|
|
By Toby Baxendale, on 10 March 10
Some of my City friends who work in banking have had a look at the 2009 Barclays balance sheet and made comment on how the profits are made up.
They report to me that the one off profit from the disposal of BGI to Blackrock was £6.3bn. Add that to the trading profit of £7bn and you get 130% of the total profit of this “bank.”
Accounting like this is like Manchester United selling top player Ronaldo in the last financial year for £80 million when the average sale of a player in the football world produces only £1 – £5 million and kidding themselves that this is a result of them trading profitably in a sustainable way. It seems unlikely that shareholders in this football club will be relying on a spectacular cash event occurring each year as a regular occurrence. Therefore, many analysts are inclined to deduct from the profits such one off events to get a better view of predictable stable cashflow. (see tab 18 of the spreadsheet previously mentioned in yesterdays article and downloaded from here, http://group.barclays.com/Investor-Relations/Financial-results-and-publications/Results-announcements ).
Further, I’m told that a brief review of the numbers indicates that £7bn of the £10.2bn profits are expressed as “trading income” (last year £1.3bn).
I would pose three questions:
a) What if the markets had gone the other way? Would we be told these are not real cash losses?
b) How many politicians that want Glass Steagall separation of retail banking from casino banking will criticise them?
The political class want both the cake and to eat it, or they are just ignorant.
They no doubt are content that 74% of the TOTAL ASSETS of Barclays sit in Barclays Capital – the investment banking or casino arm..
c) Let’s have a look at bonuses – having slashed cost income ratios from 76% q4 08 to 55% q1 09, ratio is now back up at 64% q4 09. Is this what the political class meant when they wanted to see a more equitable salary to profit ratio?
Let us also consider the consequences of mark to market accounting FOR P&L PROFITS. The wisdom of MTM for balance sheet and transparency is not in dispute, but in a government bailout environment, the profit and loss accounts of banks is boosted artificially by the very bailout itself. The effect of interest rates being forced down from 5% to 0.5% artificially boosts the mark to market value of any unhedged long term assets on trading book. I urge you to think about what imputed capital value you have on an income stream today with interest rates at 0.5% as against an interest rate of say 5%, they work in inverse proportion i.e. the lower the rate the higher the capital value. A property generating rent of £1,000 per week, should be multiplied by 200 times to get its capital value or the value of its income stream. A little bit Alice in Wonderland I am sure you will agree.
Bonuses should not be paid on these numbers because the “profits” are unrealised, and will turn to huge losses if interest rates go up as they are still unhedged, remember! The bankers are making sure they can take a bonus on 30 years implied profits today in this low welfare state of credit environment with you and me, aka the taxpayer paying for it.
Let me explain in another way. MTM accounting takes a payment due in the future, say £100 after 1 year, and “discounts this by the interest rate to value the payment today taking into account the delay and the cost of money. So if rates are 5% in this simple example then the MTM value today is a shade over £95, since £95 invested at 5% for 1 year will produce about £100. If the interest rate is 0%, then the MTM value is £100. Therefore, the reduction in interest rates increases the MTM value of payments due in the future..
I question the long term value to profits of:
1) buying alphabet soup bombed out CLOs CDOs, CDO squared structures and funding them at 0.5% courtesy of the taxpayer via the Band of England Discount Window.
The Discount Window remember is being used as the lender of last resort in the banking system and has been very active since the October 2008 crash with us the taxpayer subsidizing all of this!
2) Present valuing (ie booking to p&l as if realised, earned income today) under synthetic (credit default swap) structures of say 30 year loan margins as day 1 profits.
For a more detailed explanation see Gordon Kerr’s presentation March 2nd at the European Parliament reported on this site as “Iceland and the Western Banking System”
http://www.cobdencentre.org/2010/03/iceland-and-the-western-banking-system/
Allister Heath (City AM) further notes that the accounts declare that cost of capital is 12% but return on capital employed is 8% – “shocking – makes no sense” is the comment.
Surely is not Barclays Bank effectively operating as a hedge fund with a modest high street retail bank attached?
I have only the following comment to make on this. If Barclays wants to list in the Caymans and invite me to invest in its shares, that is capitalism operating perfectly in a free market.
