Skip Navigation
 

The Financial Crash In Plain English

Cliff D'Arcy

By

Cliff D'Arcy

From the Fool blog

Christmas comes early for Centrica investors

Published in Your Money on 18 September 2008

Credit crunch. Northern Rock. Bear Stearns. Fannie and Freddie. Lehman Brothers. AIG. HBOS. Here’s what the financial crash means to you.

Following years of feverish expansion, the financial system is having a fit. Low interest rates and cheap credit fuelled big gains in house prices and other assets. This created an environment in which banks were eager to take on more risk. Hence, they lent ever-more money to ever-more people in a race to the bottom of the barrel. Eventually, banks ran out of good customers to lend to, and started doling out money to people with poor credit records who had little hope of repaying their debts.

Bank then rolled up these risky loans (‘subprime mortgages’) into mortgage-backed bonds (IOUs). Using financial alchemy, bankers waved a magic wand and turned these bonds into highly rated securities. These were sold to banks, insurers and pension funds around the world. Thus, what could have been a local problem has escalated into a global drama.

How did it all go wrong?

As US house prices started to fall in 2006, the value of bonds backed by subprime mortgages started to slide. Very quickly, investors realised that they had been mugged, causing the market for mortgage-backed securities to grind to a halt. This prevented banks from parcelling up and selling on loans, thus restricting their ability to continue lending.

As banks grew anxious about each other’s exposure to these toxic loans, they became increasingly wary of lending to each other. Thus, inter-bank lending (‘wholesale lending’) dried up in early August 2007. Within a month, this ‘credit crunch’ had claimed its first scalp in the UK – Northern Rock.

The next victims

Although clever banks had sold on much of their subprime lending, many kept the supposedly choicest cuts for themselves. Then as house prices slid, the loans turned nasty and the US banks started to lose tens of billions of dollars.

Then in March, Bear Stearns, was rescued by JPMorgan Chase with government backing. The biggest bailout in history arrived at the start of this month, when the US nationalised the two biggest players in the American mortgage market, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

A week later, Lehman Brothers, America’s fourth-largest investment bank, collapsed into bankruptcy. This forced number-three player Merrill Lynch into the arms of Bank of America. Next up was AIG, the world’s largest insurer, which received an $85-billion bailout in return for giving the US government an 80% stake in the firm. This week, the UK’s biggest mortgage lender, HBOS, is being taken over by rival Lloyds TSB.

What does this mean for you?

The bad news is that very few people will be entirely immune from this financial meltdown. Thanks to these poisonous loans, banks worldwide have already lost over £250 billion. Even worse, this loss could double or quadruple before things improve. Hence, in order to rebuild their capital and profits, banks must increase lending costs.

Therefore, thanks to interest-rate hikes, borrowers are being hit hard. We’ve already seen rates climb for mortgages, personal loans, overdrafts and credit cards. Nevertheless, as the economy slows down, rising bad debts will take their toll, forcing lenders into further rounds of rate rises.

Likewise, homeowners and property investors are suffering a double whammy, thanks to falling house prices, higher mortgage rates and a steep fall in the availability of home loans. Personally, I welcome lower house prices, as should anyone with plans to reach higher up the property ladder. My view is that the current property weakness will continue into the next decade, with no recovery before 2010.

In addition, stock-market investors around the world have suffered as economies begin to slow, company profits slip and share prices dive. Indeed, the failure of some massive companies has spooked investors, with the blue-chip FTSE 100 index falling below 5,000 this week -- a level not seen in three years. Although the UK stock market looks cheap on certain measures, I wouldn’t call the bottom just yet.

On the other hand, savers are doing very nicely, as a result of the banks’ desperate dash to stash more cash. Interest rates on Best Buy savings accounts have hit levels not seen since 2001. In fact, this craving for cash means that sensible savers can earn fixed rates in excess of 7%. Given that three-quarters (75%) of all Britain’s wealth is owned by the over-55s, well-heeled pensioners will benefit from higher savings rates.

Alas, rising inflation (higher prices) is undermining the value of the pound in our pocket. Last month, the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) measure of inflation hit 4.7%, its highest level since becoming the official measure of living costs. In other words, keen spenders will find retail therapy much less affordable, thanks to falling disposable incomes.

Finally, falling company profits and the economic slowdown will lead to lower tax revenues. With public spending rising relentlessly, the government will have to milk taxpayers harder in order to avoid a huge budget blowout. Thus, politicians are likely to feel the brunt of the public’s anger, with Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Chancellor Alistair Darling first in the firing line!

More: Start strengthening your savings today| Don't Panic About HBOS | Five Ways To Beat The Credit Crunch

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

jonnie2thumbs 19 Sep 2008, 6:41am

all good news for me......

until it gets so bad there are food riots...

Dhahran2001 19 Sep 2008, 7:47am

A very well written article.

derekafarmer 19 Sep 2008, 7:55am

Dont you think that there is a salutary lesson to be learned by UK banks and the UK regulator on the stampede towards global investment and the need to be the biggest ?
Size isnt everything and in situations where UK citizens have to suffer from the consequences of foolish strategic decisions by the nation's banks that arguably damage the national economy, one might expect the Regulator to take steps to isolate foolish speculation from those activities that are important to national economic stability.

A good start would be to separate the "Investment-Banking" activities of UK banks, from their UK commercial operations so as to prevent future contamination of UK core business by losses arising from international adventurism presided over by executives without the skills, vision or experience to know when they are being conned.

Luniversal 19 Sep 2008, 8:15am

I question the current conventional wisdom about savers doing oh-so-well out of the crisis, with banks allegedly thirsting for retail deposits and bidding up rates.

According to TMF's own partner, Moneyfacts, there has been a big round of CUTS in rates lately. Besides, with true inflation (RPI adjusted for government massaging) hovering between 5% and 10%, what's so great about a net return to basic rate taxpayers on one-year bonds of just over 5%?

The thrifty are still being penalised for the greed and blunders of the improvident. As one who is not getting any younger-- and who has a lot of cash looking for a better home than current accounts, which used to pay interest visible to the naked eye-- I am tired of being told how precious I am to these clapped-out usurers.

Show me the money!

landlordray 19 Sep 2008, 8:23am

Given that the US Government was keen to prosecute UK Bankers, how long before we see some trials of the US bankers that put these toxic mortgage loans together.

PebbleDash105 19 Sep 2008, 8:23am

I'm not too worried about food riots - but if I had the money, I'd certainly buy shares in Lidl.

Nice article!

Theatreman 19 Sep 2008, 9:01am

There needs to be a reckoning.

The bankers in the UK and US need to be taught the difference between whats is right and what is legal.

Short selling and the packaging of worthless toxic debt is not right. It is merely a way for the money grubbing and bonus chasing to earn more money.

Banking is a necessary service for people and commercial organisations but this should be a lesson that they are there to serve us and not their own deeply destructive self interest.

Commercial practices need to be tightened up and the value to the general community demonstrated before becoming common practice.

Ironic that these Red blooded free marketeers are now running bleating into the arms of socialism to bail them out!!

BarneyMStevenson 19 Sep 2008, 9:12am

"Using financial alchemy, bankers waved a magic wand and turned these bonds into highly rated securities."

What does this mean? Given the title of the article, I was hoping to understand...

xxzarr 19 Sep 2008, 9:23am

You forgot about Cheshire & Derbyshire BSs.

As I posted sometime back our "Dearest Leader, Gordon of the North" should get a grip. As Chancellor he allowed the BoE to print more money so that he could bathe in the glories of a quality economy. No-one in fear of his/her job would dare argue with GB unless you wanted to lose your job. His sidekick Ed Balls is also culpable in this fiasco.

As far as the Bankers are concerned the BoE & FSa should start looking very closely and start to remove some banks licenses and make an example. The Boss of HBOS is set to be paid £2million on abject failure of his business. This surely cannot be true.

Who will sort this mess out, not the FSA, not the BoE, not the cretinous politicians, but I know who will pay, us the consumer.
Oh sod it..I'm going to the pub.

charlieblenner78 19 Sep 2008, 9:27am

A great article.

It's always quite irritating to read time after time that higer interest rates are 'Great News For Savers'.

I wonder if anyone else rolls their eyes whenever this rather idiotic 'flipside' comment comes out of the mouths of broadcasters and financial journalists.

