Profit? Yes! But Must be Clean

The Royal Commission Report into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry will be released to the public this afternoon (4 February 2019). The Commission had already published an Interim Report in September 2018.

The Interim Report had hardly anything good to say about the industry. Rather, the Commission used the word “greed” to describe the industry’s behaviour and how the industry largely treated the ordinary customers. Otherwise, how can one explain fees charged for services not provided? Fees charged to dead people?

The Australian banking industry had been politically very successful for decades. In the post-GFC years, the industry used the excuse of  ‘rising costs of funds’ in international markets for raising their interest rates asynchronous to the RBA’s rate decisions. Nobody raised an eyebrow when the major four banks reported record profits year after year while still crying poor about rising costs of funds. The crux of the matter is the banking industry fell into a culture of profit at any cost and bank executives’ remunerations were linked to profit and revenue.  Thus, the bank executives in Australia all they cared for was whether they were contributing to the bank’s revenue and profit. Bank leaders did not care enough whether their employees were doing the right thing for their customers. If the bank management were thinking that they were more focused on creating shareholder wealth, shareholders thought differently.   ANZ, NAB,  and Westpac – all received a ‘first strike’  2018 under Australia’s ‘two strikes’ rule.  CBA  received a ‘first strike’ in 2016.

So, the bottom line is: yes, we want our banks to be profitable and financially strong. Yes, we need strong banks for a strong economy. But the profit must be clean.

Rethinking macroeconomics: from a neoliberal framework to a development perspective

I was invited by the Dhaka-based South Asian Network for Economic Modeling (SANEM) to deliver a keynote speech at its inaugural workshop on macroeconomics that was held on January 11, 2019. I was part of a panel that included Dr. Atiur Rahman, former governor of the Bangladesh Bank, Professor Shamsul Alam, member of the Planning Commission, and Professor Selim Raihan, Executive Director of SANEM. I reflected on the need to rethink macroeconomics that is more suited to developing country circumstances than the dominant neoliberal framework.

Read more here…

Is central bank autonomy in India under threat?

This blog revisits the sudden resignation of Urjit Patel on 10 December as the governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Patel cited ‘personal reasons’ for his resignation, but it is widely acknowledged that he was unable to manage or withstand a rift with the government. Does this threaten the RBI’s autonomy and thus portend an uncertain future of a venerable institution? Or is the significance of central bank autonomy overrated, as some critics contend? Perhaps, as some have argued, Patel’s resignation is a reflection of his aptitude and characteristics as an individual rather than an existential struggle over the future of RBI.

Read more here…

Growth and the Padma Bridge: Has the Bangladesh PM got it right?

In a recent statement, the Bangladesh Prime Minister noted that, once the nation’s biggest infrastructure project, known as the multi-purpose Padma Bridge, is fully operational, GDP growth would increase by 2% annually. This would mean that the current rate of growth of 7.9% would reach 10%. Where did she get these numbers from? Is she exaggerating the growth impact of the Padma Bridge?

There is little doubt that the Padma Bridge would transform the lives of millions. For the first time, the southwest of Bangladesh would have a continuous road/rail link to the more developed east. The World Bank, which initially wanted to fund the project but pulled out in 2012 because of corruption concerns with the construction and management of the project, had this to say in 2011:

‘The Padma Bridge is expected to… transform the lives of nearly 30 million Bangladeshis living in the South West. By reducing distances to major urban centres like Dhaka by almost 100km, the Bridge will reduce poverty in the region and accelerate growth and development in the country as a whole.’

Formal evaluations that were undertaken by Bangladeshi economists suggest that the net economic benefits would be substantially positive, but the equivalent annualized addition to national GDP would be about 0.33 per cent. On the hand, regional GDP in the southwest would increase between 1.7% and 2.3%.

It is possible that the Prime Minister’s speechwriters glossed over this distinction between regional and national GDP. After all, 2% extra growth – rather than the more modest fractional numbers – acts rather well as a soundbite.