Where the Cobden Centre takes issue with this is the operation of the free market being distorted by taxpayer intervention. It is surely unacceptable for the taxpayer to be asked to:
a) underwrite the solvency of this hedge fund,
b) fund it through the Bank of England’s discount window, and
c) pay its employees bonuses based on asset valuations that not even a hedge fund at the racier end would attempt to classify as profits.
Any hedge fund with a cost of capital of 12% and a return on capital of 8% would be asking its “partners” (ie employees) to inject more money to evidence commitment or ’skin in the game’…as the hedgies in Mayfair term it.
So much for the new found stability of our banking system. Our money system continues to get more dishonest every day.
By Toby Baxendale, on 26 February 10
A bank , building society that uses factional reserves, lends long and pays out short is only going to exist should confidence be kept in it. The “Run on the Rock” in the summer of 2007 saw people queuing to get their cash out of the Northern Rock which resulted in the first systematic run on a bank since the 1866 run on the Overend, Gurney & Company bank in the UK.
Readers of this site will know that a bank can only exist with the legal and accounting privilege that allows them to use current creditors – i.e. the depositors of the Presbyterian Mutual Society (PMS) – to lend out a multiple number of times to property loans and other entrepreneurial loans. Readers will also know that when they deposit money they in effect lend it to the bank and become a creditor to the bank. A deposit of cash into a bank/Mutual means you as the depositee lend money to the bank/Mutual That is, to be very clear, when you deposit, you cease to own the money – the bank does. This was established by law in 1811 in Carr V Carr and reaffirmed in Foley V Hill 1846.
The History
The Society’s audited accounts for the year ended 31st March 2008 showed £305m of loans and £5m of liquid assets to pay up to £310m on demand deposits. So one can deduce that there was only £5m of cash supporting £310m IOUs to its creditors, the depositors. This means that the PMS multiplied its credit creation to the tune of 62 times! This is nearly twice the average of all the banks licensed by the Bank of England. In fairness to the Society, they did pay out £21m before they were left with only £5m of cash, so £26m of cash was in their vaults when the run happened. Thus a more conservative 12 x credit was created out of thin air or a leverage ratio of 1 part cash to 12 parts credit existed in this Society.
A quick refresher on how the banking system allows this creation of credit out of thin air can be found here http://www.cobdencentre.org/2010/02/a-day-of-reckoning/ where I say, “ It is often forgotten but when you place £1m in a savings account (in cash) in say the Royal Bank of Scotland, which has no legal reserve requirement, they then lend £970k (in credit) , keeping on average 3% of cash back in reserves, to an entrepreneur in say HSBC, who then deposits that money in HSBC. We now have one claim to the original £1m and one claim to the £970k. The money supply has moved from £1m to £1.97m – just like magic! This is credit expansion.
The reality is that across all the banks in the United Kingdom licensed by the Bank of England, we have for every £1 of money (in cash), £34 in claims to money (credit)!”
The Administrators’ report tells the sorry story of events in summary which I list underneath, but one glaring fact is omitted. This is that the very Government of the UK actually triggered the loss of confidence in this Bank. When our Prime Minister in his own words was “saving the world” he ordered a full guarantee , government backed, on all deposits. The PMS, which had 10,000 members, went into administration following a rush by savers to withdraw their money at the height of the banking crisis in October 2008. People withdrew their money as they learned the Society was not covered by the government’s bank deposit guarantee scheme. Previously they were content to leave their money in the Society. For the purposes of this article, it is not needed to debate the point: was it or was it not a bank that should have been supported by this guarantee? The salient point being that not being guaranteed scared people into making withdrawals where little existed before.
From the Administrators’ report of the12th January 2009 that can be down loaded here http://www.presbyterianmutualsociety.co.uk/files/Administrator’s%20Proposals%2012.1.09.pdf the Society was placed into Administration by the Directors on 17th November 2008. The following are selected quotes from this report which speak for themselves:
“the demand for withdrawals by members of their investments exceeded its cash reserves;”
“the members’ investments were historically withdrawable on demand but the cash was invested by the Society in longer term investments such as property and loans.”
“For the Society to allow members to withdraw their investments on demand and invest members’ money in longer term investments, the Society required a high degree of confidence among its members that their investments were secure. However this confidence has been severely tested by the current economic climate and eventually the demand by members for withdrawals exceeded the Society’s cash reserves. …I believe it will be difficult for the Society in its current form to continue as a going concern.”