Let's face it. For a majority of us - our mortgage debt figure is generally very much heftier than our savings deposit figure.

breechers 19 Sep 2008, 9:31am

Nice article, but what about pension funds? Many pension funds in the UK were well under funded before this calamity started - where does it leave them now and how will they meet their future committments?

mishimasan 19 Sep 2008, 9:41am

Youtube hits and google searches for Senator Ron Paul during the election campaign trumped those of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Then eerily, about a week after the results had surfaced, the google search results no longer showed that.

One person that could have changed the way we live forever was Senator Ron Paul. It's such a pity, that in the corrupt world we live in today, people as popular as him can be washed away by fascist corporations working with a fascist government.

Ticker32 19 Sep 2008, 9:48am

Unfortunately I did not take heed of my sixth sense/Motley Fool articles some twelve months ago and get into the good old standby of gold when the fiscal arena becomes unstable. I now have to sit on my "investments" and trust that in the long term things will eventually get back onto an even keel. Perhaps I should have gone out and spent it all then let the "Government" take care of me in my dotage!

ZebraTree 19 Sep 2008, 9:53am

I'd like to echo Dhahran2001, a very well written article....and 'financial alchemy and waving a magic wand' means using camouflage!!!!!

colin106 19 Sep 2008, 9:59am

For Barney Stevenson - I think what happened was that Wall Street operators - true to their nature - made a bundle of what they knew were sub standard mortgage deeds - where no evidence of income or even a checked address were the norm - together with a percentage of "kosher" securities, then persuaded the ratings agencies to give these "financial instruments" AAA ratings (for a big fee to the ratings agencies) and then sold these to banks worldwide. This practice and the over availability of cheap money which temporarily inflated house prices and other assets, is the cause of the present financial tsunami- the full extent of which hasn't yet hit us. I am buying gold bullion on dips, through BullionVault - and buying 3.5% Swiss Government backed bonds for safety not return - although if the pound dives further against the Swiss Franc, as seems likely, this return will incresae.

atseyes 19 Sep 2008, 10:08am

""Using financial alchemy, bankers waved a magic wand and turned these bonds into highly rated securities."

What does this mean? Given the title of the article, I was hoping to understand..."

I thought it meant that the bankers themselves did not really understand what they were doing.

colin106 19 Sep 2008, 10:08am

Mishimasan - refreshing to hear words of truth about Senator Ron Paul. If elected he would have made America revert to the gold standard which would have meant politicians could no longer print money for their pet schemes, but mainly to buy votes. He would have made Congress obey the Constitution, making Americans live within their means, and would have withdrawn all American troops from the 150 approx countries where they are stationed ( I guess that would have ended terrorism at a stroke?) But the media ignored him as they are in the pockets of vested interests, and anyway R.P's policies would have been too strong medicine for a population hooked on handouts.

ajhenderson 19 Sep 2008, 10:12am

But there is a another article here, though is there not?

About government policy and the money supply.

Why did banks have all this cash that they could not help but try and lend out?

Why did government not acknowledge the existence of asset price bubbles?

British/American balance of payments issues go unmentioned, as usual.

Banks may have been idiotic but governments have been worse , have they not?

grumpiestt 19 Sep 2008, 10:22am

It's astonishing that Gordon Brown isn't continually reminding people how far the roots of the meltdown can be traced back to the "big bang" and the financial deregulation engineered by the Thatcher government. That opened the doors of the City to the huge American institutions and their dubious business practices. It also led to the demutualisation of most of our big building societies, which used to take a much more cautious attitude to risk than banks who take their eyes off the ball to watch the competition and their share price.

Of course, governments of both colours are always ready to roll over and give shedloads of our money to snake-oil salesmen from across the Atlantic. Look at the horrible history of big computer projects that escalate in price, overrun their schedules and never work properly in the end. The NHS is just one (albeit massive) example. Identity cards will be the next scandal in this dishonourable line. The only beneficiaries are the robber baron executives of the giant US consultancies and computer companies that have the knack of conning cash out of gullible British politicians.

tonyeth 19 Sep 2008, 10:27am

I read that the domestic business of British banks is still very profitable. If there was a bank that contained it's activities to the UK then, surely it would be remain profitable. I would certainly trust my money to a truly British bank!

pjpunter7 19 Sep 2008, 10:38am

That idea is no good nowadays, Ticker, I'm afraid.
The Govt - already burdened with massive war debt and envionmental-pressure debt - is trying to get the sick and the old out working!

