So sang Bob Dylan and this appears to be the tactical approach of some financial services companies who continue in their endeavours in the face of massive reputational damage.
Maybe State Street feel that their lack of a retail presence in the UK means they can ride out any damage their $19.6m larceny and £23.9m fine has done their reputation.
Maybe they think that those who know of them are so deeply implicated in financial malpractice that they will not lose existing business.
Or maybe all those NAPF stands are finally coming into their own and the pension industry will carry on as if nothing has happened.
If a footballer is fined a couple of weeks wages, nobody bats an eye lid.But if a club is deducted 10 points people sit up.
Maybe the FCA should remember that , the next time they face up to a financial behemoth.
We should collectively be telling State Street exactly what we think of their brand and “send them homeward, to think again”.
If Tiger Woods has to face the consequences of his actions, why not State Street? It seems that white collar crime caries a low tariff compared to marital infidelity.
The only way we can stamp out financial crime is by treating the behaviour of institutions as the behaviour of a group of individuals.
Those individuals who have and do represent the State Street brand at all levels have to ask themselves just what they are doing working for an organisation that only two years ago was screwing clients by double charging them with fees.
Those fiduciaries who use State Street as their custodian or organisations that employ State Street as their asset managers need to think carefully about reputational damage.
Those who rely on State Street for advertisements and other revenues may feel they have no option to sit on their hands, but those – like this blogger- who owe State Street nothing , have nothing to lose by asking just why this Bank is continuing to hold itself out as a custodian and asset manager.
There are others- who have played by the rules and not cheated. There are companies who have lost business to State Street who must be asking on what basis State Street competed against them, companies who have money with State Street who must be asking were they double charged and companies who look at the financial services market and ask “why does this company continue to trade”.
if you are one of those companies , do you stand idly by?