The people are understandably furious at the banks: their perceived greed and incompetence is made all the more distasteful by the perennial saga of senior bankers’ bonuses and generous pay-offs. The government is also blamed, for failing to intervene and take decisive action on these challenges before they came to a head. Some social commentators also include individuals and consumers as those at fault, as without their willingness to adopt high-risk mortgages, the banks wouldn’t have had the opportunity to sell them to us.

But what of the role of the regulators? Institutions such as the Financial Services Authority, and, indirectly, the Bank of England, were set up to ensure that banks behaved responsibly, balanced the drive for expansion and profit with their obligations to their customers, shareholders and the economy and complied with the law. Instead, throughout the period of UK economic growth which commenced in 1994, regulators took a light touch role, largely leaving the banks to do as they wished; critics argue the regulators were insufficiently intrusive, questioning or robust.

Who really is to blame for our banking woes? Should we stick to the classic “banker bashing” narrative, or should our ire be directed at the regulators who took a back seat, and sat back and watched it happen? Or, are we focussing our attention on the big institutions, rather than taking a long, hard look at our own financial behaviour?