The Fed wants to take away the punch bowl before the party has even started What's more, it is no part of a central bank's job to support asset prices. Indeed, if the effect of Bernanke's remarks is to knock the froth out of markets and to restore bond yields to more realistic levels, then that might be thought a welcome development. The problem is that negative market sentiment tends to feed on itself, with eventual knock-on consequences for the real economy. Once untethered, markets are very difficult to control, and with the yield on 10-year Treasuries already up 100 basis points since talk of tapering began, the degree of effective monetary tightening may already have gone too far. Parallel credit tightening in China is piling on the agony. Removing monetary stimulus was always going to be tricky. We can only hope that Bernanke has not mistimed his exit. The irony of unintended consequences On Thursday night, without fanfare, the EU Council formally approved its plan to cap bankers" bonuses at a maximum of double their salary. The measure will apply to bonuses earned in 2014 and paid out at the start of 2015. In a week which saw the publication of the Banking Standards Commission report, with its headline-grabbing call for reckless bankers to be jailed, perhaps it is no surprise that this latest bit of regulatory interference went unnoticed. There is still uncertainty about how this will work in practice but, faced with a very tight compliance timetable, most firms will simply increase salaries to mitigate its impact. However, lawyers Pinsent Masons point out that the commission also recommended a new remuneration code, longer deferral periods for variable pay and greater use of clawback provision. These measures might impose structures which go beyond EU law, requiring yet more changes to remuneration packages. Since all these measures focus on variable pay, they incentivise firms to increase salaries, an approach which, ironically, undermines the aim of aligning pay with long-term performance and disincentivising short-term high risk practices. It's not fair customers lose when firms fold The collapse of furniture retailer Dwell will re-ignite the debate about the future of Britain's high street and also raise fresh concerns over the safety of customer deposits and gift vouchers. As much as £1m of customer deposits are at risk - some customers are still waiting for products ordered six months ago. When Republic called in the administrators, £1.2m of gift vouchers were lost. Customers rank as a lowly unsecured creditor so often lose out when retailers collapse. This shines an unflattering light on the sector and is unsustainable. In the housing market, for example, deposits for rented flats are held in independent accounts monitored by an ombudsman. Customers are the lifeblood of any retail company. They cannot be treated with disdain when it folds.