Two views of financial innovation

By Felix Salmon
April 29, 2012
documentary will air on Tuesday.

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

The final hour of Frontline’s Money, Power and Wall Street documentary will air on Tuesday; I’ll be participating in an online chat about the program with producers Martin Smith and Marcela Gaviria on Thursday at 1pm ET. I watched a preview this weekend, while also reading the World Economic Forum’s 92-page report on “Rethinking Financial Innovation”.

The two could hardly be more different. Frontline concentrates on international finance’s discontents, most of whom are convinced that no matter how assiduous financial-market regulation, the big banks will always find a way to extract enormous rents for themselves. The WEF, by contrast, is convinced that financial innovation is nearly always a good thing, and that a few tweaks to internal risk controls, and maybe a high-level council of graybeards thinking deeply about systemic risk, should suffice to protect us all from any downside it might have.

The WEF report is not an easy read. Literally: it’s printed in a light-grey sans-serif font on a white background. And for anybody hoping for an indication that the highest levels of the financial-services industry are taking the problems with financial innovation seriously, it’s particularly depressing. Taken as a whole, the report is a full-throated defense of financial innovation, says that substantially all financial innovations are good things, and downplays all possible downsides to the maximum possible extent.

innov.jpg

The first words of the executive summary are “Financial innovation has a long history of success” — and that very much sets the tone for the rest of the report. Weirdly, the success of financial innovation is invariably asserted, rather than argued. For instance, on the left you can see the report’s list of financial innovations since the debit card. “Many of the historical examples of financial innovation listed in the timeline have at some point been misused and misapplied by market participants, and have contributed to significant financial system disruptions,” says the report. “Over time, however, most have been accepted as beneficial.” The passive voice is telling: nowhere are we informed who is accepting these things as beneficial, or what criteria they may be using.

Looking at this list, I can see three unambiguously good innovations: point-of-sale terminals, ACH, and CHIPS. All of them represent evolutionary improvements in the banking system’s payments and clearing architecture. With the rest, I certainly see a lot of innovations which resulted in banks and other private-sector finance players making lots of money. But was the publication of the Black-Scholes equation really a great thing for society as a whole? Are we better off now that we’ve moved from defined-benefit to defined-contribution pensions? Or, to take a slightly earlier innovation which the report dates to 1968, did the originate-to-distribute securitization model really help society as a whole?

It’s disappointing that over the course of its 92 pages, the WEF report never attempts to answer these questions. Instead, we just get lots of unsupported assertion, like the statement on page 40 that “most financial institution failures and insolvencies are not linked to financial innovations”. Well, I’m glad that’s cleared up. Eventually, we end up with a series of recommendations for regulators. The very first one? “Acknowledge the importance of innovation and its role in a competitive, free-market structure.”

From the point of view of someone who has been writing about the failures of various financial innovations for the past four years, there was very little in the Frontline documentary which was new to me. I would hope, similarly, that the documentary would also come as little surprise to any of the financial-services industry’s leaders. Reading this WEF report, however, I’m forced to conclude that they don’t actually have a clue how bad the 2008 crisis was; how closely the devastating global fractures coincided with various financial innovations; and how much it’s necessary to revisit all our priors in the wake of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

The fact is that there’s almost nothing in the WEF report — beyond the simple fact of its existence — which demonstrates that anything at all has changed since 2008. The world’s most important bankers are desperately trying to convince themselves that they’re wonderful people doing God’s work, and that somehow the financial crisis was just one of those unpleasant hiccups along the way. Which it was, for the people who still have jobs at the top of the financial sector, paying millions of dollars a year.

All of which is to say that the WEF report suffers deeply from an unreliable-narrator problem: sometimes the people closest to an issue are the people who are the least trustworthy on that subject. The Frontline documentary might not talk about how it’s trying to “encourage dialogue among stakeholders” by providing “a taxonomy of potential negative outcomes”: that would be Swiss Re’s Stefan Lippe, a chief architect of the WEF report. But if you want to see what kind of damage the financial sector can wreak, you’ll be much better off with the TV show than with the WEF.

