The recent LIBOR crisis that hit the headlines last week has shown that once again banks which were once reknowed for their prudence and considered boring have now been replaced by greed and reckless risk-taking. According to the WSJ, in the early years of banking an institution needed to attract deposits from the public and therefore cultivated prudence and integrity and publicised this to potential investors. Lets face it being boring was potentially a selling point for bankers. During the 20th century this changed and you only need to look no further than the pre-crisis advertising in which the rhetoric wasn’t one of care and honesty but a willingness to lend to anyone.
However in today’s environment do depositors care so much about the prudent and trustworthiness of banks? Do they actually benefit from this? When you have a situation that the banks become “too big to fail” and are bailed out by the government there seems to be nonchalant attitude amongst depositors to the integrity of banks. This then means that the banks have little incentive to care either. It seem that banks gain little advantage over their competitors from being prudent. In fact depositors can gain from the banks making risky uses of their money. As the government will guarantee their money they then can profit from higher rates of interest by the banks being prepared to make riskier investments. This has encouraged investors to favour risk-taking banks.