The Good Banker

My sister works in the banking industry.  She works for a regional bank that does its best to serve its customers and its employees.   I thought of her bank when I read this article as an “old school” banker laid out his issues with the “too big to fail” banks and investment houses.  It is very interesting reading.

The Good Banker
Joe Nocera | The New York Times | May 30, 2011

For nearly 30 years, Wilmers has run the M&T Bank, based in Buffalo. When he took it over, M&T had $2 billion in assets; today, its assets exceed $68 billion, and it’s one of the most highly regarded regional bank holding companies. It has also been one of the best performing stocks in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index; indeed, M&T was one of only two banks in the S.& P. 500 that didn’t cut its dividend during the financial crisis.

Wilmers’s report, however, was less about the company’s numbers than about the dismal state of his beloved profession. Wilmers, it turns out, is that rarest of birds: a banker willing to tell harsh truths about banking. That, for instance, much of the money the big banks earn comes from trading profits “rather than the prudent extension of credit that furthers commerce.” That derivatives had helped bring about the crisis and needed to be regulated. That bank executives were wildly overpaid. That the biggest banks — the Too Big to Fail Banks — were operating, as he put it, an “unsafe business model.”

Finally — and this is what particularly galled him — trading derivatives and other securities really had nothing to do with the underlying purpose of banking. He told me that he thought the Glass-Steagall Act — the Depression-era law that separated commercial and investment banks — should never have been abolished and that derivates need to be brought under government control. “It doesn’t need to be studied for two years,” he said. “I would put derivative trading in a subsidiary and tax it at a higher rate. If they fail, they fail.”

Commencement: Follow your . . .

I like this time of year because I enjoy reading or hearing the variety of commencement addresses that are delivered at colleges and universities around the country.  I have long passed the “young adult” age (18-35 year olds), but don’t think of myself as “middle-aged” just yet.  I am the oldest end of Generation X.  I don’t have the issues that Boomers take into the world, but I do have some of their characteristics along with Gen Y.  David Brooks is one of my favorite “conservative” writers who pens a column for the New York Times.  His latest speaks to the culture that awaits those graduating from college and the personal adjustments they will have to make.

It’s Not About You
David Brooks | The New York Times | May 30, 2011

But, especially this year, one is conscious of the many ways in which this year’s graduating class has been ill served by their elders. They enter a bad job market, the hangover from decades of excessive borrowing. They inherit a ruinous federal debt.

More important, their lives have been perversely structured. This year’s graduates are members of the most supervised generation in American history. Through their childhoods and teenage years, they have been monitored, tutored, coached and honed to an unprecedented degree.

Today’s grads enter a cultural climate that preaches the self as the center of a life. But, of course, as they age, they’ll discover that the tasks of a life are at the center. Fulfillment is a byproduct of how people engage their tasks, and can’t be pursued directly. Most of us are egotistical and most are self-concerned most of the time, but it’s nonetheless true that life comes to a point only in those moments when the self dissolves into some task. The purpose in life is not to find yourself. It’s to lose yourself.