Better bankers, better banks

"Taking financial risks is an essential part of what banks do, but theres no clear sense of what constitutes responsible risk. Since the financial crisis, Congress has passed copious amounts of legislation aimed at curbing banks risky behavior. Lawsuits against large banks have cost them billions. Yet bad behavior continues to plague the industry. Why isnt there more change? [The authors] show how the current culture of bad behavior came to be. In the early 1980s, banks went from partnerships whose partners had personal liability to corporations whose managers had no such liability and could take risks with other peoples money. A major reason bankers remain resistant to change, Hill and Painter argue, is that while banks have been faced with large fines, penalties, and legal fees, the banks (which really means the banksshareholders) have paid them, not the bankers themselves. The problem also extends to the culture of how success is defined within the banking industry, where clients value bankers who prioritize their own self-interest. Hill and Painter show that a successful transformation of banker behavior must begin with the bankers themselves. Bankers must be personally liable from their own assets for some portion of the banks losses from excessive risk-taking and illegal behavior. This would instill a culture that discourages such behavior and in turn influence the sorts of behavior society celebrates or condemns." -- from book jacket.