IIR warns on lack of global banking rules

We usually view the opinions of the Institute of International Finance with a pinch of salt as it is a think tank and/or lobby funded by the banking industry. Yesterday's appeal to the participants of the forthcoming G20 meeting in Pittsburgh served as a reminder that one year after the collapse of Lehman and more than two years into the banking and credit crisis precious little progress has been made to forge a consistent solution to prevent a similar crisis in the future. We doubt that high-profile meetings will really produce more than pious sermons and suggest that a congress should be organised with the task to iron out a lasting solution. After all, the Congress of Vienna was also not just a photo-opportunity for the assembled dignitaries and the same can be said for the Continental Congress in the 13 founding colonies in America.

BIS report: higher taxes on larger banks

A new study by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS/BIZ) suggests that large banks should be taxed at a higher level to compensate for the risk that they pose to the taxpayer. But I think that differentiating tax rates for of different size would open a can of worms - what is the right level of tax? what size is the cut-off point for different tax rates? A more simple way to restrict the trend to ever-larger banks would be to limit the (implicit or explicit) state guarantee to a certain amount. This would give an incentive to clients and depositors to spread their business around and lead to a more balanced industry.

Neelie Kroes dabbles in bonus debate

We would have been disappointed if Neelie Kroes would not have tried to get involved in the debate about banker's pay and bonuses. After all, every bureaucrat has a natural urge to increase his power whenever and where ever the opportunity exists to do so. And even better when the taxpayer pays for you and the citizen has no chance to control your action. However, when judging the competence level of Ms. Kroes' department we always have to remind ourselves of the curious fact that while the department refuses to give detailed information about the background of its staff there are the portraits of the drivers on the website. Talk about high life in Brussels! Repeated requests to disclose the yardsticks that are applied during the investigation of competition cases have been stonewalled. So we do not expect that it will be made transparent what type of bonus and pay regulations will be applied in the case of banks that receive state support.

Change of guard at Morgan Stanley

As John Mack moves from the role of CEO to become Chairman of Morgan Stanley at lot of coverage will be given to his record at the firm after his return four years ago. I think that he has done a remarkable job given that his tenure encompassed the most challenging two years that any leader of a financial services firm has ever had to live through. The stock price of MS at one stage priced in a possible demise of the firm (the same happened to most other bank and broker shares) and was an inevitable exaggeration caused by a market panic. Structurally, however, Morgan Stanley suffers from the merger with Dean Witter ten years ago. One of the great advantages the main rival, Goldman Sachs, enjoys is the fact that the firm in all its history only ever pursued small add-on acquisitions. This organic growth solidified the company culture and created the opportunity to develop the firm's leadership without recourse to outside hires.

What is 'socially useless' banking?

Senior Bankers have recently felt compelled to contribute to the debate about so-called 'socially useless banking'. The key question would be the definition of what is or is not socially useful/useless. I think one could well leave the answer to the market. No one is compelled to buy supposedly 'useless' products, be they derivatives, hedge funds or - to generalise the problem - expensive luxury watches or cars. Common sense should be enough to settle the question. Unfortunately there are many ideologically motivated fellow travellers joining the discussion as it appears to be a good opportunity to pursue aims that have little to do with the problem (more state, more taxes etc)

London Hedge Funds stay despite tax hikes

We would not celebrate too early and condone the long-term impact of higher prospective tax rates on London's standing as a financial centre. The effects will modify behaviour only at the margin and as taxes are admittedly not the only factor that is considered when locating a business the impact will be diluted by the weights businesspeople attribute to these other factors (legal and other services, infrastructure, quality of life, availability of skilled labor). The real danger is only that once a certain tipping point is reached decline can be very rapid and irreversible.

Ossie rallies the troops at UBS

Having undergone an interview with the taciturn no-nonsense Ossie Gruebel when he was the head of Eurobond dealing at Credit Suisse White Weld in the late 1970s I always carry the highest respect for him ever since. UBS is still a brand name that will make it easy for clients to forget the missteps of the past few years as long as they get the right service. Reading the memo that Gruebel penned for his staff of 70,000 I cannot help but think that maybe the staff numbers are still a little bit on the high side.

The Fed CAN monitor systemic risks

A senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute argues that the Fed cannot monitor systemic risk as that would be tantamount to ask a thief to police himself. Without going into the details of his argument several aspects come to mind that would negate this judgement: until now the mandate of the Fed was not strongly focused on playing the role of a regulator of the financial markets and system. Instead, price stability and economic growth were given priority if not exclusive attention. That mistakes were made in this department cannot be denied (and they are partly due to the mixed message sent by the duality of the set targets). But that does not mean that the Fed could not be more effective if it is empowered to be a more forceful regulator. We would also hope that the Fed does not only monitor risk but will have the tools to prevent them in good time.

Blueprint for Global Derivatives Market

Derivatives are in essence a bet on the price of the underlying asset. Economically they are a zero-sum game where the losing side funds the gains of the successful side. Like all bets the derivative markets serve to redistribute wealth minus the costs of running the market. As a consequence of the credit crisis reform of the derivative markets has moved to the top of the political agenda. This is not the place to discuss the role that derivatives have played in the financial crisis. But if more players are active in a market it can only be expected that moves above (and below) underlying value are exacerbated - despite the fact that derivative instruments are often claimed to help move prices back to their underlying trend. I do not agree that moving all derivative trading to exchanges is necessary to avoid bubbles and excessive risks associated with derivative positions as advocated by many commentators. For an new example see the paper just published by Deutsche Boerse. Instead, I think that higher capital requirements to support open positions will be sufficient to reduce the danger (real or imagined) attributed to derivative markets.

Seven dwarfs - interesting comment from a Reader

Your post (Seven Dwarfs in Stockholm) is interesting in that it confirms the tendency to first blame others, the system etc when being held to account for behaviour. That type of self-righteous response never convinces anybody else outside the own group. The politicians' thrust may be crude and may have negative side-effects, but it is triggered by an apparent unwillingness of bankers to appreciate how others, society at large perceives their behaviour and its crippling effects on the financial system and the economy and to take responsibility for that. Your type of response will only make politicians more determined to ensure bankers will not be able to go the same path again and you will become more convinced of the stupidity of politicians. It takes us nowhere. A meaningful step forward would be made if bankers could say they appreciate the concerns of society and are willing to come with new responsible remuneration systems that also pay justice to the inherent risks ultimately born by society. If bankers could be transparent on how they go about this, engage in a serious dialogue with society on remaining concerns, then the need for blunt politically driven regulatory measures would evaporate.