When will he learn to consider his arguments?

It looks as if Barclays wants to head back to the days of the wild west in the City of London when the economy was explicitly run for its benefit.

Banker says government should think about the City….not all that unusual an argument really.

The City is at a “tipping point”, with the current burden of tax and regulation at risk of deterring inward investment and damaging London’s role as the world’s leading financial centre, John McFarlane will warn in his inaugural speech as chairman of the CityUK lobby group on Wednesday.

Not surprising at all. And what fact does the Murphaloon call into play to tell us why this is all, candidly, neoliberal sophistry?

The trade deficit is at extraordinary levels.

Well done there, well done. The reason we shouldn’t be considering the interests of one of the country’s major export sectors is because the trade deficit is very large.

27 thoughts on “When will he learn to consider his arguments?”

  1. Having yet again run up against the brickwall of Barclays utter incompetence & indifference, what Barclays wants, thinks & does are of utter disinterest to me. If Murphy wants to carpet bomb their headquarters & branches I would only encourage him.

  2. Luis

    Your graph, if you set it to MAX, it looks like the deficit number is a lot more volatile now than it used to be. Any idea why?

  3. The implementation of various pieces of new legislation around the same time is causing a lot of problems for the finance industry so it’s a legitimate point.

    EMIR, FATCA, Dodd-Frank, BCBS, SMCR, SII to name just a few. But living in the real world as he does, Ritchie thinks that the industry is unregulated.

  4. Regulation isn’t enough for Ritchie. He’s a micro-managing control freak. (I pity his family.) There’s no way he’d be satisfied with merely layout some rules and letting people get on with their work. He wants direct control over everyone’s actions, with the right to veto anything he doesn’t like.

  5. @ken

    > Your graph, if you set it to MAX, it looks like the deficit number is a lot more volatile now than it used to be. Any idea why?

    Almost certainly an artefact. If you look at 1992 in detail using the columnar graph, you can see that the data move from being reported quarterly to monthly, which triples the amount of data reported and has a similar effect on the apparent standard deviation.

  6. He also displays his ignorance of the City. McFarlane (the barclays chairman) is one of the few good guys. He ran Citibank’s London branch when it was the undisputed leader in syndicated loans in the London market in the 80’s and 90’s and prior to the repeal of Glass/Steagall, Citi’s presence 9n the London markets far outshone the currently more visible investment banks. After Citi merged with Salomons he left to get away from the investment bankers and did a great job running two commercial banks (Standard Chartered and ANZ) that weren’t chock full of investment banking spivs. He is exactly the sort of chairman that the largest UK banks need.

  7. It looks as if Barclays wants to head back to the days of the wild west in the City of London when the economy was explicitly run for its benefit.

    Does “Wild West” mean something different in Britain than in the US, or was there a time when cowboys moved their herd along tower hill?
    Yeah, I know I’m being overly literal, but I kinda want to see it now.

  8. BiS: I’m with you as long as the bombing includes the offices of first direct which I switched to, to avoid the massive stupidity of RBS. I have just spent two days listening to poor quality baroque music without a chance of getting past Scots, reading scripts, to someone who actually makes decisions. Commercial banking has reached peak idiocy.

  9. GlenDorran

    I must confess to being moved to random violence when I encounter anyone who says banking is ‘lightly regulated?’ – Having personally had to manage projects on 4 of those you mention The anger Is building – other horrors (MiFID 2) seem to lurk around the corner – still – ‘People’s QE’ is no doubt the panacea for this and every ill…

  10. Random idiocy from Murph tioday in his comments:

    “If you have to advertise it then by and large it is bullshit – See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/11/11/barclays-is-heading-back-to-the-wild-west/#sthash.lzA2JbN5.dpuf

    “Capital stock is an illusion of micro-economics

    It does not feature in this euation because it is an artificial subdivide of financial market structuring

    In macro what matters is what is really happening, not how markets dress it up
    – See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/11/11/on-sectoral-balances/#sthash.zq0rWCfr.dpuf

    I hope his students realise how lucky they are.

  11. @V_P:


    And the unintended consequences are still to play out from all of these regulations and their interactions.

    For instance, BCBS is resulting in lots of pay rises for already well-paid bank staff. Why? Because although their job may not have changed, they are now formally on the hook for things they weren’t before. As a result, they can turn round and say “if I’m at risk of prosecution then I want some pretty serious compensation for it”.

  12. That is probably happening, but this is a specific reaction to some new regulations on senior management control (and I meant to reference SMR above, not BCBS although they’re all related).

    Because of the Senior Managers Regime, a lot more people in finance companies are now legally liable for things going wrong, not just the directors. There are a lot of people thinking carefully if they still want to do the same job they always have, or whether a large pay rise will be enough to compensate.

  13. Max / Rob

    “OT but lots of fist typing on here”

    His exchange with “Eileen” was ludicrous. Finally accepting that ok, the shareholders might own the company “but not the assets”… err, no one said they did Richard.

    What was stange to me was his notion that the idea (owning shares vs owning the company) was conceptually different between private and plc.

    It’s impossible to believe that he didn’t know what a plc was, hence it suggests that he just doesn’t think before he types?

    And never has the grace to then admit that he simply got that bit wrong.

  14. It’s far from impossible to believe Murphy doesn’t know things he ought to before he starts typing. His output furnishes a plethora of examples.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *