Tuesday, 23 April 2013

create local banks by breaking up state owned mega banks Archbishop

The Archbishop of Canterbury warned on Monday night that Britain was mired in an economic depression and called for major steps to drag the country out of it, including the breakup of a major bank in order to create regional lenders.

So reports the Guardian this morning-it then goes on with a peon of praise for Labour who never thought of the idea in office and ignore those (chiefly Lib Dems) who urged them to do. This tells us more about the Guardian than it does about the state of politics.
The recent Lib Dem policy drawn up after a working party on which The Disgruntled radical and Prateek Buch both served advocated precisely that.

I have always favoured the route of breaking up one of the monolithic banks Gordon Brown allowed and which is now in state ownership. I would prefer that it was and handed it over to its customers- ie creating local mutual banks. 

A recent publication puts the case:
There are three reasons for promoting mutual building societies: they are less prone than banks to pursue risky speculative activity; a mixed system produces a more stable financial sector; and a stronger mutual sector enhances competition within the financial system. The banking crisis highlighted the importance of retaining diverse models of financial service providers, and while mutuals were affected by the recession, they were not themselves responsible for causing the recession, as were private banks. The UK Government needs to secure a financial return for the failed financial institutions it nationalised and a low level of overall economic risk for the taxpayer. Given a trade-off, the long-run benefits of financial sustainability and reduced risk, plus enhanced competition, need to be given proper weighting compared with any short run gain through a trade sale and the repayment of the government's support. 

One of the authors, Johnathon Michie, produced a report for Kellogg College Oxford showing how the bank could be mutualised and the government's investment repaid over an agreed period.This has always appealed to me as the last thing we need is another plc owned bank whose sole objective is to 'build shareholder value'. We need institutions who long term objectives is serving those who save and borrow from them and to who they are responsible. 

It is interesting that the most recent figures I have seen should that a small mutual Building Society, The Furness, leant more to homeowners and businesses that Lloyds!

Anyway the Archbishop is to be applauded for his contribution as he says:

Problems were created when banks became distant from the communities they served, he said. "At least part of the banking system should be local".
The Anglican leader said the simplest solution to recreate a local banking system was "recapitalising at least one of our major banks and breaking it up into regional banks".
He cautioned against allowing the banking system to become too concentrated in the mistaken belief that it was safer. "As a bank, you can be big and simple or small and complicated, and do well. If you get big and complicated, you become unmanageable," he said.

Sadly no one got through to Gordon Brown with that message


  1. Wouldn't mutualisation be a bit of a poison chalice while so much debt is hidden, or not admitted to? Also, we cannot keep propping up house prices indefinitely. Sooner or later British banks are going to have to take a hefty hit on their loans portfolio.


  2. Hi Stewart, there are a couple f ways of dealing with this matter. The Archbishop suggested that the bank that was to be broken up to create regional banks should be fully re-capitalised by the government and by implication the bad debts hived off into a 'bad bank' as with Northern Rock.
    Both he and I are talking about retail -High St banking-not the casino investment banking. As we have seen withe the Lloyds results today this business is fundamentally sound. There are two ways to proceed thn one would be a private /stock market sale creating another PLC bank, or sale to a new or existing mutual with the agreed purchase price being repaid opver, say. ten years. Both ways the taxpayer gets their money back. The mutualisation/regional route give some real alternatives to savers/borrowers.


I am happy to address most contributions, even the drunken ones if they are coherent, but I am not going to engage with negative sniping from those who do not have the guts to add their names or a consistent on-line identity to their comments. Such postings will not be published.

Anonymous comments with a constructive contribution to make to the discussion, even if it is critical will continue to be posted. Libellous comments or remarks I think may be libellous will not be published.

I will also not tolerate personation so please do not add comments in the name of real people unless you are that person. If you do not like these rules then start your own blog.

Oh, and if you persist in repeating yourself despite the fact I have addressed your point I may get bored and reject your comment.

The views expressed in comments are those of the poster, not me.