From Coop to cop-out, from stewardship to casino banking

It is excellent news that the privatisation of Lloyds Banking Group has finally begun. It follows the return to the private sector of Direct Line, which was spun out of the nationalised RBS, and the looming Royal Mail sell-off. Slowly but surely, some of the errors of the past are being undone, the equity markets are being reinvigorated and parts of the supply-side of the economy are being improved.It is easy to get overly depressed at the state of the UK, our government’s apparent obsession with taxing plastic bags and all the other nonsense. I certainly plead guilty. But every so often it’s worth remembering that it is not all bad: there are lots of debits, but on the credit side of the coalition’s metaphorical bank statement, corporation tax is falling, the top rate of income tax has been cut and now the nationalised banks are starting to be returned to the stock market.Lloyds’ gradual liberation from the dead hand of state ownership follows a little-noticed but important shift in regulatory policy by Mark Carney, relaxing the liquidity rules for banks and making additional kinds of assets eligible, a move which ought to allow for a return to cautious expansion. Combined with a much clearer relationship towards the financial services industry from the Bank, it is clear that the City has turned a corner. Global investors agree: there was vast demand for Lloyds shares last night, including from overseas. The UK and London are finally coming back to life, and not a moment too soon.- See more at: http://www.cityam.com/article/1379382612/barack-obama-should-make-donald-kohn-next-fed-chief?utm_source=website&utm_medium=TD_EditorsLetter_Homepage&utm_campaign=TD_EditorsLetter_Homepage#sthash.h955BW7K.dpuf

Everybody’s calling it a tragedy.  Ex-Co-operative chief executive Peter Marks said that the demise of the UK’s Coop Bank has been a “tragedy” when grilled by the UK parliament’s Treasury Select Committee.  The banking arm of Britain’s oldest cooperative movement and a mutualised bank (it is not a joint stock company quoted on the stock market), supposedly providing ethical banking, has fallen into the hands of its bond holders.  They are a bunch of US hedge funds, Silver Point and Aurelius.  The Coop Group’s stake in its own bank will fall to just 30%, while the hedge funds seize the bulk of the shares in return for bonds they hold.

The Coop Bank would have collapsed without this because its capital had been decimated by huge losses that it has had to face from non-performing commercial and retail mortgages it inherited from its merger with Britannia Building Society.  The banking regulator said the Coop Bank must raise £1.5bn by end-2014 if it were to continue.  It seems that the only way that this capital can be raised is by handing over equity to the hedge funds and by ‘haircutting’ the value of the bonds held by individual investors, the people who bought Copp Bank bonds because they believe in the cooperative movement.  These retail investors will also lose the interest income from their bonds.  And board members committed to the cooperative ideal will be removed and replaced by representatives of the hedge funds.

The merger of Britannia and the Coop in 2009 was meant to be an “ethical alternative to shareholder-owned banks”.  After the merger,the Coop’s management even tried to buy over 600 branches of Lloyds Bank, the part state-owned bank that had been forced to sell them.  That plan fell precisely because the regulator and Lloyds noticed that the Coop had nowhere near the capital or borrowing power to fund such a deal.

The demise of the Coop is yet another example of the reckless speculative nature of modern banking that eventually triggered the global financial collapse.  Six years on from the start of that, the repercussions of aggrandising and criminal actions by top bank executives striving to boost returns and their pay packets, continue – now bringing down an important credit institution supposedly dedicated to the alternative of people’s or ethical banking.

But how could it happen that Britain’s cooperative movement could allow its bank, aiming to serve ordinary people, end up trying to become a major player in the heady speculative world of ‘risk banking’, despite the lessons of the global financial collapse?  It does not talk well of the aims and ideology of the leaders of the modern Coop.  Like the Coop, the Britannia liked to trumpet its ethical and environmental credentials to consumers unhappy with the big high street banks.  However, its operating model was closer to the hugely failed and  growth-obsessed HBOS bank, with its focus on highly aggressive commercial property lending and high loan-to-value buy-to-let mortgages.  The Coop should have seen that because, in 2008, months before the announcement of its merger with the Coop, the Britannia was forced to write off bad debts of more than £40m in one of its specialist lending subsidiaries.

