³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Commentators react to banks' half-year results, which began yesterday with HSBC reporting a 26% rise in profits in the UK.

that banks being risk-averse by making loan applications so difficult to apply for is selfish:

"[I]t is deeply disturbing that the same bankers who made such terrible mistakes are now using these as an excuse to deprive money from British small businesses which were completely innocent. Such behaviour borders on the immoral.
Ìý
"It is a great irony that the Government, which did so much to rescue these ailing banks is now being hampered by the same institutions as it tries to kickstart the economy...
Ìý
"Until there is a wholesale reorganisation of commercial banking and the restoration of proper lending arrangements, the chances of a durable, strong economic recovery will be thwarted.

The for banks to be forced to lend:

"The argument goes to the heart of the continuing contradiction between the narrow corporate self-interest of the banks and the needs of the wider community. Two years ago governments, and the taxpayers, were forced to intervene to save the banks from themselves and their economies from collapse not just through direct grants, but loan guarantees, additional money supply and low interest rates. The banks in turn have used these advantages to concentrate on rebuilding their reserves, reducing bad debts and raising extra capital through share offerings.
Ìý
"Fair enough. Any economic recovery requires a healthy financial sector. But the banks have not just used profit to rebuild their own balance sheets but to pay out a staggering amount in dividends to their shareholders and bonuses to their staff. This is insupportable."

In contrast, that the Chancellor George Osborne should not be pressuring banks to lend money to risky businesses when it would do a disservice to depositors:

"[T]here is also a quasi-moral issue, best captured by Ronald Grierson, one of the few surviving close colleagues of that great banker Siegmund Warburg. In late 2008, when the then Labour Government was haranguing the banks in exactly the way George Osborne is now, Sir Ronald wrote the following marvelously terse letter to the Financial Times: 'A bank is a bank and if the security of its depositors is not its main concern, it should be required to adopt another name. Members of the public are entitled to take this for granted.'"

The the government to encourage a recovery of banks' profits, so that the public stakes become more valuable, rather than to "hamper it in a populist spasm":

"It is tempting to conclude that those profits should be paid to the taxpayer and that stringent regulation should be enacted now to prevent a recurrence of the financial crisis of 2007-09. That view is a serious error.
Ìý
"In the US and on the part of the Lib-Con coalition in the UK, there are discouraging signs that government has got its priorities wrong. There is no urgency in legislating for tighter financial regulation. There is, however, a pressing need to get the banks strong enough to lend again. Recovery since the first half of last year is not a sign that the banks are exploiting businesses, consumers or taxpayers. It is a welcome but early and as yet fragile improvement from the worst global recession since the 1930s."

The a week of "banker bashing" as the rest of the banks are due to report their profits. It accuses politicians of being immature:

"What is depressing about the anti-bank rhetoric is not only that it is playing politics with an important industry, but also that it exposes confusion at the heart of public policy. Ministers want the banks to strengthen their balance sheets to avoid another bubble; they also want them to lend more freely. They cannot have it both ways. And a vibrant banking sector is vital to the recovery - and to the public finances."

that George Osborne's plea to get the banks to start lending more is wrong and shows why governments shouldn't run businesses:

"It wasn't long ago that the politicians were telling the banks they were lending too much. Taking too many risks. Giving companies and householders loans that they might be unable to repay. They told the banks they had to 'strengthen their balance sheets' - that is, start making some money and put in their vaults so that they wouldn't need another bailout if things turned bad again. But now, as soon as they start making a profit, the rhetoric screeches into a u-turn. You just can't expect people to run a business when you are pushing them in contradictory directions.
Ìý
"Banks are in the same line of work as every other business, which is to make money for their shareholders. This is exactly what they are doing, and since the government is the biggest shareholder in UK banks, you would think our politicians might be pleased."

Links in full

•
•
•
•
•
•