It's these bankers and good-for-nothing city slickers who should be put to work; not the sick and the elderly.

Anything to massage the figures, imo. Main trouble is the guilty parties are not held to account and escape without penalty.
Everybody else - ordinary customers and tax-payers - has the costly mess to clear up.

mrpointy01 19 Sep 2008, 10:40am

GREED!

Human nature - lets face it, it was peoples greed in getting windfall payments that led to all the building societies becoming banks. Building Societies were answerable to their members, banks don't answer to anyone. It's bankers greed & no regulation that led to them handing out money to high risk people.

They got their bonuses by thinking short term & taking advantage of grab it & run banking. Even now, the big bosses are still getting million pound bonuses - WHY?!

The government only does what it thinks will please people & keep it in power - short term thinking. They need to regulate to stop people buying houses as "investments" instead of as homes. House prices went through the roof because it suits the British economy which is based entirely on debt, borrowing & "financial services". The government can't allow house prices to fall to realistic levels by building more social housing, or reusing the million empty homes in the country, because it would pull the carpet from under the rest of the already tottering economy!

We live in a greedy, me me me society & we need to change our attitudes to housing & treat it as housing & not an investment; why do people think that young people have no hope of ever having a home, when you now have to find a £40000 deposit to buy a pokey little flat in London! Stop rewarding testosterone fuelled Essex boys to gamble with other peoples money, but never be held responsible for making huge losses.

Our society needs to take a good hard look at itself and decide where it wants to end up - this re-adjustment could be a good thing for future generations, but only if we learn from it (as we didn't seem to do from the last boom/bust)

Are you listening Gordon?!

pjpunter7 19 Sep 2008, 10:56am

Sorry,
Ticker's point was to let the Govt take care of him in his dotage. ( I typed very slowly so my reply was way later).

I think I'd rather be dead than rely on any Govt to look after me. Most of them couldn't run a penny bun stall, imo!

As one poster has mentioned, it was Thatcher ( or rather, those behind her who pulled the strings and reaped the short-term rewards) who set up this accident waiting to happen.
Now it has. Where are all those yuppies? I bet most of the young dudes in the City weren't even born when all that superficial success was all the rage.
Sometimes it's sad to live on and gain experience of life. Sure, they'll kid you that everything they do is for progress and evolution, but now that age has dulled the memory so much that I can't remember whether this is the fourth or the fifth "recession" ( we used to call it "slump") that I've seen, I'm afraid the only thing I can do is chuckle.
OK, back into the line for the soup kitchen: thank you, yuppies! I don't know how I would have managed without you.

Hardtruth 19 Sep 2008, 10:59am

You could have added personal credit debt levels, another toxic pile that will deliver its effects in the later stages of this economic armageddon.

This is still early stage. Beyond this: recession followed by deflation followed by depression which historically leads to war. Recession is a certainty now and the actions of governments printing money is the catalyst and initiator for deflation.

PhilHornby 19 Sep 2008, 11:11am

I can sign up to a lot of what mrpointy01 says - I am glad to be with the Nationwide which has remained a BS and not demutualised and they look sound to me - and its investors are not likely to need to worry about maintaining only a safe £35k 'package' - I do hope I am right and if I'm not, tell me!

Overall, all this is a necessary adjustment after a period of financial madness which couldn't last for ever.

um5000 19 Sep 2008, 11:25am

"in order to rebuild their capital and profits, banks must increase lending costs"

If the banks have been profiting for years on the back of dodgy lending, why should we suffer rate increases merely to support/continue increasing their share price - which was incorrectly inflated in the first place (much like house prices - which of course is tied in with this)? And more importantly why should governments interfere when that starts to slide?

samsamani 19 Sep 2008, 11:38am

The Government Greedy B*star*s should be shot.

How has it got to this!?!

Im 26, im not only stuffed out of the housing market but Im now living through a recession (1930s style) that no one has any clue how many years it will take to go back to what it was.

