Who really should resign for the Barclays interest rate scandal?

The banking sector needs another scandal like a hole in the head. Or maybe that's the wrong metaphor. Because a quick death from a headshot might be more preferable to the excruciating, but likely never fatal, torture of interminable crises that we seem to be constantly enduring.

The latest bout of banking misery comes from the UK, where Barclays, the retail and investment banking giant has fallen foul of regulators for manipulating the interbank interest rate over a number of years during the mid 2000s.  It's a huge scandal that looks set to engulf not just Barclays, but potentially also a slew of other banks, and even maybe the Bank of England and the UK Government.

One of the more interesting facets has been the reaction from Barclays. What a week it has been. First a number of senior executives including the CEO Bob Diamond reacted to the media criticism by announcing they would forgo their bonuses. Then, as the scandal escalated, the Barclays Chairman, Marcus Agius announced his resignation. In a dramatic turnaround, the following day Agius was reinstated and CEO Diamond announced his resignation, along with his right hand man, Jerry del Missier.

So the big question is: who really should go in a scandal like this? The Chairman, the CEO, or someone else? The answer, of course, depends on the type of scandal, the level of knowledge of the activity that the senior leadership had (or should of had) as the events unfolded, the likely best route to reform, and of course the likely reaction of stakeholders. With Barclays it seems right that Agius, the Chairman, has (on second thoughts) decided to stay. The Board is unlikely to know about an activity such as the interest rate rigging, and so cannot be held culpable in their overseeing function. It is different from, say, the role of the Board in something like Enron's accounting fraud, which is directly related to the Board's role, and relates to accounts that they must have seen and approved.

With Barclays, you would expect the Board and its Chairman to take a central role in dealing with the problem once it has been revealed to them, which apparently was only days ago. As one member of the House of Lords scathingly remarked upon Agius's resignation: "The board is so hopeless they've just shot the head of the firing squad and missed the prisoner." By resigning Agius was signalling that the Board was unfit to be a "firing squad" and instigate the kind of change necessary at the bank.

Turning to Diamond, one of the main reasons forwarded for his resignation has been the "lightening rod" argument, as in the UK newspaper, The Guardian's analysis: "Diamond, under pressure from the banking regulator and the governor of the Bank of England, Sir Mervyn King, quit after he decided he would be the lightning rod for the scandal at the hearing".

It's not the first time we have heard this argument about the resignation of a prominent CEO in recent times;  News International made exactly the same claim regarding the departure of CEO Rebekah Brooks in July last year in the wake of the phone hacking scandal.

Why the lightening rod argument? Well, it enables the CEO to continue to proclaim their innocence, despite stepping down. Their resignation is not due to guilt but is to save their firm from excessive media and political criticism. The idea is that it is supposed to diffuse the storm of negative publicity - the brave leader falling on their sword to save the company.

The problem, which we saw with News International, and which is already happening with Barclays, is that it doesn't really work.  For a start, no one really believes the argument. So the media is just as likely to respond by digging even deeper expecting there to be more secrets that the company is trying to hide by jettisoning the CEO.  Secondly, even if you get rid of one lightening rod, the critics will readily find another .... or they will simply continue targeting the same one in the hope of more revelations. Barclays found this to their cost last week after lightening rod no.1, Agius quit, only to be replaced by lightening rod no.2, Diamond. As The Telegraph put it: "Mr Agius is thought to have hoped his departure would serve as a lightning rod to conduct anger away from the bank and Mr Diamond". No chance.

It seems in this instance Diamond was responding primarily to pressure from politicians and to a lesser extent shareholders. Numerous influential voices were calling for the CEOs resignation and it is no coincidence that the Barclays share price rose on the announcement of Diamond's departure, despite him being up until recently strongly supported by investors. In other words, Diamond's resignation was primarily a symbolic act to appease stakeholders.

This is all very well, especially at a time when trust in big banks is at an all time low. But it is not necessarily the best course of action for actually dealing with the root problem. Mind you, the root problem is not 100% clear at the moment. Whilst Diamond was blaming "a small minority", others were were laying the blame at the culture at the bank or even of the entire sector. So although Diamond's proposed solution  - to “get to the bottom of what happened”, punish those involved, enhance internal controls, and change the bank's culture - may on the face of it make sense, this scandal has all the hallmarks of a more deep-seated systemic problem.

One bank and one CEO can't change an entire sector, especially when no one, not even the guy that's resigning, seems willing to take personal responsibility. Did he symbolise a culture that needed changing, Diamond was asked today. "I don't think so at all," he replied. Institutions like the banking industry are based on taken for granted assumptions that are highly resistant to change. Symbolic resignations are not the answer. But maybe they are a start.

Photo by SomeDriftwood. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence

The art of finance

Money. Cash, moolah, dough, readies, greenbacks, dosh. Whatever you call it, you can't get away from it. Most of us like to have it, of course, but we also know that it's a dangerous drug. "Money," as the saying goes, "is the root of all evil."

With the financial crisis and executive greed currently giving money a particularly bad name, we were interested to hear of a recent experiment in Amsterdam in the Netherlands which is seeking to provide a new and more positive way of thinking about the value of money. It's called the Bijlmer Euro, named after a much maligned quarter of the city called de Bijlmer which is home to many of Amsterdam's many immigrant communities and a good proportion of its less successful examles of high rise urban planning.

The Bijlmer Euro is a local currency, which for those of you that have not come across them before, are specially designed notes or other form of exchange certificate that are used within a specific locality to enhance local social and economic systems.

