The working
practices of banks have come under close scrutiny recently. After Barclays'
involvement in the LIBOR-rigging scandal (BBC, 17 July 2012), news
broke on 17 July that HSBC, another prominent player in the global financial
markets, provided ‘a conduit for "drug kingpins and rogue nations",
according to a US Senate committee investigating money laundering claims at the
bank’ (BBC News, 17 July
2012). This adds further to the general pressure on banks widely regarded
as responsible for the global financial market crisis. In response, calls are
issued to tighten the regulation of financial markets. In this post, I argue
that scandals of this type are not the occasional result of criminal or
reckless behaviour by individuals. Rather, they are a logical consequence of
the systemic pressures within the capitalist mode of production, in which
companies constantly have to achieve larger profits than their competitors in
order to stay in business.
The current
financial market crisis started when home owners defaulted on their mortgages
and the US house market plummeted. Financial institutions, connected to these
highly risky, hence subprime mortgages, which had been re-packaged into
derivatives and sold on, got into difficulties. Many were bailed out with
public money, some went bankrupt such as Lehman Brothers on 15 September 2008.
As a result of the global financial markets being so closely integrated, the
crisis spread quickly beyond the USA. Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the US
Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006, had been a strong supporter of the
derivatives market, financial instruments which were supposed to hedge against
the risks involved with subprime mortgages. When asked about the causes of the
global financial market crisis in October 2008, he argued that it was
individual, greedy bankers, who were to be blamed. He described ‘the financial
turmoil as the failure of Wall Street to behave honorably’ (The
New York Times, 8 October 2008).
This assessment
overlooks, however, the wider systemic competitive pressures. In the capitalist
mode of production, companies have to re-constitute themselves through the
market. They have to be competitive vis-à-vis their rivals and, therefore,
constantly a step ahead in reaping ever larger profits. If a financial
institution notices that a competitor institution reaps above average profits
through its involvement in subprime mortgages and related derivatives, it
equally has to get involved in these markets to make the same level of profits.
Otherwise, investors will move their money to the financial institution with
the higher profit rates. In short, it is not only logical for an individual
bank to get involved in these markets, it is even necessary as a result of
systemic implications. However, what is necessary for an individual financial
institution is disastrous for the overall financial system and, ultimately, the
whole economy. If all institutions, responding to the same systemic pressures,
pursue these risky strategies, an ever bigger financial bubble is created,
which will eventually burst. The result is economic crisis, as we are currently
witnessing. Ultimately, crisis is an inherent systemic condition of capitalism,
not an unfortunate exception.
Equally, these
systemic pressures push banks towards illegal practices. If super profits can
be reaped as a result of dealing with drug related money, then profits come
first. If Libor rigging increases profit margins, then why not try it and hope
to get away with it? Current revelations about banking scandals are likely to
be only the tip of the iceberg. Forced to continue making super profits despite
the current economic crisis, banks are being pushed into this direction.
Can tighter
regulation get this situation under control? Clearly not! What is required is a
much more fundamental transformation of the capitalist mode of production as a
whole.
Prof. Andreas Bieler
Professor of Political Economy
University of Nottingham/UK
Andreas.Bieler@nottingham.ac.uk
Personal website: http://www.andreasbieler.net
@Andreas_Bieler
@Andreas_Bieler
19 July 2012
Have seen a similar post in the economist recently backing up the idea that the system itself encourages riskier practices (though as you might expect doesn't quite want to end capitalism): http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/02/equity-capital-requirements
ReplyDelete