Banking reform is very much at the forefront of the debate in Davos.
Among sessions as varied as ‘Haiti: First Responders back from the Front-Line,’ and the presentation of the Crystal Awards, there was a lively discussion about taking financial risks.
In contrast to last year’s forum, when bankers stayed away – reeling from the shock of the global economic meltdown – this year the bankers are back and on the defensive.
Responding to US President Barack Obama’s suggestion that banks were too big that they should either opt to be risk takers, or run themselves as traditional savings and loans operations, Bob Diamond, the head of Barclays bank, said he’d seen "no evidence to suggest that shrinking banks is the answer”.
He also said banks became big in response to client demands and that if you made banks smaller the impact on jobs and the economy would be “very negative”.
Coming on the same day the United Nations announced that 2009 saw a record number of people unemployed globally – I think he’d have a hard task convincing any of them that banks can do no wrong.
But in the same session came the question – 'how big is too big?’
Where do you draw the line? Who decides? How long is a piece of string?
The answer may be only as long as the queue of people lining up to claim their unemployment benefit if they’re lucky enough to get one!
Content on this website is for general information purposes only. Your comments are provided by your own free will and you take sole responsibility for any direct or indirect liability. You hereby provide us with an irrevocable, unlimited, and global license for no consideration to use, reuse, delete or publish comments, in accordance with Community Rules & Guidelines and Terms and Conditions.
![[QODLink]](http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/Images/2012/2/14/2012214152428124734_16.jpg "Bandwidth breakdown: Mobile rates could rise")
