Playing by the rules 2

Image: FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The Standard Chartered bank situation is another great example of playing by the rules.
Whether or not we agree with the US setting what, in the eyes of the rest of the world, are very restrictive limitations on banks activities, the fact is those rules are there. Every bank therefore has the choice of whether to do business in any particular country, they must base those decisions on the rules governing business in that jurisdiction. And not only every bank, every business must do this.
The fact is that business in every industry and in every geography is a balance of risk and reward. This is learned in Economics 101 - strange that so many people seem to forget it sometimes.
What this means is that if Standard Chartered want to join in the rewards of doing banking business in the US, then they must also run the risk of falling foul of the rules, or indeed any other risk of doing business. If they do not wish to carry the burden of risk, then they should not partake in the rewards.
The fact is, that in the banking world at least, it seems that the US has a bit of a stranglehold - if you want to be a global player in the banking world, then you simply have to be in the US. This does give them a certain amount of power to set the rules how they see fit, regardless of everybody else's opinions, and then fine banks if they break the rules.
The positive way of seeing this is that the US has earned the right to impose rules as it sees fit, by being at the forefront of the global banking scene. If you don't like it, don't have pretensions as a global player.
Lessons here are numerous:

• You can't cherry pick rewards without taking the risks
• Market power earns the right to set the rules
• And finally, doing business with dictators is difficult - whether they are countries or banking regulators...