The new UK and US "action plan" for safer banking

Five questions answered.

The UK and US have issued a joint paper outlining an action plan for flagging banks that hopes to protect the tax payer from costly financial bail outs.

Who exactly has issued this paper?

The Bank of England and America's Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

What are the key points of this ‘action plan’?

Key points include, establishing a single key regulator that will take responsibility for overseeing the insolvency of a big international bank.

Requiring big banks to hold enough capital and debt that could be converted into capital at the top of their corporate structures, in a hope that this capital and debt would absorb any losses the bank makes while its issues are resolved and the bank is made safe again.

They also request that banks continue with critical services, insulate foreign operations, sack reprehensible management and reduce parts of the bank that caused the problems in the first place.

What outcome is it hoped these key points will result in should there be another banking crisis?

That, for example, the Bank of England would not have to call on the Treasury  to put as much money into the Royal Bank of Scotland or an HBOS that was facing collapse, as happened in the most recent banking crisis, as the bank’s creditors would have to become shareholders.

The idea is that this would limit the cost to the tax payer and wider economy if another banking crisis should arise.

What banks in particular is this action plan aimed at?

Banks such as the UK's Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays and Citigroup and JP Morgan in the US.

What other consequences could occur from this action plan?

According to the BBC’s business editor this could result in: “the costs for banks of raising money would rise: as you will have deduced, the risks of investing in and lending to banks increases in proportion to the perceived reduction in the implicit insurance against failure they receive from the state.”

He adds that banks will: “have to make bigger returns to generate a profit. And, everything else being equal, that means they would feel obliged to charge their customers rather more for loans and for keeping money safe."

A banker in London. Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496