Comments
10 comments so far

The Frontline docu is just more of the same ‘there was no alternative’ whitewashing of elite incompetence/corruption.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/f rontlines-astonishing-whitewash-of-the-c risis.html

Posted by Foppe | Report as abusive

Nice article, thanks for the information.
Anna @ http://www.griyamobilkita.com

Posted by prajaniati | Report as abusive

Oh please, Felix – you’re pressing right up against the line between naïveté and disingenuousness. The WEF is the ultimate collection of status quo elites. You can’t be gullible enough to believe that such a group is going to conduct anything that could fairly be described as an objective assessment of its own failures, can you?

This part of your piece is galling – “Reading this WEF report, however, I’m forced to conclude that they don’t actually have a clue how bad the 2008 crisis was;”.

Come on, Felix – everyone knows how close to destruction we all came in 2008. The WEF-types also know how much dough they made in the process of taking us over the cliff. The report’s purpose is simply to protect that fatted, financial milk cow of the elites and excuse themselves from any responsibility for the damage they have visited on us all.

Regulation isn’t going to accomplish anything – and I think you know that. More comprehensive and brutal measures are the only remaining hope. Things will have to get worse to bring that about; the sooner they do the sooner we can begin the process of rebuilding – and of imposing “justice” on the guilty parties.

Posted by MrRFox | Report as abusive

WEF should be designated a “terrorist organization” annd all the full-force of the US national security state pledged to shut it down, along with all of its financial supporters.

Wait second, WEF and the US national security state are composed of the SAME elites.

What do we do now?

Posted by upstater | Report as abusive

Hi Felix, been a while, loving your work.

Your views on financial innovation are well established. Are there any that you like that don’t have a direct and immediate impact on the man-in-the street? Theoretically is it possible that there could be a financial innovation which helps companies (the convertible bond say) through which success the MITS benefits sufficiently to pass your criteria?

The vast majority of financial products are developed for corporates, to assess them against consumer banking criteria is perhaps to miss something.

Posted by jonners | Report as abusive

@Upstater – you wrote:

“Wait second, WEF and the US national security state are composed of the SAME elites. * What do we do now?”

Pretty obvious, isn’t it? When the time is right – pin the tail on all those associated with either of those donkeys.

Posted by MrRFox | Report as abusive

Up to a point, Lord Copper. There’s plenty of acknowledgement in quotes like these:

The Preface “…there is no doubt that some innovations in financial services mutated from their original purpose and contributed to the crisis.”

You writes: ““Financial innovation has a long history of success” — and that very much sets the tone for the rest of the report.” One sentence later that is followed by “This report acknowledges that some financial innovations were centrally involved in the events leading up to the financial crisis and ensuing recession. Indeed, the project was commissioned to examine innovation in financial services in order to understand how or why it may sometimes contribute to negative outcomes.”

Further along…”This report maintains that the financial services sector should acknowledge that to at least some degree its innovations contributed to causing the crisis.”

You write: “Instead, we just get lots of unsupported assertion, like the statement on page 40 that “most financial institution failures and insolvencies are not linked to financial innovations” The report goes on: “However, as the recent crisis has shown, the misapplication or wrong design of financial innovations can sometimes play
a role in the downfall of an institution.”

So not quite as black and white as you suggest. More the grey colour of the font.

Posted by AdrianMonck | Report as abusive

And apologies for “you writes”…

Posted by AdrianMonck | Report as abusive

You’re so cool! I don’t suppose Ive read anything like this prior to. So nice to uncover somebody with many original applying for grants this subject. really thanks for beginning this up. this web site is a thing that is needed on the web, a person with some originality. valuable work for bringing a new challenge towards the internet! http://nailsdesign2diefor.blogspot.com

Posted by harleyvilla13 | Report as abusive

Nice article. Wonderful article i should say and thanks for your data. Training happens to be a matter. But, remains on the list of primary issues of our period. I anticipate more and enjoy your article. http://taoofbadassreviewz.weebly.com

Posted by Anonymous | Report as abusive
Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/