One analyst noted that the mutual’s exposure to the worst parts of the property market was “nothing short of alarming for what should be a staid building society”.  On taking over the Britannia, the Coop spent heavily to develop a new IT system to manage the combined business. In 2009 nearly £80m was spent on the project, roughly half the amount the business made in profit that year. In total, the Coop spent close to £250m on building the new system!  Then eventually the Coop had to admit that it had taken huge bad debts from Britannia and wrote off £469m.  The Coop Bank was left looking for £1.5bn in capital and has now been devoured by the hedge fund vultures.

It is an irony that only recently the leader of the British Labour party, to which the Cooperative movement is affiliated, spoke at the Cooperative conference.  Ed Miliband, started by saying:  “It is a pleasure to be here at the Co-op. You have always understood that ethics of responsibility, co-operation and stewardship must be at the heart of what you do. That’s one of the reasons why the Co-Op bank has in the last week seen a 25 percent rise in applications for accounts.  It was your values that I was talking about last September when I said to the Labour Party conference that Britain needed a different kind of economy.  An economy based not on the short-term, fast buck, take what you can. But on long-termism, patient investment, and responsibility shared by all.  Not an economy based on predatory behaviour. But productive behaviour. Not an economy that works just for a powerful, privileged few. But an economy that works for all working people.”

Unfortunately, it seems that the Coop Bank executives and their bosses in the Coop Group did not keep to ‘coop values’ but copped-out to the capitalist objective of the ‘short-term, fast buck’  and adopted ‘predatory behaviour’.   Miliband went on to outline what was wrong with modern banking. He explained: “we can understand almost everything that has gone wrong with British banking over the last two decades.  It is a story repeated across the country. Mis-selling of products to small business. Failure to lend. Fleecing of ordinary customers, such as in the payment protection scandal (The Coop Bank is being fined too for its part in the PPi scandal – MR).  And all of us paying the price of what the banks did in the financial crisis in lost jobs and all the other consequences.”Miliband said the problem was that bankers had shifted from “what I would call the shift from stewardship banking to casino banking. Moving from a culture when banks cared about the local business and had an interest in its success To a culture too often driven by short-term gain, fancy financial products and the bank not caring about the success of the firm, just about the immediate return.”

As Miliband went on, such casino banking was “socially useless.”  Even worse it was “economically damaging. And socially destructive.”   “We need a banking system where bankers are not given an incentive to focus on the short-term return.  But to build a long-term, trusted relationship with their customer.   A banking system which the British people can have confidence in once again.  That means we need a banking system which serves every region, every sector, every business, and every family in this country.  We want banks to serve the country, not a country that serves its banks.”

Instead, as Miliband pronounced: “Over the course of the last twenty years, we have seen the ethic of our banks change because the institutions that make up our banking industry changed. We can all remember when there were many banks to choose from in this country. And different building societies in every major town. We saw them on our high streets and we understood what they did. They looked after our savings, offered us mortgages and supported local businesses. Since the 1980s, two hundred building societies have been lost.  Now there are only five major banks in this country.  And their business is often more focused on their investments in the global financial markets than it is on their local customers.”

He did not mention that this destruction of mutual credit entities and the rise of global banking took place on the watch of Labour governments under Blair and Brown, as well as Conservative governments.  Miliband sat in a Labour Cabinet that supported deregulation and the end of mutualisation and praised the City of London during the great credit and financial binge of the ‘masters of the universe’ in the early 2000s.  But okay, maybe Miliband has learnt the lessons of that period – unlike the Coop Bank executives who were listening to his speech.  So what was the answer to this destructive disaster in banking, according to ‘Red Ed’ (as he is called in the right-wing British media)?

Well, apparently, we “can’t simply turn the clock back.” to mutualisation.  Instead we must follow the strictures of UK’s Vickers Report into banking which argued for ‘Chinese walls’ between risk-taking investment banking in the City of London and ordinary loan and deposit retail banking in the ‘high street’.  And the big banks should be broken up from five into….maybe seven!  This will mean “better competition.”

