Curious Capitalist

Rewiring the Banker Brain

A culture shift is still needed to reconnect finance with the real economy.

  • Share
  • Read Later
Victor J. Blue / Bloomberg / Getty Images

Goldman Sachs headquarters in New York, April 15, 2013.

If you are in any doubt about how little has changed on Wall Street since 2008, check out yesterday’s front page New York Times story about how banks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley profited wildly by hoarding and slowing the supply of various commodity metals like aluminum, driving up prices on the global market in the process. It was a truly ingenious profit-making scheme, involving sophisticated arbitrage of complex global regulations, all of which resulted in lots of money for banks, and higher prices for companies and consumers.

This story put me in mind once again of the fact that many of the best minds on Wall Street still spend the majority of their time figuring out new and smarter ways to game the system, rather than how to grease the wheels of the real economy. Just look at the record profits posted by a number of the world’s largest banks last week. The six largest are on track to post a 20% earnings increase in the second quarter of this year. But the vast majority of that money came not from lending, but from trading. While the money spigots to the small and new businesses that create most of the jobs in this country are still tight — like last year, small business lending was down again this year, according to the Small Business Administration — trading profits are way up.

Clearly, finance is still disconnected from the real economy, which is one reason that the regulation battle rages on. A new proposal issued jointly a few days back by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency would require some of the country’s largest banks to hold double the amount of reserve capital that they currently do. This has prompted all the usual complaints from the industry about too much regulation. Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, now the head of bank advocacy group the Financial Services Roundtable, said the new rules would make “it harder for banks to lend and keep the economic recovery going.”

(MOREGordon Gekko Lives: New Evidence That Greed Is Rampant on Wall Street)

Putting aside the fact that lending in key areas of economic activity hasn’t been growing, as I noted above, it’s also worth remembering that even before the new rules were proposed, many banks were complaining that they couldn’t lend because there weren’t enough credit-worthy clients to lend to. “You can’t have it both ways,” says Susan Ochs, a former Treasury Department advisor and senior fellow at the Aspen Institute who is doing research on best practices in banking. “The arguments have a certain level of disengenousness.”

All of this begs the question of whether regulation alone can change the mindset of financier. Five years on from the crisis, with a new set of Dodd-Frank banking regulations, calls for greater capital requirements, and even a proposed return to the Depression-era Glass-Steagall separation between investment and commercial banking (which, of course, banks are fighting against tooth and nail), you still have a finance culture that hasn’t changed at all. As Ochs pointed out to me recently, there’s no reason to think that regulation would create a change, when the culture of banks still supports profit-making for it’s own sake, and doesn’t connect the dots between customers, personal behavior, and compensation. According to her, one key reason banking has lost its moorings in the real economy is because it has moved from a relationship culture to one rooted in high-speed technology and trading. In this world, the quantitative mathematicians who build the profit-making trading models for banks are totally disconnected from customers. And the biggest rewards may in fact come from trading against customers.

The point was driven home in a new survey on financial industry ethics released last week by the law firm Labaton Sucharow, one of the first to establish a practice dedicated to defending corporate whistle-blowers. According to the survey of 250 financial industry insiders, including traders, portfolio managers, investment bankers, and hedge fund managers, misbehavior in finance is rife. A quarter of those interviewed felt employees in their own company had engaged in misconduct, including insider trading, breaking securities law, or acting against the interests of their own clients. Twenty-three percent reported that they had observed or had first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing in the workplace. And 29% believed that financial services professionals may actually need to engage in illegal or unethical behavior to be successful. In fact, many assumed their bosses would look the other way about bad behavior, as long as they were making money for the firm. Is it any wonder, then, that 24% admitted they would engage in insider trading if they could get away with it? And this problem isn’t likely to go away anytime soon, if only because younger Wall Street professionals were significantly more likely to be aware of, accept, and engage in illegal or unethical conduct than more senior staffers.

(MORE20 Words That Will Make or Break Financial Reform)

So, how can we fix things? Barring a complete split between commercial and investment banking, massively better funding for regulators and white-collar crime prosecutors, or any number of other unlikely legislative overhauls, is there a way back to an old-fashioned, relationship-based lending model for Wall Street biggest firms? It’s possible that the answer is no. “The major banks simply don’t want to do small lending, even though it would spur the economy,” says Ochs. “It’s simply a very low profit area for them.” Indeed, she and many others in the industry believe that entirely new models of individual and small business lending will come to dominate – witness the increased growth of credit unions, crowd funding, and alternative online lenders like Simple, Moven, and GoBank. In the future, you may even get your next small business loan from Wal-Mart, Apple, or Google rather than from a conventional retail bank.

At the same time, there’s a growing push to get financiers to think differently by radically shifting the way they are compensated. A number of large banks like Deutsche, for example, have expanded bonus periods to five years rather than a single year to incentivize longer-term thinking. Others are considering mixing measures of trading volatility into bonus formulas so that performers who take big risks — even if they sometimes pay off — must pay a price. “Money shouldn’t be made in just any manner,” says Ochs, who would like to see a Hippocratic oath for the investment industry. “You want profit making that’s constructive, rather than a ‘rape and pillage’ system.”

Tell that to the people who are busy driving up the price of aluminum.

9 comments
armcor
armcor

There are so many important trends impacting the state of banking, and they do not all flow from the same place, nor are they necessarily complementary or coordinated.

In the 80s and 90s, many small banks were displaced or rolled up or simply went out of business during the S & L crisis.

In the 90s and ever since, the Internet has intensified competition, which ultimately puts pressure on costs and favors aggregation, and increasing self-serve automation has lowered staffing needs and reduced the training level needed for the average local branch of the megabanks.

Throw in the financial crisis and the cheap money given to and forced upon banks and you have a strange brew indeed.

paulgeorges
paulgeorges

An easy way to rewiring bankers brain will be a free journey to jail for a while. Time to think about poor people they destroyed .For whose who lost everything ,sometime including familly ,because of them.  Unfair justice leads to wild world and not only for poor and despair people ! 

tallaman87
tallaman87

Of course bankers have the same mindset - they know that when they lose the government will lend (give) them money to cover their losses and set them back up to go again. They have nothing to lose. I would suggest next time there is a financial meltdown, let them fail! Let them file for bankruptcy and allow smaller banks to fill the void and grow into the role as the big dog. Hold the executives that affected the losses responsible by banning them from participating in the industry. With that accountability they will be more careful. 

DebbieHanrahan
DebbieHanrahan

Banking is the same now as it has always been.  It cannot control its drive or desire for creating power and more money.  This is true from ancient history to now.  Banking today is most similar to banking/finance in the 1930's.  Banking/Finance cannot control themselves so forms of regulation ie: Glass-Steagall are required to protect the citizens of America.  Capitalism is a wonderful form of economics but out of control Capitalism is nothing more than Darwin Economics and that is not in the best interest of the people of the United States.  It is wonderful for the top dogs of capitalism but it is not good for the whole pack of the USA for their survival.

paulgeorges
paulgeorges

Why to change things ? Some banks help tax evasion,they pay fines sometimes but no bankers are in jail. Risks are nothing compare with benefits . Now wealthy people with bank's help can freely hide money in switzerland banks account or elsewhere in the world . Middle people worth only to pay taxes,and are only allowed to do that . Roobin Hood is no more alive ! Nowaday it's legal time to rob legally big money ,and with no place to weakest,no matter women or children. 



Subprimemortgag
Subprimemortgag

The whole business of Investment Banking is not to give credits to small businesses and the middle class, it is to raise capital.  

Small businesses and the middle class should go to commercial banks for loans, but as we know, commercial banking and investment banking are one and the same.  

That is why Glass Stiegall 2.0 is a good idea.  Split commercial banking from investment banking.  Both types of banking are incompatible and have opposing objectives.  Commercial banking would activate the economy while investment banking would satisfy the greedy needs of raising large amounts of money for the sake of more money.


The problem is that commercial banking has adopted the culture of investment banking.  Both should have never been allowed to mix.

KentR
KentR

Banks have been a part of the ME Generations  since time began charging interest   examples in literature  from  The time of A Christmas Carol   its a wonderful life  MR POTTER banker  to the real world  in the first  era of banks  golden age  to the most recent years of  Enron   quality  and the  days when the banks sold worthless bonds to brokers that sold them as  top grade when they  were extremely risky loans  based on fictional paper work that was NOT examined  in any  reasonable depth   the ME first idea of the salesman wanting his commission  and let the insurance kick in and pay the debt ideas .. that s  not too far from banks of today   the bigger the bank the more risk they took  till they  went belly up   and None of the people that allowed the lies to give them a pay check   had to pay for the theft that cost many in this nation a job  and more homes.

ChristopherRichards
ChristopherRichards

@KentR 

I agree wth your opening statement absoloutely.   I am astounded that in England, the Base Rate is 0.5%, and yet banks are still being allowed to charge 19.9% APR on a simple overdraft on a simple overdraft.  The same goes for Credit Cards.    The argument by the lenders that interest rates are in line with risk, does not wash, particularly when the base rate is so low.

 Actually by maintaing these high charges, the banks have actually shot themselves in the foot, since instead of the traditional bank helping a company along through a difficult patch and also keeping interest rates in line with Base Rate they have actually incresed the debt such that the company can no longer trade.  Net result is the SME is foreclosed upon by the Bank, rarely receiving their exposure back, and at the same time killing off other SMEs who worked in line with their client.  

 In the next breath these are the banks whose Directors are receiving massive Bonuses to themselves which of course  is totally incongurent given that they have done a lousy job and most have had to be bailed out.