The following article by Will Hutton looks at the relative efficiency of private- and public-sector organisations. The public sector is typically characterised as inefficient and providing a poorer level of service and poorer quality products than the private sector. After all, the private sector is driven by the profit motive, where providing a good service would seem to be a key ingredient in making more profit.
Yet when you look around you, this portrayal can be seen as far too simplistic. On the one hand, much of the public sector has been forced to be efficient, following many years of tight budgets. At the same time, many in the public sector are keen to deliver a good service, not only because that is required by their employers, but because they are motivated by a sense of public duty and professionalism. On the other hand, there are many market failings in large parts of the private sector, where monopoly power, asymmetric information and externalities are rife. Read the article and see if you agree with Will Hutton’s analysis.
These money-grubbing companies make the public sector look good Observer (1/11/09)
Questions
- What are the incentives to encourage either private-sector companies or public-sector organisations (a) to be efficient in the sense of cutting out waste (X-efficiency); (b) to be allocatively efficient; and (c) to provide a high quality of service to customers / clients / patients / students, etc.?
- What market failures may prevent private-sector companies from achieving (a) to (c) above?
- What organisational failures may prevent public-sector organisations from achieving (a) to (c) above?
- How is Goodhart’s Law relevant to the setting of performance targets in both the private and public sectors?
In a speech to Scottish business organisations, Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, argued that it might be necessary to split banks up. The aim would be to separate the core retail banking business, of receving deposits and lending to individuals and businesses, from the more risky and exotic wholesale acitivites of banks, such as securitisation, speculation and hedging – so-called ‘casino banking’.
Governments around the world, as represented at the G20 meeting at Pittsburg in September, have favoured tougher regulation of banks. But Mervyn King believes that this is not enough. It may not prevent the reckless behaviour that resulted in the credit crunch and bank bailouts by the government. “Never has so much money been owed by so few to so many. And, one might add, so far with little real reform.” And if regulation were to fail and banks were to get into difficulties, what would happen? There would have to be another bailout. As Mervyn King said, “The belief that appropriate regulation can ensure that speculative activities do not result in failures is a delusion.”
There are two key problems.
The first is Goodhart’s Law. If rules are set for bank behaviour, banks may adhere to the letter of the rules, but find ways around them to continue behaving in risky ways. The rules may cease to be a good measure of prudent behaviour.
The second is moral hazard. If banks know that they will be bailed out if they get into difficulties because they are too big to fail, then this encourages them to take the risks. As Mervyn King said in his speech, “The massive support extended to the banking sector around the world, while necessary to avert economic disaster, has created possibly the biggest moral hazard in history. The ‘too important to fail’ problem is too important to ignore.”
So should the banks be split? Is there any likelihood that they will? Or are Mervyn King’s proposals merely another headache for the government? The following articles looks at the issues. The first link below is to his speech.
Speech by Mervyn King, Governor to Scottish business organisations, Edinburgh (20/10/09)
Mervyn King: bail-outs created ‘biggest moral hazard in history’ (including video of part of speech) Telegraph (20/10/09)
Governor warns bank split needed BBC News (20/10/09)
A sombre warning BBC News, Stephanomics (20/10/09)
Alistair Darling rebuffs Mervyn King’s attack over timidity of banking reforms Guardian (21/10/09)
King and Brown in rift over whether to split the banks Independent (22/10/09)
Tucker set to join calls for stricter controls on banks Scotsman (22/10/09)
Testing times for bank regulators Financial Times (21/10/09)
Mervyn King is right – the economy is changing and we’re blindfolded, without a map Telegraph, Edmund Conway (22/10/09)
Questions
- Explain what is meant by ‘moral hazard’ in the context of bank bailouts. Are the any ways in which banks could be prevented from failing during a crisis without creating a moral hazard?
- Does regulation necessarily involve Goodhart’s Law? To what extent is it possible to devise regulation and avoid Goodnart’s Law?
- What are the arguments for and against splitting banks’ core business from more risky ‘casino banking’?
- Does the separation of retail and investment banking necessarily involve splitting banks into separate organisations? If they are not split, how can the government or central bank underwrite retail banking without underwriting riskier investment banking?
In February 2009, the world’s largest concert ticket agency, Ticketmaster, and the world’s largest concert promoter, Live Nation, announced that they intended to merge. The deal would have been worth around £550 million. This immediately sparked concerns that the new company would have such power in the market that ticket prices would rise. On 10 June 2009, the Office of Fair Trading, in line with the 2002 Enterprise Act, referred the proposed merger to the Competition Commission.
On 8 October 2009, the Competition Commission published its preliminary findings that “the creation of that situation may be expected to result in a substantial lessening of competition (SLC) in the UK market for the primary retailing of tickets for live music events”. The following articles look at the findings and the competition issues. You will also find links below to the Competition Commission press release and the Provisional Findings Report.
Competition body opposes Ticketmaster and Live Nation merger Guardian (8/10/09)
Competition watchdog vetoes Ticketmaster deal Times Online (8/10/09)
The Competition Commission has ruled against the proposed Ticketmaster / Live Nation merger MusicWeek (8/10/09)
British Regulator Objects to Ticketmaster Merger New York Times (8/10/09)
See also the following documents from the Competition Commission:
Press Release
Provisional findings report
Questions
- How would the proposed merger benefit the two companies concerned?
