David Prosser: The banks versus Obama
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Outlook John Varley's criticisms of the United States' proposed banking reform – championed first by the former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker and now by Barack Obama himself – are twofold. He doesn't like the direction the US has gone in, or that it has chosen to travel independently, rather than seeking international consensus.
Both complaints are misguided, though you can understand why Barclays, with its highly profitable investment banking arm, doesn't like what President Obama has to say. For one thing, the US will not go down this route alone. The Obama administration's proposals are painted as individualistic, but in fact simply use a different route to get to the same destination. The UK prefers strong new capital requirements for those with risky activities – the method also being worked on in Basel right now – but taken to its logical conclusion, this new approach will also break up the banks.
As for the substance of the reforms, Mr Varley argues that rather than size, it is risk that is relevant in banking. Well, we certainly need to monitor risk, but the point about the move towards smaller banks is not that this would mean no more collapses – just that a failure would not lead to systemic collapse.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments