Many bank employees try to clear their consciences regarding what happened with preference shares and other toxic products, claiming they were unaware of the inherent risks involved in those investments, which they peddled left, right and centre. Many also hide behind the excuse that the responsibility lay with their superiors, and that they were merely foot soldiers carrying out orders to sell products indiscriminately, the risks of which were concealed or ignored. And the excuse of ignorance regarding the risks posed by these products is put forward to a greater or lesser extent across the entire banking hierarchy, from private banking managers to commercial banking staff, including branch managers. But neither the hierarchy of responsibility nor ignorance absolves any of them of blame, as we shall see later.
The harsh and sad reality is that this systematic and indiscriminate sale of products – which generated substantial profits for the banks – was, for the most part, carried out by exploiting the trust that customers had placed in those bank employees. Professionals (sic) whom they regarded as experts, «Advisers» in capital letters who were supposed to ensure the suitability of the investments they recommended to their customers. Some savers even regarded them as ‘friends’.
A textbook case of a breach of trust. It matters not whether or not the employee was aware of the risks involved in the investment that his superiors had ordered him to sell. For the duty of each and every bank employee – and particularly those who deal directly with customers – is to be competent in their work, given that their customers entrust them with nothing less than their future. And another inescapable duty they have is not to abuse the privileged position conferred by their presumed technical expertise. Knowledge that places them far above the ordinary savers sitting opposite them, whom they are duty-bound to advise. For the service that banks advertise is «advice», and this is how it is perceived by most customers who are not yet aware that they have been misled. One need only look at the sector’s advertising campaigns, which are full of metaphors and pseudo-subliminal messages of paternalism, protection, support, trust, credibility and, ultimately, Advice in capital letters.
But we mustn’t forget that banks aren’t offering a simple haircut, nor are they trying to sell us a flat-rate phone tariff or a bracelet to treat rheumatism – no. The banking sector wants nothing less than for us to entrust our money, and therefore our future, into their hands. Nothing less than entrusting them with the fruits of our lifelong labour, our well-being in old age and our children’s future. And the greed and ignorance of those salespeople It’s not simply a matter of having to buy another faulty vacuum cleaner or appliance from a TV shopping channel, where misleading advertising sells us a pig in a poke – no. The consequences of fraud in banking advice are extremely serious and will affect our family’s well-being for the rest of our lives. You don’t mess about with the essentials. That’s why excuses such as «I was just following orders» or «I didn’t know what I was selling» are not only useless now, but are particularly sickening. And all the more so when governments have decided that, on top of everything else, we should bail out these institutions with taxpayers’ money – whether or not we are customers of these bankrupt, unscrupulous con artists.
One of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the intellectual and writer Thomas Pine He’s already put it very clearly: «Where knowledge is a duty, ignorance is a crime.» Where wisdom is a duty, ignorance is a crime. And a financial adviser – just like, for example, a doctor, a police officer, a judge or an airline pilot – must be required to possess a thorough knowledge of their profession and the utmost integrity. Otherwise, the consequences go far beyond those of a mere, friendly teleshopping presenter. The problem probably lies in the incompatibility of the role of financial adviser with that of a bank employee, at least as banks are currently structured. And savers would do well to distinguish between the two, just as any patient must distinguish a doctor from a mere greedy salesman of pharmaceutical products, even if the latter is disguised in a spotless white coat and a dazzling stethoscope.