Are young reckless males being unfairly blamed for the mess?

eFC logo

Ever since someone discovered that testosterone fuels traders on the way up and cortisol sucks the life out of them on the way down, it's been fashionable to blame the financial crisis on men, particularly young ones.

Peter Bazalgette, he of Big Brother fame, is the latest to go down this route. In a letter to the Financial Times last week, he suggested that -

The 10-15 year span of business cycles the time it takes each new generation of over-testosteronised young men to reach positions of influence in markets. They are typically in their late 20s or early 30s and know no fear because, critically, they have not previously experienced a downturn.

Bazalgette follows in the footsteps of more esteemed financial commentators such as hedge fund blogger Fintag, who only recently suggested that -

"It is evident that the crash was precipitated by the people under 30."

Do you agree? Would more of the over 40s really have prevented this? Or would they have been too busy sipping Merlot and worrying about school fees to have made a real difference?