The International Monetary Fund is not known for random assaults on the financial establishment.

This makes the results of a new IMF study - A Fistfull of Dollars: Lobbying and the Financial Crisis -  all the more compelling. Large US banks that spend heavily on lobbying are more likely to engage in high-risk lending, and their shares perform less well. The UK's Guardian newspaper notes that finance sector lobbying outstripped all other sectors.

It is 8 days until the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission begin to take testimony from top bankers. Their lobbying activities should provide one of the core, and still current, seams of questioning.

• 0 Comments

In 9 days time the US Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission begins hearing what senior bankers have to say about the causes of the crisis.

I will be keeping a close eye on the Commission’s work and posting background and analysis here on the APEsphere blog. Let me explain why.

The FCIC in a nutshell

Phil Angelides (pictured above), the man appointed to chair the commission, last September defined the FCIC’s mission as being “to conduct a full and fair investigation in the best interests of the nation—pursuing the truth, uncovering the facts, and providing an unbiased, historical accounting of what brought our financial system and our economy to its knees.”

The Commission’s 10 members — six chosen by Democrats, 4 by Republicans – have until December to report back to Congress. They have the power to subpoena witnesses, and to refer individuals for criminal investigation and prosecution.

Who cares?

The Commission is investigating the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) has produced a longer term Global Economic Crisis that has impacted the everyday lives of real people around the world to an extraordinarily severe degree:

• it has increased the number of people around the world in chronic hunger and poverty by over 100 million, to 1.02 billion;
• widespread conflict and state fragility is being anticipated and has already begun to be realised;
• between 200,000 and 400,000 more babies could die each year between now and 2015 if the crisis persists;
• the crisis has undermined the will to make progress on combating climate change, thus contributing to the ecological, social and political risks associated with that phenomenon. Earlier predictions that the recession would reduce emissions have proved ill-founded;
• an increase in global unemployment by between 29 million and 59 million people;
• one in eight US mortgage borrowers is behind on mortgage payments or facing foreclosure at the end of the second quarter 2009;
• pensioners relying on developed country stock market returns for their retirement incomes have seen their savings fall by 45%. The links between the crisis and retirement incomes are explained here.

No wonder countries are marking an upward trend in stress-related mental illness and crime.

What could this Commission achieve?

We want to ensure that this crisis cannot be repeated. A thorough public investigation of the causes can help channel anger into the political will to undertake effective regulatory reform, including the dismantling of powerful institutions known to be “too big to fail”. While regulatory reform is already underway in Washington and elsewhere, further and more profound reform is a potential outcome of this Commission’s work.

The committee set up in 1934 to investigate the causes of the 1929 crash and the Great Depression that followed it signals what is possible. Once Ferdinand Pecora became the committee’s lead investigator and began cross-examining Wall Street’s leaders the ground was laid for reforms that included the establishment of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Glass-Steagall Act that separated staid commercial banking from risk-fuelled investment banking – reforms that kept Wall Street out of systemic trouble for forty years.

But the FCIC could achieve much more than this, and needs to do so.

When South Africa emerged from apartheid, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established to consign to history the egregious, state-supported human rights violations that were committed against a large section of its people.

In 1995, after decades of the systematic abuse of economic, social and political rights known as apartheid, the South African government set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to give ordinary people an opportunity to air their grievances against a system that institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination in all aspects of life.

According to the then Minister of Justice Dullah Omar, "... a commission is a necessary exercise to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis and to advance the cause of reconciliation."

The TRC was a forum in which anyone who felt that he or she was a victim of the system could be heard. Those on both sides who had done wrong could also give testimony and request amnesty.
Now, political establishments around the world have been shown to have placed the interests of a powerful financial minority above those of the majority.

Dead babies will never learn to speak, and how do you give voice to the 100 million starving? But what the FCIC can do is provide public, open and free discussion of the causes of the crisis, confront those responsible with those they have impacted, raise the question of prosecution and possible amnesty rather than assume as now a cosy settlement between corporations and regulators.

How else do governments and financial institutions expect the results of egregious risk taking at great cost to communities and individuals to be put behind us? How else will they lay to rest the cynicism, mistrust of institutions and raw anger that that behaviour has garnered?
 

• 3 Comments

It is certainly an ambitious exercise, looking at estimated carbon emissions, company environmental policies and reputation perceptions.

Newsweek defends its methodology on the customary point of criticism: how can you compare a utility, say, with a bank? They point out that over 50% of the score relates to the strength of green policies (which anyone can implement) and reputation, all of which evens out the score somewhat.

