The news headline: Osborne gives Bank of England top regulatory role
Firstly, we are relieved to see no sweeping statements such as abolishing ‘boom and bust’, which by inference must mean that the ‘normal’ business cycles will from now on resume business as usual, albeit with slightly more volatile amplitudes?
The statement regarding more tools is interesting, because as far as we are aware there are two, maybe three specific tools available in the toolbox at the moment. Fiscal policy and monetary policy and the third one possibly being risk management. Therefore, as with the debate currently evolving between Efficient Market Hypothesis and the behaviourally focussed irrationality school of (economic) thought, that there is no unifying theory yet offered to explain market events, we are still searching for the ‘unifying toolbox’ or rather the Swiss army knife of financial stability and regulation?
So we can read into the statement that we will add more tools, rather than take tools out of the box never to be returned, such as the retention of Sterling and thus monetary policy.
Therefore, the one important tool at the moment that requires sharpening is the regulatory framework and structures that support both regulation, monitoring, enforcement and dare we say it ‘rehabilitation’, because just like of criminal justice system, even though we have both the laws and enforcement framework, we will always have the offenders and ultimately it is the ‘how to rehabilitate and re-integrate’ them issue that we have to deal with. If moral hazard has now been replaced by having to swallow ‘TARP’-entine (poetic licence evoked) and senior investment grade civil servants (RBS and the half of Lloyds they own), then the compensation schemes being touted and created via banking levies, is the wrong approach and signal to send to the market participants.
The G20 seems to be driving the urgency of the regulatory reform agenda, timeframe and tripartite of Financial Regulatory Standards, capital adequacy and strengthening Corporate Governance regimes as outlined by the Bank for International Settlements. However, some framework agreements have been in place for some time, such as the Norwalk Agreement between the IASB & FASB. Thus, it is not a case of the lack of effort and focus, but rather a lack of urgency and clear objectives in creating a global regulatory and governance framework.
As the BP debacle has illustrated, it does take some time to formulate a coherent response and action plan and if the Global Regulatory Framework is not given sufficient debate, design and implementation time (due to political expediencies), all we will do is sow the seeds of the next crisis, which, as stated before is definitely on the billing in a country near you very soon.
- Bank of England should be left alone to police banks, says Governor Sir Mervyn King (telegraph.co.uk)
- FASB in “religious war” to bring in fair value (accountancyage.com)
- Group of Thirty (G30) Calls for Urgent Action to Strengthen System-Wide Financial Regulation and Supervision (prweb.com)
- Irresponsible bankers will smile at the global regulatory reform chaos (appgifs.org.uk)
- Britain overhauls financial regulations (business.financialpost.com)
- Why There’s No One in Jail Over Royal Bank of Scotland (forbes.com)
- Bank of Canada urged to take ‘clear leadership role’ in regulatory oversight (theglobeandmail.com)
- Why is the Bank for International Settlements interested in Karl Marx? (Part three) (pogoprinciple.wordpress.com)
- “Break Up the Banks? Here’s an Alternative” (economistsview.typepad.com)
- City fears Bill will not protect UK from rivals (independent.co.uk)