Few of us had heard of “moral hazard” until the Bank of England started banging on about it during the financial crisis.
As the banking world was collapsing around his ears, the then-governor Lord King said it would be wrong to bail out banks because it would set an example to others that they too could behave recklessly and be rescued. Moral hazard.
He was wrong. As he admits (when not slagging off his successors), King put too much stress on moral hazard and not enough on the greater need to step in and secure the integrity of the banking system.
However, though he got the balance wrong, the concept was right: companies should not be allowed to operate on the understanding that if their risky behaviour goes wrong, they will be bailed out, in full, by someone else.
Energy companies are concerned that a form of moral hazard is creeping into their world. This time, it’s the moral hazard of consumers.
In regulators’ enthusiasm to nurture competition, a system now exists where, if a company goes under, customers will be transferred to another supplier and any credit they have for energy not yet used 100% reimbursed. The pledge is part-funded by a levy on the industry.