I would add that there is no problem comparing high emitting industries with low emitting industries and finding that there is a cluster of high emitters near the bottom of the ranking. That is how it should be. Dirty industries should appear as they are. This table is not a ranking of overall social utility but of environmental credentials. If a cluster of oil extraction companies appeared in the top 100 it would be more than suspect; it would be incredible.

A particular concern I had was whether indirect impacts were adequately taken into account. Financial services have small direct footprints, but are the ultimate dirty industry in that they choose to finance all the others. The analysis of green policies brings this factor into the equation but a lack of transparency about the carbon impact of their loan and investment portfolios reduces the quality of analysis. For me this is a more worrying weak spot than the ranking's validity in comparing companies across different sectors.

One last observation: it is great to see that Newsweek used the extensive experience of two firms whose founders I have had the pleasure to meet: Peter Kinder's KLD Analytics and Paul Scott's CorporateRegister.com. Great to see such high caliber teams involved in producing the detail of something this high profile. Well done both.

• 0 Comments

A Newsweek article argues the new Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission should play the role I was advocating for a truth and reconciliation commission to bring daylight and justice to the events leading to the financial crisis.

Michael Hirsh argues:

we don't necessarily need a parade of Wall Streeters headed to the Big House. What we do need, however, is a parade of witnesses who will provide what's been missing so far in this crisis—a prominent outlet for public outrage. In the last nine months, the Obama administration and the grandees in Congress have been designing solutions without much input from the outside, often using experts from Wall Street (especially "Government Sachs"). It's pretty much been a closed system.

Like I said, we need some public, inclusive, truth and reconciliation.

• 0 Comments

Having spent a few years as a compliance professional in the financial sector, I was intrigued to read about the detail of the Pfizer settlement.

The drug company Pfizer, you'll recall, has just settled with the US Department of Justice for a total financial penalty of $2.3 billion - the largest ever. The allegations against Pfizer concerned illegal marketing of painkiller Bextra and several other drugs.

What did not come through in the original reports was that in one part of the settlement, the inspector general  of the US Department of Health and Human Services  (HHS) required Pfizer to change the reporting line of the company's compliance department from the General Counsel to the Chief Executive. 

In-house compliance professionals are often in a bit of a bind. They are supposed to advise the business on how it needs to conduct itself if it is to remain within the letter of the regulations. Their reporting line, however, is often to someone with a strong personal interest in the short-term financial success of the business development to which the advice relates. Although compliance departments inevitably attract the label of "business prevention", their reporting lines (and remuneration and retention prospects) in fact incentivise them to bend over backward to accommodate the concerns of their superior. So much for independence.

In Pfizer's case compliance reported to the general counsel. As Lewis Morris, general counsel for the inspector-general's office put it:

"The lawyers tell you whether you can do something, and compliance tells you whether you should ... We think upper management should hear both arguments."

If that is what the lawyers are there to do, then they will be rewarded on the basis of their overall contribution to business development. Compliance reporting into that setup risk ending up singing the same tune, or leaving.

I predict regulators will become more prescriptive about the precise reporting lines of compliance professionals. I am not sure, though, that instituting a reporting line to the chief executive is the most effective course though. Although the CEO has a group-wide interest and won't want the actions of a particular division to threaten the overall reputation of the group, the CEO is still guided by short-term financial incentives. A better solution might be a reporting line into the audit committee of the board, which should be majority comprised of independent non-executives.

• 0 Comments

Just premiered in Venice...

UPDATE: The Guardian's review is here.

• 1 Comment

Mixed news on the battle brewing over bankers' bonuses.

European finance ministers (with the UK taking a back seat) are coming out strong on curbing banking bonuses.

This I get. Dealing with the excessive (arguably unbounded) risk taking that super-high bonuses encourages, and the crises such excessive risk-taking produce, finding a way of reining in the expectation of high bonuses for excessive risk-taking seems like the only way to ensure the recurrence of such a damaging crisis is avoided.

On the other hand there is something very disturbing about the recently announced French approach: curtailing the bonus upside but also punishing traders for any substantial hit suffered by the bank.

This seems to me merely to raise the stakes - a contributor to the adrenalin fueled environment that leads to excessive risk-taking in the first place.

The French, of course, are feeling somewhat bruised by the whole Kerviel affair in January 2008 when national financial champion Societe Generale was hit with  a 4.9 billion euros ($7 billion) loss due to what the bank maintains was unauthorised trading by Mr Kerviel. The preferred narrative in France is that the bank's systems and controls (including remuneration culture and policies) were not at fault; this was a simple case of a rogue trader. So punishing the trader when the bet goes the wrong way helps reinforce that narrative.