The fact all of this is now going to come out of tax payers pockets becuase banks got to greedy is a joke. I bet the government dont cut back on the wages/expenses allowance they give each other for doing such a fine job???

why were rules not in place to stop this happening?
surely the government (being the smart chaps they are supposed to be) should have had measures in place before it came to this?? obv. not.

Im safer stuffing my money under a matress.

gilgongo 19 Sep 2008, 11:51am

All makes perfect (if grim) sense, apart from the bit that says "... bankers waved a magic wand and turned these bonds into highly rated securities."

Er - hold on. How did that come about? Surely the whole POINT of a ratings system is to protect against this. So, are we talking about outright lying on the part of the bankers?

edmitchell 19 Sep 2008, 11:52am

Re: Best buy savings accounts.

Motley Fool needs to add their credit rating to their recommendations. High rates and high risk?

gordonbanks42 19 Sep 2008, 11:55am

BarneyMStevenson: "alchemy" in this context goes something ike this: For a very long time, it has been standard practice for lenders (eg credit card lenders and mortgage lenders) to package up a bundle of debts owing to them and sell them on. e.g. a credit card company will put together the cash flows it is owed on (say) 1000 of its credit card accounts and sell the aggregate cash flow to someone else in return for a capital sum (which it can then lend again, and sooner than would oterhwise have been the case - this makes its business grow faster). The aggregate of 1000 credit card accounts is a much better-behaved animal than any one of the accounts on its own (see stats 101 Central Limit Theorem if interested), so the packaging process actually adds some value. Provided, that is, that the level of risk associated with the cash flows from the package is properly understood by the party buying it, and that the price paid properly reflects this. Part of the problem is that buyers of such packages have become conditioned to the contents of the packages being of a certain level of quality. When US mortgage lenders started selling packages of this kind containing much dodgier ("sub-prime") debt, there was a tendency for the buyers not to notice the lower quality of the contents. Like so many of us, they just looked at the pretty, familar wrapping. Added to this was the fact that the credit rating agencies, whose opinion is always sought in such transactions, seemed not to notice either and got their risk ratings horribly wrong. So the buyers of the packages of sub-prime debt paid too much for them and the sellers were over-rewarded (which made them do it even more).

There are now criminal investigations in the US into the role of the sellers (was there inadequate disclosure, or deliberate deception, or should "caveat emptor" rule, as would normally be the case) and did the credit rating agencies foul up culpably? I think they did and I think that at the very least you will see tighter regulation of their activities in future. They should not have a financial interest in bigging up the securities on which they are passing an opinion, but it seems that they did. That will have to stop.

gemcat1 19 Sep 2008, 12:03pm

I'm confused. There is a letter from someone in my local paper who has obviously been doing his research.

The FT House Price Indes recorded a 1.3% drop across the country in August. In some places it is worse than others with Walses & the East Midlands being the hardest hit. However, the Index shows that there has been a rise of 0.9% across the South East during the last 3 months & this has been confirmed by the UK Land Registry.

So, if house proces are increasing, it must mean that houses are being sold. If they are being sold are we being mislead in general or just in specifics? I'm aware that a financial crash in the US is bad all around the world but is the UK not as bad as the media would have us believe? Let's face it, the headlines saying that we are in a small bit of trouble aren't as good as the world finances are totally destroyed!!

SiGl26 19 Sep 2008, 12:04pm

"Using financial alchemy, bankers waved a magic wand and turned these bonds into highly rated securities."

then persuaded the ratings agencies to give these "financial instruments" AAA ratings (for a big fee to the ratings agencies) and then sold these to banks worldwide.

I believe that these AAA rated packeages of debt had increasing proportions of 'toxic debt' as time went on; don't recall exactly which bank, but their purchases of (apparently identical) bonds went from 10% to 30% to 98% toxic debt. No-one seems to have questioned the role of the ratings agencies in the current mess. It's unforgivable for the traders not to fully understand what they were buying, but I guess they just called all AAA bonds equal...

