Would splitting up the banks protect us from a re-run of 2008?

I really want to believe all this stuff about the benefits of splitting up retail and investment banks. I’d love it to be that simple. Split the sober stable retail banks from the crazy greed-driven investment banks and our economy and our savings will be safe. The Captain Mainwarings should be allowed to get on with taking deposits and lending money while the Nick Leesons are left to go to hell in handcarts of their own making.

It’s not that simple though, is it? The objections are well rehearsed. Not being an investment bank didn’t stop Northern Rock from playing the money markets. Not being attached to a retail bank didn’t stop Lehman Brothers from dragging all and sundry down in its wake. Two of the UK’s biggest combined retail and investment banks, HSBC and Barclays, have emerged from the financial crisis in better shape than many others.

There is an argument that splitting up the banks will make sure that they are no longer too big to fail. However, it will also mean that they are no longer too big to be taken over. Unless other countries split their banks up too, we run the risk of making our banks targets for takeovers by foreign banks. What’s the point of splitting UK retail banks from UK investment banks if they then become part of foreign investment banks instead?

The transfer of regulatory power from the FSA to the Bank of England is a lot of fuss about nothing too. The same people will be doing the job; they will just be TUPEd across. There is little evidence that things would have been any different in 2008 if the Bank had been in charge.  Whoever is responsible for regulation needs clear powers to intervene and guaranteed political backing, something the FSA never had under Labour.  

I fear there are no simple answers to bank regulation. Splitting up banks and moving regulatory powers around might make good headlines but that’s about all.

That’s no excuse for not getting to grips with regulation though. There is some evidence that financial institutions are sliding back to pre-2008 practices. The financial bonanza of the 2000s is often compared to a wild party which, though everyone knew it would have to end sometime, no-one wanted to leave early for fear of missing the fun. Will George Osborne act quickly enough to break up the next party before it gets out of hand again?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Would splitting up the banks protect us from a re-run of 2008?

  1. Pingback: Would splitting up the banks protect us from a re-run of 2008? - Rick - HR Space

  2. Alex says:

    Splitting retail banks from investment banks should be done. You’re right that this wouldn’t have prevented the current crisis, and those suggesting it would are wrong.

    However, what needs to happen now is a root and branch review of the workings of the financial sector. Look at regulations to do with all aspects of it, rather than just the regulations that would’ve prevented/alleviated the current crisis.

    So why should retail banks be split from investment banks? The chief reason for me comes from the fact that one of the main parts of financial regulation is deposit insurance. If a retail bank also has an investment arm, then it can use the explicit government backing of depositors to trade for its own account in its investment arm, something that the insurance wasn’t for.

    There are other reasons I feel to do this, but that’s the main one for me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s