“loan capital will be treated as creditors and will therefore be paid in preference to members’ shares.”
“Government Guarantee
As you will be aware the Society does not benefit from the deposit guarantee scheme.
During the month of October 2008 the Society experienced an unprecedented increase in the number of requests for repayment of members’ investments. It was common practice for the Society to repay investments on receipt of a request, and payments of £21 million were made up to Friday 24th October 2008, leaving £4 million in the Society’s bank account.
An emergency meeting of the Society’s Board of Directors was convened on 25th October 2008 and it was resolved that:
…the 21 day notice period for the repayment of members’ investments be invoked in respect of requests received from members as at that date and any new requests received from members.
On 6th November 2008 the Society’s Board of Directors met again and it was reported that the demand among the Society’s members to withdraw their investments had increased which further exacerbated the Society’s liquidity. It was also reported at this meeting that legal proceedings had been commenced by three members seeking repayment of their investments. It was resolved by the Society’s Board of Directors on 6th November 2008 that the Society should be placed into Administration so that its assets could be protected, subject to enabling legislation being passed to permit the Society to go into administration.
During the period 27th October 2008 to 17th November 2008, the Society had received requests for withdrawals in excess of £50 million but the Society had cash reserves of only £4 million to meet such requests.”
Now this would have been the story of every bank in the UK if the government had not acted as it did as we were ‘panicking’ as a nation. We should also note that all banks are in the same precarious situation as the PMS was with regard to lending long and paying out short still, to this day. Do we need to live like this?
The Future Safe Way to Run Banks and Provide Interest for Savers and Lending to the needs of Trade.
If banks were mandated to hold 100% reserves of cash in their vaults, they could issue their bank statements saying what they owe you each month and you would know that you actually had cash in the vault to support your deposit that is represented by your bank statement. The bank statement after all is only a thing that would more accurately be called a “bank IOU statement.” Should you want interest you could ask for the cash you have deposited to be placed in a highly liquid government bond that could be converted into cash when you need it, paying you a rate of interest. Should you want a higher rate of interest, you can lend your money i.e. cease ownership and place in a bond that has in turn been lent to an entrepreneur for 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years etc with the highest rate of interest being given for the longer term locked away and lent to somebody.
The Solution for Paying Out 100% of the PMS Depositors’ Lost Money- £310m – Now, Today
Following the work of 5 Nobel Prize winners and the founder of the American Chicago School, I would suggest the following written about in the Day of Reckoning article;
The Bank of England immediately issues notes to cover all the deposits i.e. redeem all the depositors for 100% cash notes and coins to be placed in their accounts. Please note, this costs the Bank of England the price of paper and the ink and nothing else and IS NOT INFLATIONARY and generates no liability to the UK taxpayer – see next point.
At the same time, get the administrator of the PMS to delete all current creditors (the depositors) as these have now been redeemed from the bank’s books by the Bank of England. The deleting of these bank obligations means that the money the depositors did lend on deposit to the PSM no longer exists, so for the sake of argument, if there was £310m of deposits, these have been redeemed in cash by the Bank of England and the equivalent amount of deposits have been removed from the money supply. Cost to the Bank of England = zero and cost to the UK tax payer = zero. Money supply stays the same.
The PMS in administration now has only assets i.e. loans from entrepreneurs /people who are repaying the loans or mortgages. These can now continue to get repaid, but instead of paying the creditors of the PMS, there are now none, so these loans can go into paying off the National Debt.
This way all parties win.
A courageous politician in Northern Ireland or in mainland GB could well put forward a Private Members’ bill which could be the first legislative move to establishing Honest Money.
The Day of Reckoning article linked to above provides the start of the legislative solution to the whole UK wide banking system whose model is sadly no different to that of the little PMS.
By Toby Baxendale, on 24 February 10
Our Corporate Affairs Director Steve Baker has posed this question to some of his fellow board members, “Would be great to nail this phenomenon on the system of money – that is to demonstrate clearly that it is credit expansion which redistributes wealth to the wealthy:
In other words, the trickle-down effect that is meant to spring from wealth accumulation has not worked as it should have. Flexible labour markets have delivered big time for bankers and shareholders, but failed to improve the lot of ordinary workers in the same way. In Britain, growth in consumption was funded not by real economic advancement, but by the fool’s paradise of ever-increasing debt.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeremy-warner/7105004/Capitalism-has-forgotten-to-share-the-wealth.html
The essence of a credit expansion starts with the policy of the Treasury / Bank of England aka “the State”. The aim is to make money cheaper so that more money / credit is granted to borrowers, more economic activity is then meant to take place.
How is this done?
If you wanted to make jam cheaper, you would need to produce more of it for the same level of demand. The only way the jam market would clear is for the jam to sell at that demand for a lower price.
The State has the monopoly issue of money under its control. If the whole history of man was displayed in the form of a 12 hour clock, with today being the 12th hour, the State has only had this monopoly of the production of money since the end of the Gold Standard at the outbreak of the 1st World War. Attempts to get back on the Standard took place in the 20’s but were abandoned in the 30’s. Post World War II until 1971 there was a weak form of Gold Standard under the Bretton Woods system. Since that date, there has only been paper standards in different countries. So from the dawn of civilization until about the 11th hour and the 59th minute of human existence, Gold was money. It was a commodity for which all things exchanged for, it was produced by private individuals and no one person controlled the production of gold. Like language, it was a spontaneous invention of human beings to facilitate working together. It is thus one of the greatest inventions of man.
If the the State, as the monopoly issuer of paper money decided that the economy needs more liquidity (we have done this with our £200bn QE program), the bank will buy its governments outstanding debt obligations , or IOU’s, commonly called Gilts or Bonds, with newly minted money (to monetize). Thus the new money, like the new jam, or the jam over supply illustrated in the above example , enters the economy via the recipients of the new money.
Dear reader, I would like you to pause for a minute and ask yourself how comfortable would you feel about the government setting the price of jam and issuing all of its supply? Is this not what they tried to do in the Soviet Union? Absenting the price mechanism, that coordinates the choices of many millions of people, to allow suppliers of jam to know how much to produce to satisfy the demand for jam, and we have shortages for jam leaving shops empty for sometimes many months on end. Why do we trust the State to do this?
We seem to accept that the government, in its wisdom, that must be greater than that of all its citizens , can plan the production and supply of money as the old Soviet system did for a whole host of goods and services, for its subjects.
Experience will tell us, that like the Soviet production of jam, our State production of money will cause shortages and surpluses of varying degrees. Worst still, constructivist policy activism by the State via its agents at the Bank of England attempt each time they set the interest rate, to produce just enough money to keep the economy on an even keel. The evidence that they get this wrong is called “Boom and Bust.”
If you got jam production wrong, your surplus jam goes to waste or you can not feed your demand.
An over supply of money is called a “boom.” An undersupply is called “bust.” Every single boom from the Soutth Sea Bubble onwards can be traced back to some artificial expansion of money / credit not brought about by the free interplay of market forces determining the production of money. As money permeates every aspect of the economy, an over or under supply of it has far more consequences than an over or under supply of money. In this current “bust” I would submit that virtually all people in the world wide system of capitalistic production have been effected in their personal lives to some degree of negativity as they have had to adjust to the new world order.
The effects of this over supply are so little understood, it is worth while explaining once more by looking Richard Cantillon in his Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en Général (1755). This showed us that if money supply doubled, prices do not necessarily double. Money is not neutral in terms of consumption and production. Money goes into the system when created by the government to the bond holders whose bonds are redeemed. With this new money they have the first wealth effect of this new money. Like a counterfeiter he exchanges his new bits of paper for real goods and services, bidding up the prices of these goods and services. The producers of these initial goods and services then do the same with the goods and services that they buy and so on and so forth until the prices for the last people, those who spend less in the economy, the poor, those on fixed income (pensioners, the thrifty saver) etc, spend on goods and services that now have a higher money price. Thus, the insidious effect is a transfer of wealth away from the poorest in society to the richest in society: those banksters who buy / sell the bonds and the bond holders who have received the newly minted money.
We must remember, the bankster in all of this is often the agent of the State when he sells and buys the government debt either creating over supply or under supply of money. He takes his commission right at the well spring or the fountain of this money making process. He gets the first ability to benefit from the wealth effect as he can spend his money on goods and services at the same time as the bond investor. He is a direct recipient of the first order of the wealth transferred from the poorest to the richest members of society. The bankster is on the welfare state of credit. The government is totally in control of this process yet does not seem to realize it.