But surely it is better to address the up front incentive for unbridled risk-taking rather than pull your punches in favor of creating stiff personal consequences for the failure of the bet? Rogue traders already know that if the bet goes wrong they stand to lose their jobs and their lifestyles, but "rogue" traders (ie those produced by the prevalent bonus culture) show again and again that they never imagine they will fail, that the bet will go against them.

It is the size of the potential upside that motivates their actions and that is where serious politicians and regulators should focus their attention.

• 0 Comments

Was the chairman of the UK's financial watchdog just trying to impress concervatives when he expressed support for a tax on foreign exchange deals?

Development charities are delighted. And why wouldn't they be? The global economic crisis rooted in excessive risk-taking (rooted in remuneration policies that rewarded it) is estimated to have caused some 100 million down to the level of extreme hunger.

Personally I wonder whether a Truth and Reconciliation Commission could help bring some measure of justice by bringing together victims of the crisis perpetrators.

But a Tobin tax on currency transactions could help remedy the material impacts of the crisis rather than simply the emotional and cultural. It is argued that the tax brought in could be used to finance economic development for those who have suffered at the hands of the finance industry.

Lord Turner went on to comment that the UK's financial sector has "grown beyond a socially reasonable size". Hardly seems like posturing towards a future Conservative government to me; more like a note of sense from someone who is not only close to the action as a regulator now, but has himself been a business leader.

• 0 Comments

Does the ongoing anger over bank bonuses suggest the need for something akin to a Truth and Reconciliation Commission on the causes of the crisis?

You might think I have been spending just a little bit too much time outdoors over the summer; “Truth and Reconciliation” is the way nations like South Africa consign to history the egregious, state-supported human rights violations that have been committed against a large section of their people.

But bear with me for a moment and reflect on the breadth and degree of damage that the culture of greed managed to inflict by causing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression: an increase in the number of people around the world in chronic hunger and poverty by over 100 million, to 1.02 billion; between 200,000 and 400,000 more babies could die each year between now and 2015 if the crisis persists; an increase in global unemployment by between 29 million and 59 million people; one in eight US mortgage borrowers is behind on mortgage payments or facing foreclosure at the end of the second quarter 2009; pensioners relying on developed country stock market returns for their retirement incomes have seen their savings fall by 45%.

Let’s not forget the stories behind the numbers. My friend Mike’s mother has been working for General Motors her whole life and was due to retire this year. Now she has no pension and will likely be working for the rest of her life. For more stories, take a stroll through the New York Times’ Living With Less – The Human Side of the Global Recession.

No wonder people remain angry.

The political will to rein in Wall Street and the City of London’s high stakes culture is lacking, and the financial sector is doing everything within its power to undermine what will remains.

A report by Essential Information and the Consumer Education Foundation found that $5 billion in political contributions over the past decade gained Wall Street freedom from regulation. According to OpenSecrets.org: “Despite the mortgage and banking crises of 2008, the financial sector still managed to donate $468.8 million to federal campaigns and candidates during the 2008 election cycle, an 80 percent increase during the two previous years.”

The Center for Responsive Politics notes that the finance, insurance and real estate sector spent $109.4 million on lobbying in the US during this year's second quarter alone, during which time the industry has been lobbying against the movement for tighter regulation provoked by the financial crisis.

How can we move forward?

We have a precedent for resolving situations where the will of government has been put at the service of powerful minority interests, to the detriment of the majority.

In 1995, after decades of the systematic abuse of economic, social and political rights known as apartheid, the South African government set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to give ordinary people an opportunity to air their grievances against a system that institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination in all aspects of life.

According to the then Minister of Justice Dullah Omar, "... a commission is a necessary exercise to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis and to advance the cause of reconciliation."

The TRC was a forum in which anyone who felt that he or she was a victim of the system could be heard. Those on both sides who had done wrong could also give testimony and request amnesty.
Dead babies will never learn to speak, and how do you give voice to the 100 million starving? But that does not negate the need for public, open and free discussion of the causes of the crisis, to confront those responsible with those they have impacted, to raise the question of prosecution and possible amnesty rather than assume as now a cosy settlement between corporations and regulators.

How else do governments and financial institutions expect the results of egregious risk taking at great cost to communities and individuals to be put behind us?

How else can we say that we are serious in our desire to stop this happening again?

• 2 Comments

Steven Davidoff at the New York Times reckons the focus on bonuses paid to Merrill staff is not the issue.

Steve is less willing than some to blame the lawyers in the BoA merger.

The elephant in the room, he argues, is the possible non-disclosure of the extent of Merrill Lynch's losses - $15.3 billion at last count.

If these were not disclosed then the bonus disclosure would become altogether more substantial. Steve thinks the SEC is avoiding dealing with that possibility because of the question of whether the Bush administration directed Bank of America to keep Merrill's losses quiet.

• 0 Comments