- How would it affect CTS (the second largest ticket agent in the world)?
- From the consumer’s perspective, what would be the potential advantages and disadvantages of the merger?
- What additional evidence would the Competition Commission require to make its final judgment?
The blame for the global economic crisis has been placed on many different people, but one area that has been severely criticised for the extent of the financial crisis is banking and financial regulation (or a lack thereof). One thing that has been repeated is that we must learn from our mistakes and therefore tighten financial regulation on a global scale. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) says the ‘rapid return to the City’s bonus culture shows that real reform has been “very limited”’. France in particular is arguing for tighter financial regulation, including curbing bankers’ bonuses to avoid a repeat of last year’s meltdown. However, it is meeting resistance from the UK and USA. Indeed, some banks appear to have extended their bonus culture.
As the banking sector slowly begins to recover, there is concern that few changes have been made to ensure that there is no repeat of the recent crisis. Banks have been warned that they should not resume taking risks, as they did before, as future bailouts by the government (and hence the taxpayer) will not keep happening. The European Union has now unveiled plans for new ‘super-regulators’, but only time will tell whether they will be a success.
EU unveils new ‘super-regulators’ BBC News (23/9/09)
EU proposes new Financial-Market supervision system The Wall Street Journal, Adam Cohen and Charles Forelle (24/9/09)
FSA head launches fresh attack on ‘swollen’ system ShareCast (24/9/09)
Bank crisis lessons ‘not learned’ BBC News (15/9/09)
US, UK resisting French drive for regulation AFP (22/9/09)
European System of Financial Supervisors (ESFS): Frequently Asked Questions Mondovisione (23/9/09)
Tighter grip on economy needed BBC News (13/9/09)
Turner warns against regulation overkill Money Marketing (23/9/09)
EU calls for European Banking, Securities Regulators Bloomberg (24/9/09)
EU financial watchdog to rely on moral authority The Associated Press (23/9/09)
Obama issues warning to bankers (including video) BBC News (14/9/09)
Questions
- What are the advantages and disadvantages of tighter regulation of the financial sector for (a) the UK and (b) the global economy? What forms should such regulation take?
- What are the arguments for and against imposing a statutory capital adequacy ratio on banks that is substantially higher than the ratios with which banks have been operating in recent years?
- In what ways was a lack of financial regulation responsible for the financial crisis?
- Why is the continuation and possibly growth of the bonus culture a potentially dangerous issue for any future crisis?
- The articles talk about ‘lessons being learned’. What lessons are they referring to?
- The financial crisis has affected everyone in some way. What has been the impact on taxpayers?
Is the power supply industry a cartel? Are the energy companies exploiting a position of market dominance to increase profits at the expense of consumers? At first sight, it would certainly seem so. Despite falling wholesale prices for gas and electricity, the six main power suppliers have not reduced prices to their customers. The result has been a substantial rise in profits. Over the past three years, the average annual gross profit for supplying each dual-fuel customer has been £110. The figure has now risen to £170, a rise of 55%. This is likely to rise further in the short term with further reductions in wholesale energy prices over the next few weeks.
But despite this large increase in profits, the power companies are considering increasing prices this coming winter if wholesale energy prices start to rise again, even though the expected wholesale price rise would still leave them with a gross profit of £140 per dual-fuel customer.
Ofgem, the gas and electricity industry regulator, wrote to the six main companies asking them to explain their pricing position. You can read Ofgem’s report from the link below. In it, Ofgem argues that there is scope for the companies to cut their prices. But Ofgem no longer has the power to cap prices: in 2002 the RPI-X system of price cap regulation was abandoned, since it was felt that there was enough competition between suppliers not to warrant price regulation.The articles below consider the question of whether the companies are justified in their pricing policy or whether they are exploiting their market power to make excessive profits.
No energy cuts despite huge profits (video) Channel 4 News (18/9/09)
Energy bills may rise despite wholesale price drop Times Online (19/9/09)
Where is the will to power? Times Online (19/9/09)
Energy bills set to rise further, companies warn Guardian (18/9/09)
Energy bills ‘unlikely to fall’ BBC News (18/9/09)
Bills face a power surge (Douglas Fraser’s Ledger) BBC News (18/9/09)
An Electricity and Gas Price Cartel? Why Ofgem Can’t Tell iStockAnalyst (17/9/09)
Evidence from Ofgem:
Ofgem’s letter to the six main suppliers and their responses to Ofgem can be read here
Ofgem’s findings can be read in Quarterly Wholesale / Retail Price Report – August 2009
Ofgem Factsheet: Household energy bills explained
Questions
- Assess the justification by the power companies for not reducing the price of gas and electricity to their customers.
- Explain what is meant by ‘hedging’ in the context of the purchase of gas and electricity.
- The power suppliers are an oligopoly. If there is collusion between them, what form does it take? Why is it very hard to find evidence of collusion?