This is why Jeremy Warner in his well argued Telegraph article wonders how so much wealth has been created for so few and why his the trickle down did not have a positive effect on the poorest members of our society. I hope I have demonstrated that as the production of paper money in itself does not create wealth , as if it did, world poverty could be ended tomorrow, like a counterfeiter, new money allows its first recipients to exchange nothing (bits of paper) for real things such as Mayfair town houses etc. The sad salient point, is as the “wealth effect” works its way through society bidding up prices, the poorest people pay more for their goods and services. They have what little wealth they have confiscated to the benefit of the likes of the banksters who are knee deep on the welfare state of credit. Real wealth creation happens when entrepreneurs start coming up with better methods of production to make better goods and services more efficiently then before. There has been too much of the former providing the illusion of wealth and too little of the latter.
By Toby Baxendale, on 22 February 10
I went to this event today.
“22/02/2010 – Ideas Space
Quantitative Easing: Friend or Future Foe?
The Bank of England entered unchartered territory in January last year when the Treasury authorised it to begin a radical monetary policy experiment that we now know as “Quantitative Easing”. Given the unprecedented monetary conditions resulting from the liquidity crisis, the Asset Purchase Facility has been welcomed with open arms, and now stands at almost £200bn invested in UK gilts and corporate debt. But has QE had an economic impact to match its political use? Will the cure prove as dangerous as the disease? How and when should the Bank close the lid on this potential Pandora’s Box?”
Several leading economic figures including Roger Bootle, Tim Congdon and Allister Heath, chaired by Policy Exchange’s Chief Economist, Andrew Lilico, will debate and discuss the merits of quantitative easing, the exit strategies for the Bank of England, the main challenges the UK’s economy will face as a result of the program in 2010 and beyond, and how policymakers should face them.”
These are my notes:
Tim Congdon spoke first , this basic message was that unless money supply, primarily bank deposits, is kept very tight and only moderately growing, there will be trouble ahead with boom or bust. QE has kept the economy on the road and the money supply has not fallen. He acknowledges that there were some problems in measuring this.
Roger Bootle second, he opened by accusing one of our columnist, Liam Halligan of being intellectually devoid of any understanding of economics as he viewed Liam’s world to be predicated on massive inflation and a bond strike and this would never happen. He also said that QE could happen an infinitum. I tell no lie, this is what he said. In fact he was of the view that this should go on and on for whatever amount of time until we were out of trouble. People needed to believe that this policy was going to be the policy that would sort out the economy and indeed he agreed with Krugman, that crude of all the crude Keynesians, that Japan had actually done too little to stop the ongoing deflation. The UK’s risk was never going to be inflation but deflation.
Allister Heath opened with saying he reluctantly supported QE as the key thing was to stop a monetary deflation but questioned why we were having a debate in the first place about the merits of QE and should we do more etc when we should be questioning why do we inflation targeting ? As this has given us the biggest boom and bust in living memory should we not dispense with this independent Bank of England , FSA and other so called control bodies and centralise further into one overall controlling body that controls the broad money supply?
I was utterly bemused by all this tosh spoken in the name of economics with glimmers of hope only coming from Allister Heath.
The chairman asked three questions and the audience were asked three questions with one follow up.
I asked “in business I create wealth by making my factors of production work more efficiently to produce more goods and services. I invariably have to lengthen the structure of my production by saving and investing this money in new and more efficient kit to produce more of my goods and services for better prices and service level for my customers. With those goods I can exchange them with other entrepreneurs, shop keepers etc for my basic food, rent for my roof over my head etc via the medium of money. Money is bits of paper in this country and an electronic bank deposit, so having more of the bits of paper and banks deposits to exchange for the same goods and services would only mean my purchasing power had been debased, so no wealth would have been created. I thought this question go to the heart of the matter.
The second was about bond yields – had they or had they not moved up or down.
The third as about what the panel thought about the questioner’s view that we could only get out of this mess via and export related recovery.
Peter Bottomley asked a question that I cannot remember.
The Chairman then had another round of questions.
