logo      welcometoentrepreneurcountrylogo
Log in using Facebook Forgot login?Register
News & Features Finance The Social Role of Banks is Banking

The Social Role of Banks is Banking Featured

Written by Philip Booth on Thursday, 27 October 2011 12:04
Rate this item
(0 votes)
Since fox-hunting became illegal, banker bashing has become a new blood sport. Not only is the typical banker portrayed as being greedy, much of what he produces is said to be 'socially useless'. The behaviour of our bankers, it is argued, needs to be reined in and the economy should be rebalanced so that we have fewer bankers and more people 'making things'.

It would be highly desirable if bankers did rein in their excesses, of course. In my view, this is best done by the market mechanisms of punishing failure and ensuring the bankruptcy of failed institutions. Some of the reforms proposed in the wake of the crisis will improve matters in this respect, though I am sceptical about many of the measures being proposed by the ICB.

But what about the more general issue: is banking socially useless and should we be rebalancing our economy?

It is, in fact, difficult to imagine a modern economy without a large financial sector. The chattering classes and intellectuals often seem to think that it would be better
if much more of the British workforce were engaged in manufacturing and we had fewer money-men supervising superfluous transactions that have nothing to do with the real business of creating wealth.

But life would be intolerable without banks. Not only
do banks provide mechanisms to ensure that we can pay each other immediately for the goods and services we consume, they also provide crucial economic functions. These include screening risk, diversifying risk, reducing transaction costs and providing capital for businesses and credit for consumers. The flip side is that they also provide safe returns for savers. Without a modern financial system, retirement from work would be more-or-less impossible.

The costs and risks involved in investing, say, £10,000 without banks would be enormous. The lender would have
to seek out potential borrowers. The lender would then
have to check their credit worthiness and the viability of the projects in which they want to invest. All but the very rich would have little chance of diversifying their risk between different borrowers. And, without the mechanisms that banks use to maintain liquidity, lenders would have to wait years to get their money back. With a developed banking sector I only have to find a reliable bank and it will provide all these services. The bank screens the risk, ensures that risk
is effectively diversified, reduces transaction costs and ensures that I can have my money back more or less when I like. There are corresponding benefits for borrowers, of course, who have cheaper and easier access to finance.

To read the full article please click on this link

This article originally appeared in the Autumn 2011 edition of Balance, the magazine of the British Bankers' Association

Last modified on Monday, 31 October 2011 15:45

comments  

 
+1 # Peter Claydon 2011-10-28 11:21
The big thing that went wrong with banking is a deregulated environment that allowed them to devise complex financial instruments that, history has proved, even they didn't understand. A regulatory environment is needed that enables banks to thrive, but only using approved financial instruments.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Giles Andrews 2011-10-28 11:39
I'm the CEO of Zopa.
The costs and risks of investing say £10,000 without banks would NOT be enormous via an established P2P lending site such as Zopa. The transaction costs are lower than doing so via a bank as witnessed by the fact that both sides (lenders and borrowers) get a better deal than they would through a bank.
Risky? Our credit performance has been miles better than any bank over the last 6 years, with default rates below 0.9%, below the figure forecasted to lenders at the outset to allow them to set their rates.
Lenders can be diversified while only lending £500 so it is hardly for the very rich.
We can also provide liquidity to lenders (or savers) by allowing them to sell on their interests to others in a highly liquid marketplace, without adding structural risk into the system through leverage.
Seems a better model to me and criticism of bankers perfectly fair.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Keshan Bolaky 2011-10-28 12:22
Analyst at MarketInvoice.
Practically 90% of the business banking market is dominated by just 5 high street banks. A lack of choice in financial products and a monopoly on capital distribution reduces the growth prospects for businesses burdened with unreasonable cost of finance.

Pushing for alternatives to the big institutions will add much needed competition in what is a reduced lending environment without providing any of the systemic risk to the markets of a bank which is 'too big to fail'.

MarketInvoice allows SMEs to get cash upfront on their invoices by auctioning them on an online marketplace. High net worth individuals and institutional investors place bids and advance cash to these companies in exchange for a small discount fee, which is driven down through a competitive auction process.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Jonathan Kent 2011-10-28 18:12
I'm not sure that being 'socially useless' is at the heart of most people's criticisms of the banks. The major reservation is that we have a situation whereby, to use the neat phrase, the banks have 'nationalised risk while keeping profits private' - in short when the institutions are run so recklessly that they're on the verge of collapse governments have tgo step in with state funds to prevent them going bankrupt.
It's all very well saying the market is the best medicine, but the failure of Lehman Bros. proved such a shock to the global financial system that the prospect of another major bank imploding forced governments to act. Even those that took no public money were protected from the chain reaction by its being pumped ito weaker institutions.
The city really doesn't seem to have woken up to the fact that the sight of them conducting business as usual while being propped up by the public many of whom are unemployed or feeling the pinch is winning them few friends
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

Latest Comments

Welcome to Entrepreneur Country

Community Coffee Lounge

Welcome to the Entrepreneur Country Coffee Lounge.

coffee_lounge

With a host of viral videos, games, cartoons and puzzles, its your time to relax.

Entrepreneur Country

Related Media

Facebook/Twitter

EC Tweets

Loading...

Last 4 tweets from EnCountry:

Poll

Should Britain be part of the European Union?

Yes - 69.2%
No - 30.8%

Total votes: 78
The voting for this poll has ended on: 23 Feb 2013 - 14:44