Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Are liabilities a part of banking or not? (updated)



This blogger has lost count of the times that the libertarian brigade at The Australian has argued that bank competition is alive and well, it's just shifted to liabilities. By which they mean deposits. Which, although this blogger disagrees, at least makes some sense.

But when the same set of libertarians argue that Australian banks weren't bailed out during the GFC, because they only enjoyed support to their liabilities, and the taxpayer made money for the privelege, this blogger reaches for his revolver.

Either liability management is a part of private banking practice or it isn't. Of course it absolutely is.

Today it's Janet Albrechtsen who takes up the one-eyed lens and after arguing that the banks need to be more active in their own defence, coughs this up:
Sure, it's depressing to listen to the simplistic attacks on banks. It's frustrating to see how quickly Australians seem to forget that Australia's AAA-rated banks led the world in best practice during the financial crisis. No bank failures here. No bank bailouts either.

I can assure Ms Albrechtesen that it is infinitely more depressing listening to simplistic defences of banks. Take a look at the above chart from an IMF report last year and a more recent article. Australian banks certainly led something during the GFC, or, at least, ran a close third behind the US and UK: the total meltdown of their liabilities.

Read both papers. They prescribe a Piguvian Tax to address the over-reliance on short-term debt. This blogger can only conclude that's too simplistic an idea for Ms Albrechtsen to bother with.

Update
Gotti offers a rather similar piece at BS.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hello,

But when the same set of libertarians argue that Australian banks weren't bailed out during the GFC, because they only enjoyed support to their liabilities, and the taxpayer made money for the privelege, this blogger reaches for his revolver.

This cannot be considered a "libertarian" position at all.

Torchwood1979 said...

Albrechtsen is a lawyer who has demonstrated on numerous occasions that she knows bugger all about the finance industry. I don't know why Paul Kelly allows her to mouth off about matters she clearly doesn't understand. Thank goodness for George Megalogenis and Jack The Insider I say!

Anyway, back on topic... Are liabilities a part of banking or not? is frustrating to read because it's so damn obvious. I knew how liabilities fitted into a business' cash flow when I studied Business Principles in Grade 9 & 10. The fact that this is even a topic of conversation shows how deluded Australia's business psyche has strayed.

Anonymous said...

Anon is correct - the free market radicals at The Australian are not libertarians but neo-conservatives.
True libertarians would realise that we do not have a free market at all and trying to place these principles upon a fettered and subsidised market - ala banking - is ludicrous and will involve unintended consequences.
Cheers
Chris B.
talkfinance.net

David Llewellyn-Smith said...

Anon & Anon,

Agree with both of you. I'm using the libertarian tag with deliberate irony.

D

Anonymous said...

Albrechtsen gets to do these articles because her husband the Liberal party apparatchik is also a banker. In fact, he is the only reason Albrechtsen gets to do anything - she would just be another grumpy no-body in a merit-based society.