But when this simple complaint causes a hysteric reaction among the ruling political establishment - fanned by a media that sings to the same collectivist hymn sheet - then it would be time for any self-respecting institution to ask itself if it is worthwhile to stay domiciled in the country or debark to friendlier shores. The same question should be asked by HSBC, Standard Chartered and any bank that does not simply want to become a 'utility' (ab)used to finance spendthrift states.

Libor: The Shakedown gathers steam

When I originally commented on the Libor 'Scandal' I got a surprisingly strong reaction from readers - even those that normally are quite critical of  'Ueber-Regulation' disagreed with me. But it is still less than clear who has really lost money due to the supposed manipulation - and if so, how much was lost (Dollars and Cents please you righteous citizens!). An article in the Daily Telegraph points out that from a legal point of view a successful prosecution is less than certain. So today's announcement that UBS alone might face penalties of close to $ 1 billion can only be understood in a climate of witch hunt mixed with a supine and spineless management culture in the banks concerned. After all, senior management wants to sleep quietly and does not give a damn about the shareholder's money. Similar abuse is rife in the so-called mis-selling 'scandals' related to payment protection insurance or sales of derivatives. Reader replies such as this one are not very illuminating (except about the public's attitude towards the banks) as they are unable to shed more light on the crucial question of who has lost (or maybe gained) how much from any Libor fixing.

An interesting discussion may be seen on this thread (Financial Services Regulation, Linkedin)

FSA: Jobsworth at the controls!

Jobsworth: "a person who uses their job description in a deliberately uncooperative way, or who seemingly delights in acting in an obstructive or unhelpful manner." (Wikipedia). This definition comes to mind when observing the activities of - nameless and faceless - bureaucrats who have the ultimate say on who can occupy a senior position in the British financial service industry. I was always wondering why anyone would submit himself to the humiliating treatment meted out by people that would hardly ever stand a chance to succeed in a competitive environment. If politicians want to safeguard the financial system it is up to them to devise good regulation and not start micro-managing the sector in what can only be called a proto-stalinist manner. I have proposed simple and effective solutions in several posts, but so far no one seems to care - creating thousands of pages of new regulatory pamph is much more to the regulator's liking. Does Vernon Hill really need the aggravation at this stage in his life? The British Jobsworth establishment seems to do everything it can to protect the existing banking oligopoly while shedding crocodile tears about the lack of competition and bank lending.

Bureaucrats take over the Banking Industry

While there are other reasons that 'banks do not want to lend' (such as lack of suitable borrowers) the nitpicking and intrusive regulation by anonymous paper pushers and their political puppet masters is another - and growing reason - for the lack of dynamism that is evident in Europe's banking industry. And that applies not only to the sickly Euro-zone but also to the UK. Latest exhibit: the procrastination  (Boersenzeitung) with which the German Banking Supervisor BaFin handles the acquisition of BHF-Bank by Kleinwort Benson. While Germany might be good at churning out industrial products (with generous help from a misguided currency defense that simply knocks out of contention all its major European competitors) the banking skills in the country will wither away to invisibility as any entrepreneur with a little bit of nous will stay clear of this country.

Banking Union - not so necessary

Today one of my favourite economic commentators states that "banking union [is] an absolute prerequisite of a properly functioning monetary union. (Jeremy Warner, Daily Telegraph). I beg to disagree. The only reason why weak banks can undermine the solvency of the host states is the lack of a proper regulatory environment in each of the euro-zone member states. As I have pointed out again and again, we are far away from reform measures that would put the banking system on a stable footing. If these measures would be implemented there would never be a requirement to cross guarantee banking systems, nor would there be any requirement  to have a European Banking Authority.

Bill Winters - harsh critique of UK bank reform proposals

"Bank overhaul 'may leave UK rudderless' if new crisis hits" reads the headline of the report about his evidence to the Treasury Select Committee (Daily Telegraph).
We could not agree more as we have repeatedly argued that overcomplicated 'Solutions' to the problems of the banking sector are no help, and more (expensive) 'studies' even less so. A few simple solutions are glaringly obvious: higher capital ratios on interbank lending and derivatives, funding that in its majority (90%?) matches the maturity on both sides of the balance sheet. No PhD, MBA etc required to implement or monitor this.

UK Bank Bailout Money may never be recovered?

Opine the Solons sitting in Westminster. While this may not be a firm prediction but just a way of garnering a headline (CNBC) in the media it speaks volumes about the incompetence among 'lawmakers' (and the political class in general). Why should major banking institutions such as Lloyds TSB and Royal Bank of Scotland be beyond repair? If that would be the case one should start an orderly dismantling now. Maybe the raft of well-intentioned but often counterproductive regulation is intended to achieve just that. But then it would be better to admit this rather than trying to gain political capital with irresponsible statements. There is no reason why both banks should not be worth a lot of money in a few years time, maybe not as much as the taxpayer has put in but close to it at the very minimum.

The Great Bank Robbery

While no one will deny that some sales of Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) were not in the customer's best interest (and even that statement is debatable) it is obvious that the UK banking industry is the subject of a populist witch hunt. Intelligent people are not forced to buy any product and in the case of PPI no one can argue that he was 'mis-sold' the product unless he actually tried to claim a payout and was denied compensation in an unfair fashion. There could be an argument about the premium paid but even that can never be reason for a blanket call for compensation as this could lead to the end of a free market system where every purchase could lead to a compensation claim later on if applied in a general fashion. Is this the way to run a banking system? or an economy? No wonder there are serious commentators who predict that the UK will be a Third World Economy by 2014.

Investment Management to the Rescue?

Many banks now think that a renewed focus on asset management will allow them to replenish their depleted earnings as investment banking income continues to be under pressure from difficult trading markets and uncertain economies. (see Wunderwaffe Asset Management?) While asset management certainly is a (very) profitable business if managed correctly it is also a business that requires management skills that are not always in abundant supply in many financial service firms. This applies to banking and insurance behemoths but also to small boutiques. While the larger bureaucratic organisations can easilty be stiffled by too much politics, rigid hierarchies and the lack of focus due to a multitude of business lines the smaller firms are not immune to infighting among senior management and often are overly dependent on an autocratic founder or dominant shareholder.