Miliband pointed out the sorry failure of the capitalist-owned banks to provide loans to small businesses.  “Take lending to manufacturers. Last March, out of all the business loans in the country, the amount that went to manufacturers was just 2.5 percent. Three quarters of all the loans to business went to finance and property firms. And this is after the crash.  All around the country there are men and women who are not getting the credit they need to grow their businesses.”

So what was the answer?  Set up a a British Investment Bank.  Apparently this bank would provide loans for businesses to make investment. Miliband: “Our goal is clear. To build Stewardship banking again in this country. Separating retail and investment banking. More alternatives for the consumer on the high street. And a British Investment Bank to help our small businesses.  A new culture which stops the bonus-as-usual, sell-what-you-can, short term system.  To build banks that serve the people, not just themselves.  Banks which are safe, so that the taxpayer never has to reach into their pocket to bail out one of the richest sectors of the economy ever again. And most of all, banks which reflect the values of the British people:Banks that can help us rebuild our country. And rebuild an economy that works for working people.”Stewardship applies ‘overseeing’ or ‘acting on behalf of others’.

Miliband wants bankers to be regulated so that they act on behalf of the people.  But that won’t happen as long as they must make profits for their shareholders. The demise of the Coop Bank shows that even an ethical, mutual bank will succumb to casino banking while the drive for profit dominates.  Cooperative institutions will only survive and blossom when capitalist production does not dominate overall.In this blog, I have explained in detail (see https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/banking-as-a-public-service/ and https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/marx-banking-firewalls-and-firefighters/), as has the UK’s Fire Brigades Union in their pamphlet, that simply trying to regulate the existing banks’ behaviour,or trying to break them up into smaller pieces, or setting up one state bank in competition, would be totally inadequate and self-defeating.

Banking should be a public service for people and their businesses, just as education or the health service should be.  But that can only be achieved through public ownership of the big five (in the UK) and democratic control of their management boards on the pay, conditions and objectives.  Nothing else will do if banking is to operate in the interests of people and not in the interests of big capital.  Of course, Ed Miliband and the Labour leadership do not want that (although such a programme was adopted, in words, by the British Trade Union Congress last year), because it would threaten the very power and control of capital, especially in the ‘rentier’ financial UK capitalist economy.

The answer to the Coop’s demise would be recapitalise the bank with funds from the state-owned RBS and Lloyds as part of a general publicly-owned banking system.  Then the bank, under proper democratic management, could pursue the mutual and ethical objectives of cooperative movement and make a socially useful contribution.  Instead the bank is being handed to American hedge fund vultures.

THE FORMER boss of the Co-operative Bank yesterday claimed he warned the bank of “disaster” if it tried to buy 632 Lloyds branches in the middle of other major projects to shake up how the lender worked, but was ignored by the board.Ex-chief executive Neville Richardson also claimed he had no responsibility for the bank’s subsequent capital problems, which met with criticism from the Bank of England (BoE).He said he told the now-troubled Co-op Group’s board in 2011 the bid could end in “collapse,” but his concerns were overruled and he was pushed out of his job.The Co-op tried to buy the ‘Project Verde” branches, but had to drop out earlier this year.Just months later it emerged the bank had a £1.5bn capital hole.“If the bank had not had resources and many key people diverted to Verde, the operating profits would not have been as bad as they were” and so the capital position would have been better, Richardson told MPs. “At the time I used the word ‘disastrous’ and warned of the collapse of the banking system.”Richardson ran the Britannia Building Society before its ill-fated merger with Co-op. He denied its loanbook hampered the tie-up.The BoE said: “We strongly disagree with Neville Richardson’s view regarding the Britannia loan book situation.” Co-op Bank was unavailable for comment.- See more at: http://www.cityam.com/article/1378343420/former-co-op-boss-row-over-bank-bid-warning-claims?utm_source=website&utm_medium=TD_news_headlines_right_col&utm_campaign=TD_news_headlines_right_col#sthash.qqWvz0ys.dpuf

3 Responses to “From Coop to cop-out, from stewardship to casino banking”

  1. Edgar Says:

    I suspect it will end up being sold off to Virgin money or something.

    I had heard on the grapevine that the Co-op were looking to take action against the old Britannia chief exec over the sale to the Co-op, not sure if that will happen now.

  2. Boffy Says:

    The failure of Co-op shows what Marx said that workers should build worker owned producer Co-ops rather than member owned consumer Co-ops. Had the actual Co-op Bank workers been running the bank, its less likely the would have made the mistakes that the bureaucrats who actually ran the bank made. Its not guaranteed, workers can make mistakes too, but less likely they would have amde these mistakes.

    As for,

    “Banking should be a public service for people and their businesses, just as education or the health service should be. But that can only be achieved through public ownership of the big five (in the UK) and democratic control of their management boards on the pay, conditions and objectives.”

    That can never happen, and as Trotsky said to suggest to workers it could is merely to deceive them.

    “It would of course be a disastrous error, an outright deception, to assert that the road to socialism passes, not through the proletarian revolution, but through nationalization by the bourgeois state of various branches of industry and their transfer into the hands of the workers’ organizations.”

    (Nationalisation and Workers Control 1938)

    As he says in the Transitional Programme,

    “However, the state-ization of the banks will produce these favourable results only if the state power itself passes completely from the hands of the exploiters into the hands of the toilers.”

    I don’t know of any rational person who believes that is likely to happen any time soon, and so nationalisation of the banks – or anything else, is really just a demand for workers to exchange for exploitation by private capitalists for exploitation by a more powerful capitalist state.

    As the Kautsky put it in the Erfurt Programme,

    “If the modern state nationalizes certain industries, it does not do so for the purpose of restricting capitalist exploitation, but for the purpose of protecting the capitalist system and establishing it upon a firmer basis, or for the purpose of itself taking a hand in the exploitation of labour, increasing its own revenues, and thereby reducing the contributions for its own support which it would otherwise have to impose upon the capitalist class. As an exploiter of label, the state is superior to any private capitalist. Besides the economic power of the capitalists, ii can also bring to bear upon the exploited classes the political power which it already wields.

    The state has never carried on the nationalizing of industries further than the interests of the ruling classes demanded, nor will it ever go further than that. So long as the property-holding classes are the ruling ones, the nationalization of industries and capitalist functions will never be carried so far as to injure the capitalists and landlords or to restrict their opportunities for exploiting the proletariat.”

    It is a point echoes by Trotsky who indicates that the demand for Workers Control outside a revolutionary situation is either revolutionary phrase mongering or else really a cover for a reformist deception of the workers.

    “If the participation of the workers in the management of production is to be lasting, stable, “normal,” it must rest upon class collaboration, and not upon class struggle. Such a class collaboration can be realized only through the upper strata of the trade unions and the capitalist associations. There have been not a few such experiments: in Germany (“economic democracy”), in Britain (“Mondism”), etc. Yet, in all these instances, it was not a case of workers’ control over capital, but of the subserviency of the labor bureaucracy to capital. Such subserviency, as experience shows, can last for a long time: depending on the patience of the proletariat…

    What we are talking about is workers’ control under the capitalist regime, under the power of the bourgeoisie. However, a bourgeoisie that feels it is firmly in the saddle will never tolerate dual power in its enterprises. workers’ control consequently, can be carried out only under the condition of an abrupt change in the relationship of forces unfavourable to the bourgeoisie and its state. Control can be imposed only by force upon the bourgeoisie, by a proletariat on the road to the moment of taking power from them, and then also ownership of the means of production. Thus the regime of workers’ control, a provisional transitional regime by its very essence, can correspond only to the period of the convulsing of the bourgeois state, the proletarian offensive, and the failing back of the bourgeoisie, that is, to the period of the proletarian revolution in the fullest sense of the word.

    If the bourgeois is already no longer the master, that is, not entirely the master, in his factory, then it follows that he is also no longer completely the master in his state. This means that to the regime of dual power in the factories corresponds the regime of dual power in the state.”

    But no serious person believes we are in a situation anything like dual power. So either it amounts to a demand that has no chance of being realised, or else it is really a demand for the capitalist state to take over and to stitch up some kind of corporatist arrangement in which it operates with the TU bureaucracy over the workers heads. Even the latter is unlikely given the current relation of forces.

  3. vallebaeza Says:

    Reblogged this on Econo Marx 21.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: