Wednesday, 11 February 2009

"A culture of greed, unethical behaviour and indisposition to challenge."





So, Sir James Crosby, (twat above) has resigned as deputy head of the Financial Services Authority, because a nasty whistleblower (Paul Moore) put out a release about Crosby's contribution to creating the credit crunch in his previous post as boss at Halifax Bank of Scoland.

He sacked Mr Moore, who was the then head of risk at HBOS, who had been trying to warn the board that the bank was piling up unacceptable levels of risk. DOH!

The Beeb have the full text on their website, my but it's veh long so, as a favour to my newfound chums here in Mentalist Central

Here's the common sense extracts (the best bits) that those of us without a golden parachute, or a degree in toxic rich front loaded diversionary funding tactics might begin to comprehend...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7882581.stm


2.6 In my view, as an experienced risk and compliance practitioner, the problem in finding the real cause of the banking crisis is being made more complex than it needs to be.

2.7 I believe that we are missing the wood for the trees and that the key solutions to prevent such an event happening again are simpler than we think. In relation to policy changes, I make some short recommendations that the Committee may wish to consider in section 4 below.

2.8 But let's start with the cause and this fairly obvious proposition: even non-bankers with no "credit risk management" expertise, if asked (and I have asked a few myself), would have known that there must have been a very high risk if you lend money to people who have no jobs, no provable income and no assets. If you lend that money to buy an asset which is worth the same or even less than the amount of the loan and secure that loan on the value of that asset purchased and, then, assume that asset will always to rise in value, you must be pretty much close to delusional? You simply don't need to be an economic rocket scientist or mathematical financial risk management specialist to know this. You just need common sense. So why didn't the experts know? Or did they but they carried on anyway because they were paid to do so or too frightened to speak up?



2.22 To mix a few well known similes / metaphors / stories, the current financial crisis is a bit like the story of the Emperor's new clothes. Anyone whose eyes were not blinded by money, power and pride (Hubris) who really looked carefully knew there was something wrong and that economic growth based almost solely on excessive consumer spending based on excessive consumer credit based on massively increasing property prices which were caused by the very same excessively easy credit could only ultimately lead to disaster. But sadly, no-one wanted or felt able to speak up for fear of stepping out of line with the rest of the lemmings who were busy organising themselves to run over the edge of the cliff behind the pied piper CEOs and executive teams that were being paid so much to play that tune and take them in that direction.

2.23 I am quite sure that many many more people in internal control functions, non-executive positions, auditors, regulators who did realise that the Emperor was naked but knew if they spoke up they would be labelled "trouble makers" and "spoil sports" and would put themselves at personal risk. I am still toxic waste now for having spoken out all those years ago! I would be amazed if there were not many executives who, if they really examined their consciences closely, would not say that they knew this too.


2.24 The real problem and cause of this crisis was that people were just too afraid to speak up and the balance and separation of powers was just far too weighted in favour of the CEO and their executive.



3.3 It follows that there is a natural tension between the need to raise legitimate challenge on the one hand, and the likely reaction of those individuals who are the subject of the challenge. There is also the risk that the individual who raises the challenge will be criticised for the style or tone of the challenge.



2.17 At this point I want to stress in the strongest possible way that I am simply not interested in blame and I don't think it really ever works. I was ultimately fairly compensated by HBOS. What I am very interested in is the future. As I wrote once at to my boss at HBOS itself what we need this crisis to do for us is "to create a watershed here so we can move on from the issues of the past (from which we can learn but not blame) to the brave new world of the future." Although, key people at HBOS did do wrong, I am also sure that their intentions were usually good and, in a sense, they were also caught up themselves in what the Greek tragedies would call the "ineluctability of fate".

5 comments:

Nikostratos said...

the blue pill



http://www.arrod.co.uk/essays/matrix.php


In the Matrix, which pill would you take, the red or the blue?




The question of which pill to take illustrates the personal aspect of the decision to study philosophy. Do you live on in ignorance (and potentially bliss) or do you lead what Aristotle called 'the examined life'...

subrosa said...

Monty, here's a link to an article in today's Times about the leasing of woodland.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article5712284.ece

I agree with what Roseanna said in 1998.

Administrator said...

Morning Rosa, that still doesn't answer my question.

The article is basically a reheat of last weeks Forestry debate, with the added twist that 11 years ago, Roseanna spoke out against yer actual privatisation.

Mike Russell spoke openly about the Rothschild's approach which was rejected. He also asked Richard Williams, (who seems to have taken over primo mentalist Jim Hume's mantle) just how often the Blair government actually did business with the Rothschild's and similar Merchant Bankers.


The whole leasing of COMMERCIAL forests has been subject to smear and lies from the likes of Jim Hume, Richard Williams and bizarrely Russell Brown MP (perhaps he doesn't realise FCS is reserved to Scotland).

We've had Jim Hume scaremongering that we would have no Christmas trees, Jim Hume, Nick Clegg and Tavish Scott luxuriously adorned in skin tight lycra with their bonces adorned with garish helmets proclaiming that mountain bikers wont be ables to access the 7 Stanes mountain bike trails for burly men slasshing and burning virgin rainforest, and wee Cathy Doll proclaiming 3000 folk will lose their jobs, when in reality FCS only employ circa 1100!

If you had told the green lobby ten years ago, one day we'll have Scottish government that will fund a Climate Challenge fund, they'd have branded you naive. Yet today, we have a situation where, senior execs at FCS who have done all they can within their limited budget are welcoming additional investment in planting, equipment, training, pukka road construction, cast iron guarantees of employment (TUPE)the same land access and a huge increase in planting of both conifer and broad leaf for climate change, yet people are prepared to swallow the unionist line in slamming what is after all a CONSULTATION. Where are their proposals, how do they suggest we jump from planting 4,500 hectares to the required 10,000 per year?

Final thought on a long post. If you plant more trees, you fight carbon emissions and create more jobs for planting and harvesting.

brownlie said...

What with advice from this fellow and Fred the Shred Brown could certainly pick his advisors. No wonder the country is on it's knees.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

I am not an economist and at least a year ago I was wondering where all the money was coming from.

I cannot comment on the recondite intricacies, but it is blatantly obvious that people were spending everything they had and then going on to credit cards. And when that ran out, they were using the equity in their homes to go to Disney Land. It had to grind to a halt - how many times do you need to replace a refrigerator?

The writer mentions:

"lemmings who were busy organising themselves to run over the edge of the cliff behind the pied piper"

The literary underpinnings of the political dimensions (I am on much more familiar territory) are not 1984, as is popularly supposed, but Brave New World, which portrays a society narcotised into apathy and brainwashed into endless consumption.

The difference between the two dystopias is one of hegemony and will. We have all walked into this of our own volition - no coercion necessary.

Smell the cheese.

Smell the cheese.
Former vile blogger Montague Burton aka Mark MacLachlan

The equally bored.

Lend With Care

Lendwithcare.org microloans from CARE International - Banner Ad

Colour me chuffed.

Colour me chuffed.
Thanks to everyone who made up their own mind.

Children in tweed.

Children in tweed.
14th place. Thanks again to everyone with a pulse and a brain.

BIG BLOG ARCHIVE...click on links below for OLDER POSTS