In the United States, Britain and France - in particular - there is a debate about 'fair' taxation which is on the verge of reaching crisis proportions. In all three countries, there is deep concern about the need for economic growth to lead the economy out of recession. Growth comes from investment. A minority of the population directly contribute to investment by putting their savings and some of their income into shares and bonds that provide funds for commerce and industry; and a diminishing proportion of the population make indirect investments in shares and bonds through collective savings funds such as voluntary pensions schemes and insurance reserves. The inept extension of taxation of pension funds by Gordon Brown in the UK [combined with the disastrous ineptitude of the actuaries] has devastated the value of pensions, and thus has destroyed public confidence in the merit of saving through such funds, which have a much lower take-up than in previous decades. A compulsory state scheme will not correct this situation: it will merely produce pension 'pots' that are so small that they will have no impact on the growing disaster of pensioner poverty.
Investment by richer individuals has always been essential for economic growth to occur in any free society. In centrally planned authoritarian states, much of investment is wasted because a small cohort of bureaucrats cannot have the sensitivity to economic possibilities, and to adverse trends in productivity and the desirableness of products, that a wide range of personal investors can achieve. The optimisation of investment is only achieved by personal decision. There is now a hugely powerful intellectually-led movement to increase taxation of the rich - and thus to reduce the quantum and the selectivity of investment - on the idiotic ground that higher and higher taxation of the relatively 'rich' is intrinsically 'fair' and therefore appropriate. Some advocates of such taxation regard widening and intensifying the ruinous taxation as the most important cause in politics. The Obama Democrats in the USA and the Liberal Democrats in Britain and the Socialists who have quickly become querulous with their new president in France are all devotees of the doctrine that the investable funds should be grabbed from the relatively 'rich' and disbursed as immediate spending-power to the relatively 'poor'. This is an intensification of the ruinous policies that have helped to bring their economies into a condition of low growth and high 'welfare' spending. As long as this nonsense is prevalent, real economic capability will be destroyed and the potential of the economies to give their people real welfare will continue to decline.
There is also a socially divisive component to this issue. Class conflict is being promoted, with the classes defined in terms of tax-bands applied to incomes or to assets. People who do not declare earnings large enough to be required to pay tax on them are to be more explicitly defined as 'disadvantaged' or 'deprived' and [according the British Liberal Democrats] 'the rich' who earn more that £50,000 a year are to be taxed to transfer money to the 'deprived'; and then their assets will be valued and subjected to a further levy. If that levy is met from income their income will doubly have been diminished: their consumption and their potential to invest will be reduced - both inflicting direct damage on the economy; and if the levy is met by asset sales, leading to a mass sell-of of a range of assets [both material and financial assets] their prices will fall with further detriment to the economy. To this idiocy the same politicians are adding the notion that young people should be able to enter the housing markets by having the deposits on their houses secured by their parents' and grandparents' 'pension pots'. The funds that people hold in their pension funds are vastly reduced by the crass policies of the past two decades; and now they are being challenged to risk the loss of those funds altogether - and to face old-age poverty - if they take up the new scheme. If they decline to do so, there will be serious discord in families: if they do comply, they will be constrained in how much pension they can draw by the contractual form of the guarantee; and if there is another house-price slump they may loose their pension assets when the property is repossessed. Even if the housing market holds up, it is obscure as to how many years the guarantee [and therefore the restriction on the pension fund] will be maintained. None of this looks like constructive social engineering: it would be crude exploitation of the relatively-thrifty, leading to massive destruction of accumulated wealth.
Showing posts with label bonds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bonds. Show all posts
Sunday, 23 September 2012
Tuesday, 10 July 2012
Concern at the IMF: About What?
The Managing Director of the IMF has expressed concern about the probability that their forecasts for economic growth throughout the world must be downgraded. Her foreboding is justified by the regular downward revision of estimates for growth that are being published in various countries, especially in the light of the ongoing crisis in the eurozone and its potential negative impact on its trading partners in other parts of the world. In the face of such a negative mood among Economists, politicians, journalists, bankers and some business managers it is unsurprising that there is a growing feeling of unease among the general public.
During the so-called credit crunch of 2007-8 many governments tried to secure the future of banks in their territories by guaranteeing the deposits that people and businesses had placed in those banks. When banks could not meet depositors' demands for cash from their own resources the government supplied the money. Governments that had control of their own currencies, such as the US dollar and the British pound, could authorise their central banks to create 'new' money and make it available to the banks: some went further and actually create the money with which to buy control of threatened banks. In the USA this process was extended to the one insurance company, AIG, that had ruined itself by creating contracts by which it guaranteed to fund banks in certain circumstances which had been thought highly improbable until they happened to several big banks all at once.
In countries that did not have control of their money supply, notably those in the eurozone, the means available to governments to stabilise the economic situation were seriously constrained. For seven years before the credit crunch occurred the member countries of the eurozone issued bonds and bills [certificates of government debt] denominated in euros; and bonds that had been issued before the creation of the euro had become redeemable in euros. Those governments could not follow the lead of the Americans and the British in creating the money that they had to pay out to buy the bonds that fell due to be cashed: they had to borrow the necessary euros from the European Central Bank or the International Monetary Fund, or tap new funds created by other eurozone governments. In considering any of those options a government was faced with strict conditions attaching to any loan, that usually included the imposition of restrictive economic policies. At an early stage in the banking crisis the Irish government decided to guarantee all banks' obligations, raised a large loan and imposed dramatically restrictive conditions on the economy. Southern European members of the eurozone faced up to the crisis more slowly and then took the very different stance of demanding bail-out loans and prevaricated about imposing the conditions that they had accepted, threatening the northern eurozone countries with progressive economic collapse and political chaos. The northern eurozone countries regard this as simple cheating and are resisting any further concessions to the south unless they are accompanied by enforceable sanctions. Meanwhile the population of the whole Union is getting used to commentators covering the arguments about the possible withdrawal of some countries from the euro or the collapse of the entire venture. The fact that the eurozone is not coterminous with the European Union is widely understood: the Union could survive either the defection of some members or the total collapse of the single currency.
The possibility of chaos in much of the EU - the world's largest economic bloc - is the cause of worry throughout the world economy. The shabby history of the Union - the political fudges, the pervasive unaccountability of the Brussels bureaucracy and the notorious 'democratic deficit' by which the eurorats have evaded public concerns in aggregating power in their own hands - has created the circumstances in which there is little mass empathy with any proposal to give more power to the Union. Spaniards and Italians would like the Union to be able to grab Germany's wealth and hand it to them in return for promises to which nobody gives the slightest credibility: Germany would never assent to such a scheme. The extension of another loan to Spain, agreed overnight, is an allocation of the existing funds which the Finns and the Dutch and the Slovaks and the Germans have already written off. This time round the northern eurozone members seem to be so little concerned about this further handout that they have agreed to give the Spanish government longer to impose austerity.
And so the sorry saga drags on. Greece will leave the euro. With that example in their sights it is just possible that the Spanish, the Portuguese and the Italians will accept enough 'discipline' to keep the euro staggering along for a year or two. There is no hope of Europe leading the world economy to a new era of prosperity; and not much sign of the emergent economies or the US providing a 'motor' to drag the global economy into an era of growth. New thinking is needed, urgently.
During the so-called credit crunch of 2007-8 many governments tried to secure the future of banks in their territories by guaranteeing the deposits that people and businesses had placed in those banks. When banks could not meet depositors' demands for cash from their own resources the government supplied the money. Governments that had control of their own currencies, such as the US dollar and the British pound, could authorise their central banks to create 'new' money and make it available to the banks: some went further and actually create the money with which to buy control of threatened banks. In the USA this process was extended to the one insurance company, AIG, that had ruined itself by creating contracts by which it guaranteed to fund banks in certain circumstances which had been thought highly improbable until they happened to several big banks all at once.
In countries that did not have control of their money supply, notably those in the eurozone, the means available to governments to stabilise the economic situation were seriously constrained. For seven years before the credit crunch occurred the member countries of the eurozone issued bonds and bills [certificates of government debt] denominated in euros; and bonds that had been issued before the creation of the euro had become redeemable in euros. Those governments could not follow the lead of the Americans and the British in creating the money that they had to pay out to buy the bonds that fell due to be cashed: they had to borrow the necessary euros from the European Central Bank or the International Monetary Fund, or tap new funds created by other eurozone governments. In considering any of those options a government was faced with strict conditions attaching to any loan, that usually included the imposition of restrictive economic policies. At an early stage in the banking crisis the Irish government decided to guarantee all banks' obligations, raised a large loan and imposed dramatically restrictive conditions on the economy. Southern European members of the eurozone faced up to the crisis more slowly and then took the very different stance of demanding bail-out loans and prevaricated about imposing the conditions that they had accepted, threatening the northern eurozone countries with progressive economic collapse and political chaos. The northern eurozone countries regard this as simple cheating and are resisting any further concessions to the south unless they are accompanied by enforceable sanctions. Meanwhile the population of the whole Union is getting used to commentators covering the arguments about the possible withdrawal of some countries from the euro or the collapse of the entire venture. The fact that the eurozone is not coterminous with the European Union is widely understood: the Union could survive either the defection of some members or the total collapse of the single currency.
The possibility of chaos in much of the EU - the world's largest economic bloc - is the cause of worry throughout the world economy. The shabby history of the Union - the political fudges, the pervasive unaccountability of the Brussels bureaucracy and the notorious 'democratic deficit' by which the eurorats have evaded public concerns in aggregating power in their own hands - has created the circumstances in which there is little mass empathy with any proposal to give more power to the Union. Spaniards and Italians would like the Union to be able to grab Germany's wealth and hand it to them in return for promises to which nobody gives the slightest credibility: Germany would never assent to such a scheme. The extension of another loan to Spain, agreed overnight, is an allocation of the existing funds which the Finns and the Dutch and the Slovaks and the Germans have already written off. This time round the northern eurozone members seem to be so little concerned about this further handout that they have agreed to give the Spanish government longer to impose austerity.
And so the sorry saga drags on. Greece will leave the euro. With that example in their sights it is just possible that the Spanish, the Portuguese and the Italians will accept enough 'discipline' to keep the euro staggering along for a year or two. There is no hope of Europe leading the world economy to a new era of prosperity; and not much sign of the emergent economies or the US providing a 'motor' to drag the global economy into an era of growth. New thinking is needed, urgently.
Wednesday, 11 April 2012
Gold and Value
When a group of aspirant 'scientists' developed modern Economics, between 1860 and 1875, they were not able to dream up any alternative to the monetary system that was endorsed by the precursor Science of Political Economy. So in tandem with their normative [and highly imaginative] concept of 'perfect' results being achieved by the free operation of their theory of supply-and-demand, they accepted the definition of money as a special commodity, recognised and often managed by the state, that served the functions of:
a medium of exchange
a means of making deferred payments
a measure of value
a store of value.
In retrospect, these attributes only applied to money that was based on a Gold Standard; and by coincidence the spread of Economics through the world's universities was accompanied by the spread of the gold standard. Between 1870 and 1914 a succession of countries adopted the principle that the national currency was pegged to gold, so that at the start of the first world war a British Pound or a US Dollar was defined in terms of equivalence to gold: so-many dollars for one ounce of gold, so many pounds to an ounce of gold. Anyone who held pound notes could go to the Bank of England and demand [and receive] gold - in the form of sovereign coins, which were legal tender; and similar rules applied in the USA and Russia and France and most other advanced economies. Just a few states maintained a 'silver standard'; and a few, mostly the imperial possessions of western states, had a gold-exchange standard that seemed to work but no Economist clearly understood it until a bright young man presented a brief, brisk and profound account of how it worked: this was the serendipitous first publication by John Maynard Keynes.
It was serendipitous because within just a few months of the start of the war all the combatant European countries had to abandon the 'Old Gold Standard' and move uncertainly each to their own gold-exchange standard. Britain had the one global expert on the subject, and Keynes was drawn into the centre of the government to lead a new way of managing the unprecedented amount of payments that passed through the Exchequer to pay for the war. He recognised at once that the massive creation of paper money made any return to the old system impossible: and that the attempt to equal the inflation of the money supply with the issue of government bonds that were notionally equivalent to gold reserves was pure fantasy. The idea that war-loan would be redeemed in the postwar world by payments of gold-standard money was absurd: but it was built into the unprecedented system of war propaganda which most government ministers allowed themselves to believe. The United States kept its gold standard, and required its allies to pay gold-standard money or gold-standard guaranteed bonds [denominated in dollars] for the supplies that they necessarily bought from the USA.
Thus at the end of the war the victorious allies recognised their obligations to pay each other immense sums of 'money'. To make this easier for them, they demanded vast reparations from Germany, and those payments were written in to the Treaty of Versailles. The Austro-Hungarian monarchy had collapsed into a significant number of separate new countries that acknowledged no obligation for the debts or other obligations of the former empire: so no reparations could be expected from there. The collapse of the Russian monarchy also meant that the massive holding of Russian state and corporate debt, that were due to be serviced in gold-standard roubles or pounds, had become worthless. Thus most of the load was dumped on Germany, which was obliged to deliver gold, coal, steel and other commodities free of charge, principally to France and Belgium, so that the 'victors' could meet their obligations to their own people and to foreigners in gold-standard money . Keynes had been taken to the negotiations as an economic adviser, and he resigned in exasperation when it was clear that even if Lloyd George understood Keynes's advice the Prime Minister would not act on it. Keynes came home and set out his objections in the prophetic tract on The Economic Consequences of the Peace. As the inflation that Keynes had predicted to be inevitable gathered pace in the ensuing years, the government forged ahead with its plan to restore the monetary system and in 1925 Winston Churchill as Chancellor of the Exchequer proudly announced the 'restoration of the Gold Standard' [which was in fact a variant of the gold-exchange standard]. Keynes published his reckoning of the inevitable Economic Consequences of Mr Churchill and pressed on with his main work; which resulted in 1929 in the publication of the Treatise on Money.
Since then 'money' issued by governments has gone through many redefinitions, has been subject to massive manipulation, and has been subjected to assorted 'analyses' by various schools of Economists whose only common link is to have been wrong in their predictions and disastrous when they have become policy advisers. Their 'profession' has avoided open acceptance of Keynes's Treatise; and the International Monetary Fund - of which Keynes was one of the founders - has still not adopted his concept that world financial stability can only be achieved if they create a global reserve currency [bancor] to which national currencies relate in a disciplined order. Exactly a century has been lost since Keynes wrote on Indian Currency and Finance and there is still no sign of his plain solutions being adopted.
In a world of ill-managed currencies, reckless debt creation and the inevitable consequential inflation, it is obvious that money is NOT a 'measure of value'. After the default of Greece we are all reminded that money is NOT a stable means of making deferred payments; and it would be a very poor joke for anyone to suggest that money is a 'store of value'. It is a 'medium of exchange' simply and solely because the law demands that prices are quoted and debts are denominated and settled in the national currency. Money is used because it has to be used: it is an imposition of the incompetent state, and the one certainty is that it loses purchasing-power: the longer you keep it [whether as banknotes or on deposit] it looses 'value'.
In future blogs I will develop this simple story that Keynes's genius is better appreciated when he is recognised as an authority on money, instead of being misrepresented as an inflation-inducing proponent of 'big government'. Over the recent past hundreds of millions of lives in the postindustrial countries have been conducted under a massive cloud of monetary delusions in an environment of debt; a system that is becoming unsustainable. Keynes warned what would happen if such fantasies were pursued: it is now sensible to return to what he wrote, on the record, and to understand his theories in the context of the pre-Economics science of Political Economy on which he built.
a medium of exchange
a means of making deferred payments
a measure of value
a store of value.
In retrospect, these attributes only applied to money that was based on a Gold Standard; and by coincidence the spread of Economics through the world's universities was accompanied by the spread of the gold standard. Between 1870 and 1914 a succession of countries adopted the principle that the national currency was pegged to gold, so that at the start of the first world war a British Pound or a US Dollar was defined in terms of equivalence to gold: so-many dollars for one ounce of gold, so many pounds to an ounce of gold. Anyone who held pound notes could go to the Bank of England and demand [and receive] gold - in the form of sovereign coins, which were legal tender; and similar rules applied in the USA and Russia and France and most other advanced economies. Just a few states maintained a 'silver standard'; and a few, mostly the imperial possessions of western states, had a gold-exchange standard that seemed to work but no Economist clearly understood it until a bright young man presented a brief, brisk and profound account of how it worked: this was the serendipitous first publication by John Maynard Keynes.
It was serendipitous because within just a few months of the start of the war all the combatant European countries had to abandon the 'Old Gold Standard' and move uncertainly each to their own gold-exchange standard. Britain had the one global expert on the subject, and Keynes was drawn into the centre of the government to lead a new way of managing the unprecedented amount of payments that passed through the Exchequer to pay for the war. He recognised at once that the massive creation of paper money made any return to the old system impossible: and that the attempt to equal the inflation of the money supply with the issue of government bonds that were notionally equivalent to gold reserves was pure fantasy. The idea that war-loan would be redeemed in the postwar world by payments of gold-standard money was absurd: but it was built into the unprecedented system of war propaganda which most government ministers allowed themselves to believe. The United States kept its gold standard, and required its allies to pay gold-standard money or gold-standard guaranteed bonds [denominated in dollars] for the supplies that they necessarily bought from the USA.
Thus at the end of the war the victorious allies recognised their obligations to pay each other immense sums of 'money'. To make this easier for them, they demanded vast reparations from Germany, and those payments were written in to the Treaty of Versailles. The Austro-Hungarian monarchy had collapsed into a significant number of separate new countries that acknowledged no obligation for the debts or other obligations of the former empire: so no reparations could be expected from there. The collapse of the Russian monarchy also meant that the massive holding of Russian state and corporate debt, that were due to be serviced in gold-standard roubles or pounds, had become worthless. Thus most of the load was dumped on Germany, which was obliged to deliver gold, coal, steel and other commodities free of charge, principally to France and Belgium, so that the 'victors' could meet their obligations to their own people and to foreigners in gold-standard money . Keynes had been taken to the negotiations as an economic adviser, and he resigned in exasperation when it was clear that even if Lloyd George understood Keynes's advice the Prime Minister would not act on it. Keynes came home and set out his objections in the prophetic tract on The Economic Consequences of the Peace. As the inflation that Keynes had predicted to be inevitable gathered pace in the ensuing years, the government forged ahead with its plan to restore the monetary system and in 1925 Winston Churchill as Chancellor of the Exchequer proudly announced the 'restoration of the Gold Standard' [which was in fact a variant of the gold-exchange standard]. Keynes published his reckoning of the inevitable Economic Consequences of Mr Churchill and pressed on with his main work; which resulted in 1929 in the publication of the Treatise on Money.
Since then 'money' issued by governments has gone through many redefinitions, has been subject to massive manipulation, and has been subjected to assorted 'analyses' by various schools of Economists whose only common link is to have been wrong in their predictions and disastrous when they have become policy advisers. Their 'profession' has avoided open acceptance of Keynes's Treatise; and the International Monetary Fund - of which Keynes was one of the founders - has still not adopted his concept that world financial stability can only be achieved if they create a global reserve currency [bancor] to which national currencies relate in a disciplined order. Exactly a century has been lost since Keynes wrote on Indian Currency and Finance and there is still no sign of his plain solutions being adopted.
In a world of ill-managed currencies, reckless debt creation and the inevitable consequential inflation, it is obvious that money is NOT a 'measure of value'. After the default of Greece we are all reminded that money is NOT a stable means of making deferred payments; and it would be a very poor joke for anyone to suggest that money is a 'store of value'. It is a 'medium of exchange' simply and solely because the law demands that prices are quoted and debts are denominated and settled in the national currency. Money is used because it has to be used: it is an imposition of the incompetent state, and the one certainty is that it loses purchasing-power: the longer you keep it [whether as banknotes or on deposit] it looses 'value'.
In future blogs I will develop this simple story that Keynes's genius is better appreciated when he is recognised as an authority on money, instead of being misrepresented as an inflation-inducing proponent of 'big government'. Over the recent past hundreds of millions of lives in the postindustrial countries have been conducted under a massive cloud of monetary delusions in an environment of debt; a system that is becoming unsustainable. Keynes warned what would happen if such fantasies were pursued: it is now sensible to return to what he wrote, on the record, and to understand his theories in the context of the pre-Economics science of Political Economy on which he built.
Friday, 9 December 2011
The EU and the Eurozone. What Should be Done Next?
Superficially, the easiest thing that could have been done by the EU in the last 24 hours would be to force Germany to open its coffers to 'save' the euro by buying all the bonds that may be issued or guaranteed by the puppet governments that have been installed in Greece and Italy, and may be installed in other economically failed countries. The spokespersons for the 'markets' - and representatives of the Obama Administration - will continue to press for a 'solution' on these lines whenever it appears that the new solution to the euro crisis is open to question.
In the 'markets' so-called hedge funds and other speculative investors have been stockpiling at-risk bonds when they could buy them cheaply, in the expectation that Germany would eventually be forced to 'support' them at higher prices. Germany has declared its commitment to the European Union, and to the euro, for decades and the marketeers think that pride and stubbornness will not let them back off from supporting the new dispensation. The Obama team of died-in-the-wool pre-2008 bankers have done pretty well to consolidate the position of their former employers since the big bail-out of the rationalised banks that were cobbled together in 2007-9.But they are well aware that the ramshackle result could begin to crack if the euro was disrupted, causing the US banks' holdings of euro debt to loose value. The US has been calling-in the moral obligation that is supposedly owed by Europe for US investment in defence during the cold war of 1947 to 1991. Time has moved on. The sensibly selfish basis for US policy, past and present, is clearly recognised and contemporary Europeans do not recognise a continuing obligation.
Germany in 2011-12 does not recognise an ongoing obligation specially to assist European countries that suffered occupation or destruction during the second world war. Huge reparations have been paid, the balance sheet has been cleared, and the anti-German current within Greek protest against financial stringency is self-defeating.
Germany should in no way feel obliged to assist a bankrupt state that got itself into the mess that its proconsular ruler is trying to resolve. Greece is uniquely in that perilous situation at this moment. The Greek people will suffer dramatically lower living standards for an indefinite future because Greek governments doled out more resources than the country had generated continuously for the past three decades. Though different parties won elections from time to time, each government had a popular mandate; and it is the misfortune of modern citizens in any state that they collectively carry responsibility for the accumulation of debts that the elctorate consented to being accumulated.Any Greek could have discovered that their huge salaries, early retirement ages and evasion of taxation were not only exceptional but also blatantly unaffordable when set against national economic data. The typical citizen may have chosen not to take cognisance of the facts: that dereliction alone stimulates fair-minded aliens to inhibit any sypathy for the unfortunate elderly who now have dramatically reduced living standards and no prospect of mitigation in their lifetime.
Economists have been allowed to dominate economic policy with the assertion that 'markets' are efficient. They have handed it down as 'scientific fact' that governments should so arrange affairs that markets are the drivers of the economy. This is utterly ludicrous. Markets are creations of human beings, and only have any life to the extent that human beings take part in them. The people exist under the protection of the state, they can make contracts because the state and its courts-of-law recognise them as legal persons. The companies that exist in markets are licensed to exist by the state. The contracts that people and companies make are only enforcible if the state's courts recognise them to be valid. The state has an unqualified precedence over any business structure and this is an inescapable fact: for Economists and their dupes to presume otherwise is profoundly dangerous.
People have an infinite capacity for cheating, crookery, and fraud; as much as they have the capacity to be creative in the arts and sciences. A few hundred people - mostly science graduates, many with PhDs - have become adepts in black arts that enable them to create derivatives and credit default swaps. They can - and some of them do - set up deals that are designed deliberately to exploit other market participants. They invent and trade in fantastic 'instruments' such as 'shadow shares' that enable a pension fund to put its money into bonds but in parallel with that to buy notional shares, with a promise that if the 'real' bonds fail and the notional shares retain value, then the firm that has sold the shadow share package is contractually obliged to give the pension fund value equivalent to the gap between the value of the bonds that they hold in comparison to the then value of the notional shares. The idea that any financial firm would be able to deliver on such a promise in the event of systemic market failure, without the sort of government support that the banks were given in 2008, is absurd. The contract - and the pension fund with it - would most probably be wiped out. But while the contract is operational [and untested] fees are paid to the conjurers, the pension fund managers get their salaries and the Trustees draw their fees or allowances: only the fund members stand to lose. The financial services providers have become even more blatant than they were before 2008 in the absurdity of the 'products' that they have offered; and the gullibility of their clientèle seems to be undiminished. The providers made Greek and Irish state debt appear to be sounder investments than they were, by enabling the holders of the bonds to 'hedge' those purchases with derivatives or ghost shares.
Markets that include such cajolery and sheer brass cheek among their trading methods, selling 'products' on which millions of peoples' future incomes depend which have no substance, are profoundly 'imperfect'. It is blatant that knowledge and understanding of the products and of the risks that are inherent in them are not equally understood by purchasers and the people who unknowingly depend on the outcome of the contracts. Essential rules of the system must be defined by the state, the traders must continue to be licensed by the state and the products must be subject to classification by the state. The infantile version of the Tobin Tax that has been proposed in the EU would have no significant impact in regulating the markets as they have evolved in London and New York. It would primarily be a regressive imposition on the day-to-day bank and insurance transactions of the mass of the population. If 'complex products' are to continue to be regulated as financial assets, much more intrusive regulation - more comprehensive than what is currently being proposed by the EU financial regulator - is needed.
But a completely different approach would be more sensible. At the very least, derivatives and most 'swaps'.and many futures and other 'asset classes' should be classified as betting slips; which is the simple truth. As bets, they should be regulated in the UK by the Gambling Commission, not the Financial Services Authorities. They should be subject to gambling tax and not susceptible to regulation by the EU Financial Services Commissioner and his empowering legislation. By trying to exempt Britain - specifically the 'City' - from any new restrictive EU financial services regulation David Cameron has had a Pyrrhic victory. He has not got any significant exemption for British financial services [which he repeatedly points out is 10% of the economy] and he does not have any inkling of the basic fact that much of the 'industry' that he is trying to protect is not finance, but gaming. The appropriate regulatory change should speedily be implemented: then the EU system of financial regulation would not apply.
It would make an amazing positive change to the continentals' perception of Britain and of the activities of the City if the suggested reclassification were to be carried out. If the British Treasury and Cabinet Office will ever be capable of taking this point, they can frame a regulatory regime that will be seen by the rest of the EU as exemplary. Britain's detractors would be wrong-footed and the rehabilitation of the UK would be facilitated. The City need not suffer any great loss of business, insofar as the players can convince their clients that the betting slips that they have been buying to hedge their investments will still serve the same purposes under a more appropriate and honest regulatory regime. I have only a scintilla of doubt that the City lobbies will oppose any reclassification of their 'proprietary' activities because their pride will be offended by their being classified as bookmakers and their greed will baulk at paying higher taxes on a different basis and possibly experiencing some loss of business. But the City and the government have a golden opportunity to escape the very real threat that the new Europe will much more massively deflate the City's income under its tightening and uncomprehending regulatory regime.
Away to the west Dublin has developed huge 'financial services' expertise that is currently underemployed. A swift-footed Irish government - safe within the carapace of the revamped eurozone - can go a significant way to develop a high-level bulk betting regime that could capture a great deal of the market that the City of London stands to loose. That threat [and the possibility that the Swiss may dabble in these markets] may help to persuade the City that here is a way forward.
In the 'markets' so-called hedge funds and other speculative investors have been stockpiling at-risk bonds when they could buy them cheaply, in the expectation that Germany would eventually be forced to 'support' them at higher prices. Germany has declared its commitment to the European Union, and to the euro, for decades and the marketeers think that pride and stubbornness will not let them back off from supporting the new dispensation. The Obama team of died-in-the-wool pre-2008 bankers have done pretty well to consolidate the position of their former employers since the big bail-out of the rationalised banks that were cobbled together in 2007-9.But they are well aware that the ramshackle result could begin to crack if the euro was disrupted, causing the US banks' holdings of euro debt to loose value. The US has been calling-in the moral obligation that is supposedly owed by Europe for US investment in defence during the cold war of 1947 to 1991. Time has moved on. The sensibly selfish basis for US policy, past and present, is clearly recognised and contemporary Europeans do not recognise a continuing obligation.
Germany in 2011-12 does not recognise an ongoing obligation specially to assist European countries that suffered occupation or destruction during the second world war. Huge reparations have been paid, the balance sheet has been cleared, and the anti-German current within Greek protest against financial stringency is self-defeating.
Germany should in no way feel obliged to assist a bankrupt state that got itself into the mess that its proconsular ruler is trying to resolve. Greece is uniquely in that perilous situation at this moment. The Greek people will suffer dramatically lower living standards for an indefinite future because Greek governments doled out more resources than the country had generated continuously for the past three decades. Though different parties won elections from time to time, each government had a popular mandate; and it is the misfortune of modern citizens in any state that they collectively carry responsibility for the accumulation of debts that the elctorate consented to being accumulated.Any Greek could have discovered that their huge salaries, early retirement ages and evasion of taxation were not only exceptional but also blatantly unaffordable when set against national economic data. The typical citizen may have chosen not to take cognisance of the facts: that dereliction alone stimulates fair-minded aliens to inhibit any sypathy for the unfortunate elderly who now have dramatically reduced living standards and no prospect of mitigation in their lifetime.
Economists have been allowed to dominate economic policy with the assertion that 'markets' are efficient. They have handed it down as 'scientific fact' that governments should so arrange affairs that markets are the drivers of the economy. This is utterly ludicrous. Markets are creations of human beings, and only have any life to the extent that human beings take part in them. The people exist under the protection of the state, they can make contracts because the state and its courts-of-law recognise them as legal persons. The companies that exist in markets are licensed to exist by the state. The contracts that people and companies make are only enforcible if the state's courts recognise them to be valid. The state has an unqualified precedence over any business structure and this is an inescapable fact: for Economists and their dupes to presume otherwise is profoundly dangerous.
People have an infinite capacity for cheating, crookery, and fraud; as much as they have the capacity to be creative in the arts and sciences. A few hundred people - mostly science graduates, many with PhDs - have become adepts in black arts that enable them to create derivatives and credit default swaps. They can - and some of them do - set up deals that are designed deliberately to exploit other market participants. They invent and trade in fantastic 'instruments' such as 'shadow shares' that enable a pension fund to put its money into bonds but in parallel with that to buy notional shares, with a promise that if the 'real' bonds fail and the notional shares retain value, then the firm that has sold the shadow share package is contractually obliged to give the pension fund value equivalent to the gap between the value of the bonds that they hold in comparison to the then value of the notional shares. The idea that any financial firm would be able to deliver on such a promise in the event of systemic market failure, without the sort of government support that the banks were given in 2008, is absurd. The contract - and the pension fund with it - would most probably be wiped out. But while the contract is operational [and untested] fees are paid to the conjurers, the pension fund managers get their salaries and the Trustees draw their fees or allowances: only the fund members stand to lose. The financial services providers have become even more blatant than they were before 2008 in the absurdity of the 'products' that they have offered; and the gullibility of their clientèle seems to be undiminished. The providers made Greek and Irish state debt appear to be sounder investments than they were, by enabling the holders of the bonds to 'hedge' those purchases with derivatives or ghost shares.