gordonbanks42 19 Sep 2008, 12:10pm

Has anyone watched the Lion King recently? We learn that there is nothing wrong with hyenas (read "short sellers") per se - they have a valid role to play in the ecosystem in recycling unregarded morsels. But when wicked uncle Scar lets them take over the pridelands, everything goes pear-shaped. When the hyenas are numerous and bold enough to take on a healthy bull elephant (read "Goldman Sachs") we know that things are not right. I am very glad that the USA and UK regulators have now suspended shorting of banking stocks. Someone on the news last night was saying that shorting hasn't contributed much to recent problems because there hasn't been much shorting, which is a bit like saying that Saddam Hussein's use of torture didn't have much effect on the Iraqi population's behaviour because he didn't actually torture that many of them. The fear of it affects behaviour in itself. Removing the fear of a shorting raid taking out an otherwise healthy business is essential at this time because it allows conventional investors (like me) to bottom feed in relative peace in something like the usual way, which is part of the recovery process. When things get back to normal (whatever that ends up looking like), let the shorting recommence...

gordonbanks42 19 Sep 2008, 12:17pm

SiGl26: You have a good point. When companies buy goods for resale (think food, toys, cars, pharma) they have to be able to trace them in case of recall. Everything has a batch number and is traced through the system. When a bank buys AAA securitised debt, I doubt whether they know much about the underlying assets. The fact that it has been rated AAA should mean that they don't have to know that it arose from XYZ mortgage corp's activities in a certain Minnesota trailer park during Q3 of last year. The sooner THAT confidence can be restored, the better.

gordonbanks42 19 Sep 2008, 12:24pm

gemcat1: I don't know the spcifics of the situation you refer to, but when thinking about price indices, esp house prices indices, you need to consider what it is an index of. Are they measuring actual transaction prices or prices at which things are being offered for sale (i.e. wishful thinking)? When were the data recorded? (different data feeds have different lags) What volume of things are being sold at the prices indicated? If the volume is more or less "business as usual" then the index means more than if the volume is very patchy. If the volume is very patchy then the fact that it is patchy is probably more important than the value indicated by the index.

jaguarxj6 19 Sep 2008, 12:39pm

As a pensioner I just look on this whole sorry lot with horror and increasing depression.
I have a moderate final salary pension that was adequate in 1997 but is now falling short and little in the way of investment to supplement it.
Based on inflation (ha ha) my pension for the past 11 years has increased by the grand figure of 2.08% per year. No discretionary increases presumably because the investment funds backing it have shown pathetic growth combined with the companies frequent payment holidays which today leaves the 'pot' underfunded.
My house, the only inheritance for my 3 children is now under threat and I have already had to employ equity release to top up living costs.
Council tax and utility prices eat up greater than 40% of my pension.
Now, to add insult to injury, the 2 litre diesel, auto, Rover I bought in 2003 is to have retrospective increased Road tax applied under this Govt's new rules of taxing vehicles (according to CO2 emissions) from 2001. (to £400pa) What am I supposed to do ? Scrap a very reliable car with low resale value, good mpg and only 30,000 miles on the clock that I bought to 'last me out'. CO2 was not an issue in 2003.
From being reasonably outgoing I (& my wife) now live like hermits. Enjoy the final years of our life, fat chance. We rarely go out and a holiday is just a dream now.
It's not all due to the rotten banking system, though this will now hit us all, but the insatiable hunger for more and more taxation.
When pension fund investments were doing well, Brown hit them with a windfall tax. What has he done in the bad years ?
Can anyone PLEASE enlighten me as to why this small island with such a dense population and such high levels of taxation is broke. EVERY sector of our economy is underfunded, education, the NHS, roads, pensions..... the list is endless.
And we haven't heard the last of the banking crisis yet...........have we ? ? ?

mkoriba 19 Sep 2008, 12:59pm

Great Article. I agree with many points raised by mrpointy01.

If we all stand back and dig deep into ourselves in order to understand the underlying drivers of all this; I am afraid is is GREED fuelled by HERDING. If someone or an institution is making short term moiney from financial instruments such as dervatives of subprime mortgages; then let us do the same.

kenbf 19 Sep 2008, 1:24pm

As ever, when things go wrong there is never a shortage of individuals who call for yet more state regulation. This is a natural instinct but caution should be exercised. Does anyone seriously think that elected politicians, forming a cabinet chosen by the "leader" can run G.B. Ltd. or USA Ltd or any other country Ltd.?
The role of any central government should be to look after the nation's safety and maintain as good a relations as possible with other countries. Following this, they should set out the environment to maximise the wealth creation by commerce and industry that allows their citizens to live safe, fulfilled lives thus developing each one's abilities and talents. A tall order I know but this should be the aim.
Now to business. Hardly any government and certainly not this one, is capable of running industry or commerce (think of the old Soviet Union)and the honorable thing to do is leave well alone but keep a steady hand on the tiller in consultation with heads of industry. I do not doubt that this, and previous governments are basically well intentioned but in the present cabinet, is there a single person with in depth experience in business? I fear not and the same was true in previous Labour governments.
Short selling of borrowed shares in the hope of buying back at a profit is a part of risk taking and should not, in my view, be banned. What I would like to see, however, is the big institutional investors who lend the shares for shorting, exercise some control on who they lend shares to and the amount that they lend. I would also like to see the institutions collaborating in perhaps buying shares in sound companies where they suspect shorting is taking place. If they did this, they would be supporting the share price and the speculator would either make no money at all or would lose money. Could this not be done if the lender only lent the quantity of shares that they were able to buy in the market immediately? If they did this, the market maker would tend to maintain the price or even mark it up slightly after the purchase. In this way the shorter would either make no money or lose money. In the case of HBOS, I am not sure if short selling was responsible for the catastrophic fall in their share price, I think there may have been other reasons.
On another note,perhaps someone can help me by explaining precisely the financial alchemy that is required to turn sub prime mortgage backed bonds into highly rated securities? This smacks of deceit and fraud and should be a criminal offence so I am solidly behind any regulation that can prohibit this activity. It seems to me that this practice is what has led to the reluctance of banks to lend to other banks. A veritable thieves kitchen!
There is another small thing that I suspect has caused untold grief. The Directors of many investment banks do not understand some of the latest financial strategies and they do not bestir themselves to find out or engage someone to keep them abreast of what goes on in their names. Consider Barings and the Leeson affair. The directors had the nerve to say they were unaware of what was going on! I think I am in favour of the reintroduction of horse whipping!

sairfecht 19 Sep 2008, 1:56pm

I can only agree with mrpointy01.

Pure greed at every level - unfortunately we all have a hand in this. From the bankers to the house buyers. Who doesn't (honestly?) mind making fast bucks - until it gets out of control?

It takes discipline to restrain oneself...difficult in the want-it-now-easy-credit society we have - so some will suffer, we'll get over it, the good times will come around again...

Human nature indeed. We haven't changed (South Sea bubbles to Northern Rocks) and JB Priestly's Inspector calls yet again!

But may be,just may be, we'll have learned something.

gordonbanks42 19 Sep 2008, 2:48pm

Seems that Mr Daniels from Lloyds TSB is better than most (all?) of his plc peers in exercising sound judgement for the medium to long term in the face of short-term greed and the herd instinct (and a fair bit of name-calling to boot). Add in a few of the senior managers of the building socs who have resisted demutualisation and stuck to deposit-based lending and you have a core of good practice.

Perhaps we can all learn from these examples?

Perhaps the shareholders of banks can learn from these examples by appointing and supporting people who think like they do rather than by appointing the Applegarths of this world? Shareholder activism doesn't always have to be about M&A activity, resisting "fat cat" bonus awards and/or financial engineering, does it?

gordonbanks42 19 Sep 2008, 2:52pm

kenbf: I am broadly in sympathy with your views, but one thing puzzles me: in the US, the SOX laws were meant to do something similar to your idea of directorial horse-whipping, but they don't seem to have done the trick (perhaps the SOX penalties just weren't harsh enough :-) However, to bring that kind of thing in here would mean MORE regulation, not less. Presumably you would make an exception in this case?

rogers2002 19 Sep 2008, 3:37pm

The current situation is nothing new. Similar financial crisi have occurred regularly ever since the beginning of the 'industrial society' in the early 1800's. The behaviour of politicians has been driven by greed, duplicity & deceit ever since Parliament as we know it was first established. The 'Christian' religion is based on the teachings of a altruistic man who eschewed wealth yet the organisations who purport to represent his teachings behave no better than the rest of those in positions of power. Society has the ability to do better - but for this to happen there must be a general rejection of greed by the vast majority - I doubt that this will ever happen - the current behaviour patterns are too deeply entrenched and too frequently subliminally 'reinforced' by all forms of advertsing - including - unfortunately - 'The Motley Fool'

lowknapp 19 Sep 2008, 5:38pm

well done, Cliff. an erudite, yet concise, article. as an ex-Dhahran emigre, I agree with Dhahran2001 completely.