Local currencies like the Bijlmer Euro operate as exchange tools giving people the opportunity to buy and sell goods and services among a particular community without resorting to the usual pounds, euros or dollars. Why would communities want to do this? Well there are a whole lot of reasons, which vary depending on the local currency concerned. But some of the more common reasons are that they are help stimulate the local economy (because they can only be used locally), they can encourage people to ‘buy local’ and get to know local providers, or they can be part of an attempt to reduce reliance on existing financial systems and actors such as banks and credit card providers.

There are thousands of local currencies out there, including in our own home town of Toronto, where the Toronto Dollar operates around the St Laurence Market community. But what makes the Bijlmer Euro so interesting is that the whole project was designed by an artist, namely Christian Nold, who is mainly known for his 'emotional cartographies' project which saw him using lie detector technology and Google Earth to create user-generated emotion-based maps of neighbourhoods and towns. Interesting stuff. So while in Amsterdam recently, we spoke to Nold about the Bijlmer Euro and what he's hoping to achieve.

Probably the most interesting aspect of the whole project is that Nold has designed it so that you can actually see how the money is circulating in the local economy. The Bijlmer Euro notes are regular Euros with a special chip (recycled from used public transport tickets) overlaid on them which means that everytime a note is used, the transaction is tracked. In this way it is possible to trace the networks of exchange that are taking place among the participants. You can see a live visualization on the project website. This, Nold says, is especially important for an area like de Bijlmer which is most commonly presented as a 'problem area'. So his central objective was to help people see the Bijlmer also as a thriving economic network. "People described it to me as the Dutch Bronx" he says, "but with this you can replace that with a vision that gets you a little bit closer to the NASDAQ."

Of course, to get people involved in the whole project, it needed more tangible aspects that this. So users of the notes get discounts at local stores,and shop keepers get to make new connections with residents and hopefully stop leakage of economic value from the local economy. There are also some fun touches included such as the ability to put electronic messages on the notes for people to read, and a bright yellow, bicycle-powered 'mobile bank' (as shown above) where you can get the notes and input your messages. Even these though have a deeper purpose, as Nold explains:

"Money is an economic tool, but I think it is also very much a social tool. Banknotes are this weird thing that doesn’t really belong to us, but is really a social medium that moves between people. I think that having messages on them is a funny way of reclaiming the money in some way and making it personal."

Looking at it this way, you can see how there's more to money than meets the eye. Talking to Nold - whose personal explanation for the project takes in everything from the financial meltdown, baffled economists, the Falun Gong, transition towns, the end of capitalism, and the Iranian 'Green Revolution' - makes you look at the spare change in your pocket in ways that you really haven't considered before. However, whether the residents in de Bijlmer have seen this as anything more than a fun way to save a few cents remains to be seen. But Nold certainly thinks that a number of people have gotten sufficiently excited about the initiative that it may now go into a new phase now that the initial experiment is over. As he says:

"At the start of the project lots of people were telling us this is impossible, this is totally illegal, you can’t do it. But it’s possible, it’s doable and we’ve just done it. We have almost 2000 notes in circulation... I’m not sure it’s having huge mass appeal – we’re not getting tens of thousands of people using it – but we’re certainly getting a committed group of people who are seeing the value of it. The next really big step is the continuity of it."

And that really is where we'll see if this turns out to be anything more than an interesting experiment. Having now discovered who's spending what and where, Nold has been turning his thoughts to the large employers in the neighbourhood, especially the major banks, many of whom have their headquarters nearby, and whose staff have been using the Bijlmer Euros. Perhaps they can be persuaded to have a rethink about the social and economic value of money in the communities that border their offices.

We think it would be a fascinating development to have a major financial player involved in supporting a alternative currency like this in Amsterdam. And if they don't get involved, it looks like Nold will be taking things in new directions. He's already planning a book about the project to serve as a model for others, and is even plotting to set up an alternative financial organization to support low cost overseas remittances."We want to become a bank," he says boldly, "to see if we can get rid of Western Union." Finance, it seems, is the new art.

Economic crisis (again) – how do we get out of the mess?

Finally he is back. Bill Maher’s new season of ‘Real Time’ started again last Friday. He is one of the funniest guys on TV in North America right now, and certainly one of the smartest. The first show this season was all about – yes – the economy. Could you have imagined that in normal times? ‘The economy? On a comedy program??’ But here we are.

The show started off with reminding us that the crisis on Wall Street is just about to unravel, we have just seen the beginning. ‘Skank of America’ or ‘Shittybank’ (BM) are still close to the abyss, despite the earlier $700bn bailout. The central contention of the show was this: should the government be involved with another bailout, or should we just allow the system to collapse. After all, this is America, the home of the free market and individual liberty. Let the market sort it out, so Ron Paul on the show.

That didn’t go down well with the other guests. Crystia Freeland, North America Editor of the Financial Times, wasn’t having any of it. Her best comment was that since the bankers of the private sector had failed on such a megalomaniac scale, putting government bureaucrats in charge could certainly not make things worse, hopefully even better. Could you have imagined such a benevolent statement about government involvement in the economy from a Financial Times editor a year ago?

It was fascinating to see how ethical issues dominated the entire program. Congresswomen Maxine Waters, another guest, made an interesting suggestion: there should be the ‘Nuremberg trial for bankers’! That, however, was at least more realistic than Bill Maher’s very funny black humored piece on just ‘hanging’ two bankers, you know, symbolically. As they did in China with the managers who caused the milk scandal some months ago. That might teach these Wall Street guys a lesson…

It is a time of deep navel gazing in America and beyond. Bill Maher’s suggestion was that the last years have given rise not to the ‘American dream’ but rather to the ‘American fantasy’. What happened was not the pursuit of happiness through hard work which makes dreams come true but luring people into the illusion to raise their standard of living based on money that didn’t exist. And he concluded: ‘There is a difference between a fantasy and a dream. Boy do I know!'…