Stamp out prostitution on one neighbourhood and the problem just shifts to another neighbourhood.
Supress unacceptable banking practices in one country, and banks just shift to another country.
That does not make bankers look good. So you might think that when bankers are asked why they object to some of some of their activities being curtailed, they’d come up with a better response than the above “prostitutes’” response.
But in an article in the Financial Times (Sept 9), the main response of three bankers was the above prostitute response. Don’t they realise they are shooting themselves in the foot?
BTW, those three “banker responses” seem to be in the paper edition of the FT, but not in the online version.
The best quote from this article comes from Sir Martin Taylor, Banking Commission member: “The investment banking activities of a universal bank were at all times parasitic on the retail bank balance sheet.” Quite right.
Good idea in the letters page (same FT edition) from Nigel Reed, as follows. Bank splitting should be voluntary and the U.K. government should guarantee only deposits in the retail section of split banks. Result: unsplit banks can go to another country if they wish, but that country is accepting potentially toxic stuff.