It is to the banking industry's discredit that they invested in instruments that they did not understand and could not value, and used their customer's deposits and shareholders investments to do it, subsequently selling the resulting convoluted financial 'things' to investors who relied on the sellers' bona fides. it begs the question of the competence of these 'great' banks management and the ability of the regulatory authorities to similarly understand. They still seem to be hiding the full extent of their exposure. Is it a case of the Emperor's new clothes? nobody wants to ask the basic question for fear of having their ignorance exposed

rchumba 19 Sep 2008, 6:19pm

Banking, more like pyramid selling / betting.

If you want to lose your money be foolish and do it yourself.

gordonbanks42 19 Sep 2008, 7:19pm

lowknapp: the full extent of their exposure is more a question of judgement than fact. It depends what assumptions you make - who will pay up how much, who won't, is XYZ Bank a going concern or a dead duck and so on. The behaviour of these securities and the market generally has been so odd that the usual computations (eg Value at Risk) hardly mean a lot. The amounts in question are so huge that if they took the absolutely "worst case" view and owned up to that, all the major banks' balance sheets would be pretty much written down to zero, which wouldn't help anyone. That's why we are seeing a drip-feed of bad news - as things get worse, the valuation assumptions change (downwards) and more write-offs are announced. And that's also why removing the whole lot from the balance sheets of these organisations (a la Paulson) is such a good idea - it means that no-one has to worry about valuing them any more.

We only have to worry about the inflation (and currency depreciation) caused by the public sector borrowing needed to replace the dicey assets with decent ones!

bluepiper61 19 Sep 2008, 7:42pm

Society in general seems keen to rapidly promote young and ambitious people with smooth talk who have little experience.

As these smart suited executives rushed to close their deals and earn their substantial bonuses, did they really appreciate who they were lending money to or what they were actually buying with these bonds.

One wonders whether older, wiser heads who had worked they way up through a company over many years would have paused to think just exactly what they were doing and whether there might be a catch along the way.

I think the only real surprise that the bubble has finally burst is that it took so long to come. I remember seeing people on TV in 2001/02 who had sold their houses and were renting in expectation of a fall in house prices.

sarapuk 19 Sep 2008, 11:45pm

Hello all. So given that The British Government must know what most of us know what the hell are they playing at. Do they think the British public are fools. Its a Government that doesnt know what to do. They followed Keynes just like the Yanks and hey presto problem not solved. They are the fools. PROBLEM NOT SOLVED. Sarapuk.

johnthebookie 20 Sep 2008, 8:04am

Kenbf-while you may be right in saying that Governments have no idea how to run a commercial business, I'd question whether those people running business now have any idea either. When choosing between two different levels of incompetence, surely you have to go for the one that has to show accountability for their actions-ie the Government? Business leaders are only accountable to shareholders. Well that'll scare them won't it? Extending your point further-I'm also sceptical that your average shareholder, individual or institutional, has the remotest idea what really goes on in business. All they want is the Dividend each year. How often do you get major changes at an AGM? Hardly ever I'd suggest-unless it's to vote themselves a nice little earner from a demutualisation or a friendly takeover. All short-term. Sorry, when you have numerous global Companies/Banks with assets larger than some nation states, you simply cannot trust them to be run for the benefit of the wider economy.

alldrittg 20 Sep 2008, 8:43am

I hope nobody has made this point before but I think everybody is missing a very basic fact. When money came into existence it had value, i.e. it was made of precious metals, and money was just a method of making bartering your labour for goods.
Now money is nothing more than numbers on sheets of paper, it no longer has any real value.
Banks and speculators have used this fact to make money from money and actually producing nothing and thereby contributing nothing to the real economy, i.e. the trade in goods and some services (e.g. doctors, gardeners, teachers, etc.).
Unless money is returned to its original status of a bartering medium then these situations will occur every so often, they are simply the result of greed on the part of non productive people. If we had a world full of bankers and speculators, there would be no food to eat and no goods to buy, but if we had a world without them would anybody notice ?