27th January 2011
Some leading fund managers are starting to believe so, warning the Government that the constant criticism can undermine not just the banks but their ability to participate in the wider economy.
The Telegraph this week reported the story.
Standard Life Investments head of equities David Cumming said: "Constant interference in corporate lending strategies and pay is unhelpful. The Government has to realise that UK banks have to remain globally competitive. If not, debt and equity funding will become more expensive, consequently reducing their capacity to lend, thus damaging their businesses and the long-term prospects for this country's financial sector and the economy as a whole."
Royal London's chief investment officer Richard Talbot said domestic bank reform had gone as far as the UK could on its own.
This is not, to be frank, a popular view.
Here is Simon Jenkins in the Guardian with his own suggestion – if the money had been given to consumers and not the bailed out banks then we wouldn't be facing a double dip.
In many instances the Commenters on the Telegraph agree at least with the ‘allowed to fail' message.
Jamessp says: "It is a shareholder that is complaining (and I'd say the shareholders have probably lost the most in terms of value and so have a right to complain about measures that further reduce value."
Tinker writes: "The failing banks should have been allowed to fail. But they weren't, and when they were bailed out they were given cushy terms. And that's what we have to live with and move on. Let the banks be a business and, yes, keep government out of it because to be frank politicians are useless at managing anything other than their expenses. It's too late now to fiddle around with the banks and tut-tut at their naughty behaviour when actually it was the government that behaved like indulgent and selfish parents."
SEE ALSO: Breaking up the banks