Responsible intelligence

<< Send those bankers to hell!
Darell Berry @ flickr


In celebration of the one-year anniversary of the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (7 September), Lehman (15 September), and Washington Mutual (25 September), I solemnly made a resolution to myself that I would step off the bandwagon and encourage others to do the same.

Approximately a year ago, on a late night in the office, I remember my colleague being on the phone with a trader at one of the large banks, which has since been lucky enough to survive the global downturn. The trader had told my colleague, "This isn't good. Wait. This is very very bad." Similar statements of hopeless fear and utter panic were allegedly heard everywhere that night on Wall Street, in Canary Wharf, and every other financial district in the world.

Who knew that a year on, the markets would be back up and still functional? Sure, there are ample liquidity problems and trading strategies are now more vanilla than ever, but a year ago, the financial services industry thought, This is it. The world is over.

Regardless of whether or not we call the current downturn a recession or depression, no one would disagree that fourth quarter 2008 was some of the most panicky months the world has seen in decades. Emergency measures were taken by several governments and central banks, including an interest rate cut down to pretty much zero. Money has been lent, guarantees were given (albeit arguably belatedly), and now the hottest topic is about figuring out a regulatory framework for the financial industry going forward.

The best thing about time is that it keeps going, and the great thing about that is that we can now look back and think - critically - about what happened and why.

The general media has been horrible about this, in a time when they should be the ones spearheading a more critical approach. One could understand the polemical stance the Times took last October, when one journalist concluded:

The stresses in the financial markets partly reflect bad policy decisions that made sense at the time - such as central banks keeping interest rates low after 9/11, and owing to the effect of Chinese imports in restraining inflation. But this time, there is a justifiable anger at the insouciance of the bankers, who irresponsibly exploited those decisions. The demonology has new life in it.

But recent news about the G20, proposing to regulate bankers' pay, coverage of the Kraft/Cadbury merger, to the private lives of certain bankers, continue to sustain this so-called 'demonology'. And it's not helping the situation, at all.

To be fair, certain media outlets have always been rather sensationalist, because it no doubt brings in the dough. In a time when advertisements are being cut, and less people are spending on superfluous things, most media firms and their journalists are likely to make an extra effort to make news sound more scandalous, more evil, more conspiratorial, and therefore more of a 'must-read' item - a bigger deal - than it actually is. If that's what some media do, then so be it; not every outlet can be a saint.

However, I came upon a rather shocking phenomenon recently, when in conversations with my friends about the financial crisis, they came up with some of the most uninformed, uncritical statements about the causes and who was to blame. According to them, bankers were to be despised, the fault was at the bulge-bracket banks, none of the governments' emergency measures were effective, and so on and so forth.

The shocking part was, although I give them the benefit of the doubt that most of them have done their reading, my friends all happen to be very well-educated, and ambitious, critical thinkers. All of us were brought up and educated that way - to be critical of our sources, the things that we read, hear, and see. And yet a good handful of them had jumped onto the bandwagon in the last year with the rest of the world, pointing accusatory fingers at the towers along Wall Street or in Canary Wharf, or to No. 10 Downing Street or the White House in DC, and all those who dwelt, left, or continue to dwell in them.

But I say: GET OFF THE BANDWAGON. Be responsible about your intelligence. It's been a year now, and it's about time we look at the so-called "Great Recession" with a more critical eye. Look past the headlines and the polemical opinion columns, the supposedly less-polemical editorials, even the blogosphere - yes, even this one, too! - and the likes of Wikipedia. Step back and take a critical - not skeptical - view: What caused the financial crisis?

To point my own finger on one of many broader causes, I will outwardly wonder about what is going through the heads of the CFOs, the CEOs, the top regulators and central bankers of the world, if some of my smartest friends have ditched the recognition that we no longer live in an era where causation is linear. In fact, the human species probably never has lived in an era where causation was entirely linear; we just chose to see it that way. And now, with the tangible effects of globalisation, we can see with our naked eyes that causation is circular, networked, and widespread. In short, there is no one cause to an effect; there are many, many more than we can probably fathom.

No single bank or trader, or hedge fund, could have crippled the entire financial system in the way it was last September. The subprime mortgage crisis preceded it. So clearly, that was a factor. US interest rates were kept low all through out it. That's also another factor. What was once simply hedging instruments became tradable on an exchange - also another factor. The list is endless.

And what are the regulators now going back to? More stress tests, more financial modelling, more scientific and mathematical analysis of trades, companies, and risk. But, do they not see what they're doing? What have they learned? Where is the critical thinking, the investigative spirit? So I will boldly point a finger to one (of many, to be precise) cause, right here and now: lack of critical thinking.

We relied on financial models to tell us how a trade would perform in the future. We have, thus far, relied on stress tests to find out how much stress a bank can undergo before its legs give away and the whole thing comes tumbling down. One can even distill this trend on hiring patterns: most of the financial services vacancies advertised will ask for numerical skills, or some background in finance, risk management, or credit risk analysis.

Clearly, we haven't learned anything. As one market participant recently told me, "Investment bankers have the memory of a dragon fly." But that probably applies more broadly than we'd like to admit. The lack of critical thinking prevalent amongst my peers, goes all the way up to the CEOs and CFOs and CIOs and regulators, central bankers, and to the governments' finance ministers. The exact approach - reliance on modelling and number-crunching - that we thought heralded the credit boom in the mid-2000's, was the exact thing that turned the boom into a crunch, and is now the exact thing that we're turning to once again to bring about a boom. Needless to say, it's more likely that it will simply stretch out the recession, than resolving it.

Most importantly, demonising bankers, or certain banks, could end up hammering the last nail in the coffin, so to speak. The global financial industry currently stands at a crossroads: we can choose to learn from the mistakes, learn from the ways certain financial instruments and their investors (mis)behaved, and rebuild the industry from there, or we can choose to condemn those instruments and all involved in their (mis)behaviour, install rules and regulations, and effectively, start from scratch. Hence, as one regulator aptly put it, the regulations we adopt today will have no bearing on future financial crises. Of course: if we take the latter road, we are effectively reinventing the wheel.

Some of us are educated about certain things in the world more than others. I have no doubt that the ability to think critically about causal relationships - actively asking oneself, what is the cause and what is the effect - is an acquired skill, and a cherished one at that. But for those of us who do have the means to understand what happened, who have the means to read a newspaper article and think twice about it, should. Rights come with responsibilities, and being responsible about your acquired intelligence, is one of them.