Claire Hill and Richard Painter’s new Better Bankers, Better Banks aims to find a way forward by looking backward – and by casting a few sidelong glances as well. It is valuable for what it has to say about the view in all directions.
Begin from where we are – the point from which Hill and Painter would like to see forward movement. Where we are now is a world in which, even seven years out from the crash of ’08, banking scandal is near boring in its ubiquity. From Libor in 2012 to Euribor, forex, commodity and precious metal cornering thereafter, the story of financial markets of late seems an unending parade of horribles.
How do we get out of this seeming cesspool? Here is where Hill and Painter look backward and sideways.
First let’s look back. Time was when ‘bankers’ – Hill and Painter employ the term broadly to cover all folk who hold ‘other folks’ money’ – invested not only our money, but their money too. By organizing as general partnerships whose partners were jointly and severally liable for losses, they kept, as the current idiom has it, ‘skin in the game.’ This of course aligned their interests with client and institutional interests – to some extent, anyway. (Names like ‘Jay Gould’ should remind us that ‘some extent’ wasn’t the ‘full extent.’) And so there were limits on how much by way of other folks’ money the bankers were likely to fritter away.
Now let’s look sideways. There appears to be growing consensus, in the face of such scandals as those just rehearsed, that our regulatory and law enforcement regimes’ penchant for penalizing banks rather than bankers just isn’t cutting it. Compared to the gains to be had from wrongful behavior unlikely to be caught, even five or twelve billion dollar settlements between banks and their regulators are chump change. Oughtn’t we, then, focus our efforts upon the human agents through whom the banks act? After all, five billion – or five years in jail – are more likely to pinch if you’re human.
Hill and Painter like what they see in both directions. They find limitations, however, in how effective the enforcement of finance-regulatory provisions can be. These, they believe, are just too easy to game – a fact that might partly account for regulators’ going after the banks rather than the bankers in the first place. Why not, then, take yet another sidelong glance in another direction – that of contemporary moves to simulate better regulation through private ordering? Are there not means, for example, of appealing to socially responsible investors by committing to operate as a socially responsible business – e.g., as a ‘B Corp’ or ‘Benefit Corp’?
Indeed there are, and though they do not discuss these new business forms, Hill and Painter valuably adapt, in effect, the idea behind them to financial firms. Herewith the authors’ novel suggestion to introduce a practice of what they call ‘Covenant Banking.’ The idea is for financial firms whose owners or managers are comfortable with the idea to undertake ‘skin in the game’ commitments on the part of their managers. Managers would voluntarily assume some liability for losses, thereby partly replicating the ancien regime of pre-corporate partnership banking. Investors could then choose between what kinds of institutions through which they invest – the more risk-averse perhaps working through covenant banks, the more risk-cavalier working through today’s more familiar casinoish firms.
It would be hard not to like this proposal. What’s not to like? Like recent proposals for Wall Street voluntarily to maintain ‘naughty lists‘ of bankers who have gotten themselves into trouble, it imposes nothing, yet offers something – the prospect of ‘better bankers,’ hence ‘better banks,’ for at least some investors. It simply expands the field of choice, and who in these times doesn’t like choice?
If I have any reservations about Hill and Painter’s proposal or their brief in its favor, they have to do with the prospect of some people’s possibly taking the authors to claim or to promise more than they actually intend.
To begin with, we should note that wrongs such as those alleged in connection with Libor, Euribor, forex, and commodity and precious metal cornering are not wrongs of excessive risk-taking. They are wrongs of sheer fraud and manipulation. It isn’t the case that ‘skin in the game’ on the part of the relevant fraudsters in these cases ‘would’ have helped; the ‘skin’ seems to have been at the core of the ‘game’ from the start, and was indeed part of the problem – the fraudsters profited precisely by illicitly betting their own money on what they controlled. Hill and Painter, then, should not be taken to be targeting this form of market abuse through their proposal.
A distinct but related point has to do with the lead-up, not to 2012 and after, but to 2008. It is still common to hear that year’s cataclysm blamed upon venal behavior or ‘excessive risk-taking’ by ‘bankers.’ And such behavior clearly occurred – it always does. But a very strong case can be made – I think I and others have made it – that the principal causes of 2008 were more radical than mere vice or recklessness on the part of some bankers. They are endemic to capitalism itself absent serious and sustained effort on the part of the polity to distribute capital’s returns – or capital itself – far more equitably than we’d managed before 1929 or between 1970 and 2008. ‘Better bankers’ would certainly be better than worse bankers; better still would be better distributions of that with which bankers bank.
Finally, there is a danger in underselling what proper law enforcement, adequately funded and staffed, can do where finance-regulation is concerned. When Wall Street contributes more to political campaigns than most other industries, when DOJ officials openly admit to having feared to prosecute bankers for fear of rattling markets, and when regulators like the CFTC and the SEC are chronically understaffed and underfunded, we should be skeptical of suggestions that ‘gameability’ of the rules is the sole – or even principal – reason for old fashioned law enforcement’s not having eradicated rulebreaking by financiers. Indeed, as Hill and Painter themselves note, a rule change at the NYSE in 1970 played a critical role in the move from partnership to incorporated form among Wall Street investment banks. If that is so, could a legal re-imposition of some variant of the old rule not itself make for ‘better bankers’?
None of these caveats should be taken as more than what they are – mere caveats. There is much, much to be learned from a reading of Hill and Painter, and much is quite plausibly promised by their Covenant Banking. And since, as before noted, their proposal is made in effect to the banks rather than the polity, it seems to be all upside, no down. Let, then, those bankers intrigued by the Hill/Painter proposal give it a go. One might even imagine some funds offering their services in A and B flavors, so to speak – in Covenant and Noncovenant forms. In such case consistently better performance by one kind over the other might in future foment a stampede to the winning kind, and with it a privately worked transformation.