A Good Bank?

We had a good news story last week in the form of our old friend Northern Rock being in much better shape than expected and now being worthy of yet another infusion of cash. Although lacking both taste and judgement, the 10% staff bonus story concerns me less than the £10bn infusion package.

I mean, WTF? So it makes sense to reward the most reckless UK lender with a package to allow it to outcompete viable businesses and undertake yet more malinvestment? How about rewarding more responsible institutions (e.g. Nationwide / Cooperative / etc) that deserve to survive? Nah, far better to force them out of business and let Northern Rock survive. World gone mad...

I've held the view from the start that Northern Rock should have gone to the wall as it was painfully obvious even in 2006 that it would be the first bank to fail with its' suicidal business model. Hence it would be wasted ammo needed for bigger problems downstream. But that's not a popular position to hold.

The problem with everything associated with Northern Rock is the notion of moral hazard. Namely, the responsibility for managing risk. If bad decisions have no consequences, such as being left to collapse when your whole business model falls over, then it leads to more and more bad decisions.

Now, having bailed out most of the UK banking sector, a queue of begging bowls is forming with many major employers (particularly foreign owned) ready to blackmail the government to get their share of the cash that the bond market is just dying to throw at UK PLC over the next few months for 0% return*.

It's unfortunate that the good banks and businesses that deserve help the most will be at the back of this queue, so probably won't see the money. Is this really the best way to heal the economy?

* - bold section is ironic!