Markets that include such cajolery and sheer brass cheek among their trading methods, selling 'products' on which millions of peoples' future incomes depend which have no substance, are profoundly 'imperfect'. It is blatant that knowledge and understanding of the products and of the risks that are inherent in them are not equally understood by purchasers and the people who unknowingly depend on the outcome of the contracts. Essential rules of the system must be defined by the state, the traders must continue to be licensed by the state and the products must be subject to classification by the state. The infantile version of the Tobin Tax that has been proposed in the EU would have no significant impact in regulating the markets as they have evolved in London and New York. It would primarily be a regressive imposition on the day-to-day bank and insurance transactions of the mass of the population. If 'complex products' are to continue to be regulated as financial assets, much more intrusive regulation - more comprehensive than what is currently being proposed by the EU financial regulator - is needed.
But a completely different approach would be more sensible. At the very least, derivatives and most 'swaps'.and many futures and other 'asset classes' should be classified as betting slips; which is the simple truth. As bets, they should be regulated in the UK by the Gambling Commission, not the Financial Services Authorities. They should be subject to gambling tax and not susceptible to regulation by the EU Financial Services Commissioner and his empowering legislation. By trying to exempt Britain - specifically the 'City' - from any new restrictive EU financial services regulation David Cameron has had a Pyrrhic victory. He has not got any significant exemption for British financial services [which he repeatedly points out is 10% of the economy] and he does not have any inkling of the basic fact that much of the 'industry' that he is trying to protect is not finance, but gaming. The appropriate regulatory change should speedily be implemented: then the EU system of financial regulation would not apply.
It would make an amazing positive change to the continentals' perception of Britain and of the activities of the City if the suggested reclassification were to be carried out. If the British Treasury and Cabinet Office will ever be capable of taking this point, they can frame a regulatory regime that will be seen by the rest of the EU as exemplary. Britain's detractors would be wrong-footed and the rehabilitation of the UK would be facilitated. The City need not suffer any great loss of business, insofar as the players can convince their clients that the betting slips that they have been buying to hedge their investments will still serve the same purposes under a more appropriate and honest regulatory regime. I have only a scintilla of doubt that the City lobbies will oppose any reclassification of their 'proprietary' activities because their pride will be offended by their being classified as bookmakers and their greed will baulk at paying higher taxes on a different basis and possibly experiencing some loss of business. But the City and the government have a golden opportunity to escape the very real threat that the new Europe will much more massively deflate the City's income under its tightening and uncomprehending regulatory regime.
Away to the west Dublin has developed huge 'financial services' expertise that is currently underemployed. A swift-footed Irish government - safe within the carapace of the revamped eurozone - can go a significant way to develop a high-level bulk betting regime that could capture a great deal of the market that the City of London stands to loose. That threat [and the possibility that the Swiss may dabble in these markets] may help to persuade the City that here is a way forward.
Tuesday, 6 December 2011
Rating the Eurozone
Even the most despicable people can make intelligent remarks and display real understanding. The same is true of organisations, even Rating Agencies. These firms made a huge amount of money by kitemarking gambling slips that they did not understand, as being investment-grade 'assets'; and thereby they contributed crucially both to the 'banking crisis' of 2007-8 and the crisis of government funding that is reaching a new crescendo.
Back in the nineteen-eighties, long before the financial innovators had started gambling in cyberspace, the Rating Agencies were taking fees and 'research funding' from companies to whose bond issues they then gave a positive rating. Directors of firms that administered pension funds, insurance reserves and investments charities used ratings as a way of justifying their allocation of the investments that they made. The national financial regulators accepted ratings as valid measures of the worth of different promises-to-pay in the future [which is what bonds are]. So banks accepted government bonds on the strength of their ratings; and governments accepted corporate and other governments' bonds on the strength of their ratings. We all know where that led the western world; and that the problem is still grinding on.
But now Standard & Poor's has stated a simple truth; If Germany and France commit all of their treasure into a support fund for junk and near-junk bonds that have been issued by lying governments [as 'the markets' have been demanding] they will have to give so much money to the market players [such as 'hedge funds'] that have stockpiled bonds at knock-down prices that their economic strength will be sapped. The way a rating agency expresses this is by reducing its rating of a government's debt. So they have said that if Germany opens its coffers to the rogues, then the rating of Bunds [German State Bonds] will fall: and this applies to at least five other Eurozone states' debt. That is simple sense!
Back in the nineteen-eighties, long before the financial innovators had started gambling in cyberspace, the Rating Agencies were taking fees and 'research funding' from companies to whose bond issues they then gave a positive rating. Directors of firms that administered pension funds, insurance reserves and investments charities used ratings as a way of justifying their allocation of the investments that they made. The national financial regulators accepted ratings as valid measures of the worth of different promises-to-pay in the future [which is what bonds are]. So banks accepted government bonds on the strength of their ratings; and governments accepted corporate and other governments' bonds on the strength of their ratings. We all know where that led the western world; and that the problem is still grinding on.
But now Standard & Poor's has stated a simple truth; If Germany and France commit all of their treasure into a support fund for junk and near-junk bonds that have been issued by lying governments [as 'the markets' have been demanding] they will have to give so much money to the market players [such as 'hedge funds'] that have stockpiled bonds at knock-down prices that their economic strength will be sapped. The way a rating agency expresses this is by reducing its rating of a government's debt. So they have said that if Germany opens its coffers to the rogues, then the rating of Bunds [German State Bonds] will fall: and this applies to at least five other Eurozone states' debt. That is simple sense!
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
Mastering Markets
Media commentators, and the tame Economists who provide them with sound-bites, continue to talk of 'the markets' as independent entities that have the power to undermine national economies and even multinational agencies in their endeavours to stabilise the prices of currencies [against each other] and national debt [quoted in an external currency: e.g. US bonds priced in the Yen or the Euro]. A market is merely a social structure. The dealers in markets are companies that are registered [and taxed] under the laws of specific countries, so the implicit assumption that they somehow exist as agents over which states have no control is a silly outcome from economic theory. Market participants are susceptible to government control at work, no less than they are subject to regulation when they drive home in their cars. If governments opt not to control the behaviour of marketeers, or use arcane and ineffectual methodologies that are concordant with Economists' theorising, any resulting detriment is their responsibility.
Back in the simple world that existed before the Big Bang of 1986, banks [which were then recognisable as a specific group of trading businesses] were subject to the corset. Just as a material corset pinches in the waistline of a person who is embarrassed by obesity, so the banking corset limited the extent to which each bank could expand its business. Banks were told the limits, and they obeyed: sort of, for a time. But then the Bank of England, as the regulator, allowed the rule to be 'bent': the Bank turned a blind eye to window dressing. The banks were required to demonstrate that they were keeping to the rules on one date each month; which allowed them to manage the timing of loans and repayments so that they went significantly about the permitted level for most of the month. It was by making and all-but-breaking such rules as the corset that old-style regulation became discredited. But if the rules and the methodologies had been imposed effectively they need never have become discredited. The supposedly gentlemanly banks of the pre-big-bang era slid around the rules: and their successors have continued to do so.
The present situation in both global finance and in domestic stock markets requires control. History shows that market players ignore rules that are not enforced, and try to manipulate rules and principles that are enforced; so we should be prepared now to treat market participants with firmness - and no exceptions - if rules or precepts are broken.Then new, simple rules can be made and new precepts for the conduct of market operatives can b established.
Within share markets, rules should specify that only registered owners of shares could ever vote on those shares: and company secretaries [or equivalents] should be required to certify compliance [with draconian penalties for breaches]. A corset can be applied to movements in the valuation of shares, such that sales and all other types of transfers of shares are frozen after the price has moved up or down by more than 1% in a day, or 2% in any three-day period. The period of the freeze would then be announced by the regulator, and would not be less than the time necessary for the buyers to pay for the last shares sold and register their new ownership. Exactly similar rules could apply to sales of state bonds and other financial instruments. Derivatives, swaps and other gambling slips that are created and traded as 'hedging' instruments should be subject to gambling tax of at least 10%, and subjected to gambling laws and the regulation of the Gambling Commission. The Commission could establish its own corset on the creation of each class of betting instrument.
Market participants and their conduct can be controlled - and should be controlled. The control need not be complex: just the opposite. The best control would be simple control, and breaches of both the rules and the principles must be punished by both financial levies and penal servitude.
Back in the simple world that existed before the Big Bang of 1986, banks [which were then recognisable as a specific group of trading businesses] were subject to the corset. Just as a material corset pinches in the waistline of a person who is embarrassed by obesity, so the banking corset limited the extent to which each bank could expand its business. Banks were told the limits, and they obeyed: sort of, for a time. But then the Bank of England, as the regulator, allowed the rule to be 'bent': the Bank turned a blind eye to window dressing. The banks were required to demonstrate that they were keeping to the rules on one date each month; which allowed them to manage the timing of loans and repayments so that they went significantly about the permitted level for most of the month. It was by making and all-but-breaking such rules as the corset that old-style regulation became discredited. But if the rules and the methodologies had been imposed effectively they need never have become discredited. The supposedly gentlemanly banks of the pre-big-bang era slid around the rules: and their successors have continued to do so.
The present situation in both global finance and in domestic stock markets requires control. History shows that market players ignore rules that are not enforced, and try to manipulate rules and principles that are enforced; so we should be prepared now to treat market participants with firmness - and no exceptions - if rules or precepts are broken.Then new, simple rules can be made and new precepts for the conduct of market operatives can b established.
Within share markets, rules should specify that only registered owners of shares could ever vote on those shares: and company secretaries [or equivalents] should be required to certify compliance [with draconian penalties for breaches]. A corset can be applied to movements in the valuation of shares, such that sales and all other types of transfers of shares are frozen after the price has moved up or down by more than 1% in a day, or 2% in any three-day period. The period of the freeze would then be announced by the regulator, and would not be less than the time necessary for the buyers to pay for the last shares sold and register their new ownership. Exactly similar rules could apply to sales of state bonds and other financial instruments. Derivatives, swaps and other gambling slips that are created and traded as 'hedging' instruments should be subject to gambling tax of at least 10%, and subjected to gambling laws and the regulation of the Gambling Commission. The Commission could establish its own corset on the creation of each class of betting instrument.
Market participants and their conduct can be controlled - and should be controlled. The control need not be complex: just the opposite. The best control would be simple control, and breaches of both the rules and the principles must be punished by both financial levies and penal servitude.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)