Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I don't think it's about psychopathology (although that is present) - it's about norms and operating culture. What these Lehman-ites are saying is that manipulating balance sheets this way is common practice across the sector and has been (possibly) for years and years (maybe decades).

Like many aspects of banking - cheating is fine, until you fail - it's only at crisis time that enough firms fail that we can see the cheating. Of course regulators have been failing - usual things... lack of resources, expertise, capture by industry...

It's like houses built in earthquake zones with sub-standard concrete... you can go 80 years with no problems... then the big earthquake comes and you get found out... but there isn't a lot of incentive to worry about that from a market point of view and if regulators fail...

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Mar 17th, 2010 at 01:15:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I like this from The Epicurean Dealmaker
The answer, of course, is obvious, if politically difficult to put into effect. Staff the SEC, or whatever "Super Regulator" the government decides to deputize to oversee this mess, with a bunch of highly-paid, tough-as-nails, sonofabitch investment bankers. You will have to pay them millions, just like regular bankers. (You can tie their incentive pay to improvements in the value of securities held under TARP and TALF, if you like.) Pay them well, and investment bankers won't be able to treat them like second-class citizens at the negotiating table. Pay them like bankers, and your regulators won't hesitate to read Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfein the riot act, because they won't give a shit about getting a job from them later.
This is, in fact, the profile of the stereotypical FBI field agent in American TV fiction. Hard as nails, ruthless, and with a dark side.
Trust me, these are the kind of people you will need on your team: highly educated, financially sophisticated, psychotically hard-working, experienced professionals who know or can figure out CDOs, SIVs, balance sheet leverage, and credit default derivatives just as easily as the idiots who created and trade this shit. Leading your enforcement and supervision teams you need a bunch of smooth, smart, plausible, grandiosely self-confident senior bankers who will not hesitate to tell Vikram Pandit to go fuck himself, his mother, and the cow she rode in on if he ever tries to fuck with the United States government, the US taxpayer, or the pizza delivery boy again. You know: psychopaths.

This is not a new idea. For yonks, the Brits have known that the best person to hire as gamekeeper on your ancestral estate is a former poacher, someone who knows what they know, how they think, and where to punch them in the genitals to get maximum negotiating effect.



The brainless should not be in banking -- Willem Buiter
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 17th, 2010 at 01:19:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree about the tough as nails.

But I think there is some overestimation of the experience required. You (Migeru) could certainly figure out "CDOs, SIVs, balance sheet leverage, and credit default derivatives just as easily as the idiots who created and trade this shit."

Also, I don't see why you need to create yet another welfare scheme for investment bankers. This is not to say that employee poachers as gamekeepers would not work, but the key is not that they need pay equity, they need political backing... which is the real problem... they need to know that they won't be sacked when Vikram Pandit or whomever calls their congressman to complain.

Certainly they should be paid well... but it doesn't have to be insane money...

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Mar 17th, 2010 at 01:32:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am becoming convinced that regulation needs to become both intrusive and heavy-handed. But the screams from the serious people in the salmon-coloured press would be loud indeed.

The brainless should not be in banking -- Willem Buiter
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 17th, 2010 at 02:16:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The serious people are sociopaths, so - of course.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Mar 17th, 2010 at 08:30:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You (Migeru) could certainly figure out "CDOs, SIVs, balance sheet leverage, and credit default derivatives just as easily as the idiots who created and trade this shit."

LOL, I guess that's why I work in the Risk Division of a major international bank. (As you know, this means I'm a loser since winners all work as traders and make at least 6 figures)

The brainless should not be in banking -- Willem Buiter

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 17th, 2010 at 02:31:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Those who have a conscience and a desire to maintain their integrity should really qualify for disability in our culture, and that disability should be paid even while you are working.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Mar 17th, 2010 at 03:22:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Those who have a conscience and a desire to maintain their integrity should qualify for a job as government regulators.

And you don't need to have them running around in Armani suits to make the industry they regulate treat them as first among equals. You just need to give them a really big stick and permission to make examples of a couple of putatively too big to fail businesses.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Mar 17th, 2010 at 04:56:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Metatone:
it's about norms and operating culture.

Which is why social settings like the City of London are important. Setting up the work in another place would be easy but setting up an environment where everyone fawns over your sociopathic norms instead of condemning them, that is the hard part.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Mar 18th, 2010 at 05:36:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You mean Dubai or Singapore or Hong Kong don't fit the bill?

The brainless should not be in banking -- Willem Buiter
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 18th, 2010 at 05:55:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Authoritarian places are actually quite complex to deal with... if you do as much damage to Singapore, Dubai or HK as The City has done to the UK there would be some heavy consequences...
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Thu Mar 18th, 2010 at 06:00:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I mean of course, that if you do that damage while you are based there...
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Thu Mar 18th, 2010 at 06:00:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Masters of the Universe would not like being caned.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Mar 18th, 2010 at 05:16:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, I would assume that they do fit the bill. I am not sure that those currently in London would relocate there though.

But I think the current number of such places is limited and if the City was out-regulated there would be one less. It would also be interesting to see if our political elite would listen so much to advice coming from Dubai.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Mar 18th, 2010 at 02:55:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series