Mine was relegated to the bottom by the Chairman. Roger Bootle thought it should be answered by Tim Congdon and in the end Allister Heath did give an answer which acknowledged that no wealth could be created by paper alone and that there was a large body of work in Mises and Hayek showing that the creation of credit causes boom and bust . He was reluctant to support QE as it at least kept money supply near static as opposed to imploding, but saw no ability for it to create wealth . I was not allowed time to debate this with Allister , but did mention afterwards that as he said to me, the Austrian School was divided between those who would support a printing of money to offset a fall in V and those who would just advocate a deflation to allow the market to clear at new lower prices. Having to go I should have added, there is a third camp based around the Cobden Centre who would advocate 100% reserves as this would fix the money supply and you can never have a run on the bank with 100% reserves in place. This is explained here http://www.cobdencentre.org/2010/02/a-day-of-reckoning/ .
Allister framed his discussion in the mainstream language of the Quantity Theory of Money, more I suspect to engage with his fellow economists rather than he having any belief in it being more than a tautology. For a refutation of the Quantity Theory see here http://www.cobdencentre.org/2009/09/qe-errors/ . I did point out at the end after the event had finished that if V went down, how could me selling a house to someone, real bricks and mortar exchanging for money and having it sold back to me for the same 10 times create any wealth? Yes we can increase the velocity of the circulation of money by doing daft things like I describe, but Allister accepted nothing like wealth creation will come of it.
The medium of exchange will not create wealth on its own. It is not wealth. If you hold these bits of paper you hold claims to wealth. The retained goods and the savings we have are wealth. The whole capital infrastructure of our companies and private balance sheets are wealth . This infrastructure drives wealth creation via the dynamic entrepreneurial spirit of men of action who mix the factors of production into the most efficient combinations to satisfy the most amounts of needs. No small matter of printing paper that facilitates exchange or adding electronic reserves to banks will make that wealth creation process any easier. The second part of this article explains how wealth is created http://www.cobdencentre.org/2009/09/can-the-manipulation-of-interest-rates-create-wealth/ .
A poor day for economics!
By Toby Baxendale, on 21 February 10
Via Darius Guppy: our world balances on a sea of debt
What is needed is a root and branch re-evaluation of that most curious of cultural inventions – money, argues Darius Guppy.
See the enclosed article above, it could be written for this site.
I am delighted by the comments that show more and more people are questioning the madness of fractional reserve banking.
Soddy was our first Nobel price winner to suggest 100% reserves as a solution and I am delighted that Guppy is aware of this academic and his work.
By Steven Baker, on 15 February 10
 Dowd, Alchemists of Loss We are delighted to announce a forthcoming book by Cobden Centre Senior Fellow Professor Kevin Dowd and US-based journalist and former investment banker Martin Hutchinson: The Alchemists of Loss: How Modern Finance and Government Intervention Crashed the Financial System. The book contains some delightfully simple insights into a complex subject. For example:
The credit default swap sneaked up on everybody, becoming a $62 trillion market, without anyone outside the business knowing much about it. As the Bear Stearns, Lehman and AIG debacles revealed, these instruments also involved highly non-transparent credit risks of their own. As a holder of a CDS you don’t know whether your counterparty has issued only a few of your CDS, in which case you’ll probably get paid in a bankruptcy, or whether he has issued fifty times the outstanding debt you’re trying to hedge, in which case you’re unlikely to get paid.
And moreover:
Financial engineering’s benefit to the global economy is highly questionable and the proliferation of financially-engineered products of recent years has brought few benefits and led to huge losses for society at large. As we have seen, one quarter’s bad losses in late 2008 wiped out all the accumulated financial engineering profits of the last quarter century and saddled taxpayers with a bill for hundreds of billions, if not more.
Prof. Dowd has kindly agreed to pre-release two chapters through The Cobden Centre:
From Chapter 16:
Alert readers will have already picked up some of the advice we would give investors and clients of financial institutions:
- take a longer-term perspective and return to investment rather than speculation;
- do not seek to ‘enhance’ yields, because this always exposes investors to hidden costs and risks, whilst firms seeking finance should resist cutting corners on their financing costs, for the same reason; thus, both parties should be realistic in their expectations;
- avoid frequent trading, focus on static over dynamic strategies, buy and hold over activist portfolio management;
- pay more attention to costs and hidden charges, and work on the assumption that higher charges are usually a good signal of a bad deal;
- distrust commission-based salespeople;
- if you use derivatives, be clear why and use them only for risk management and not speculation;
- avoid complicated opaque products; and
- do not take liquidity for granted and ensure that your liquidity is protected in a crisis.
Besides this motherhood and apple pie stuff, investors should also be careful of correlation-based investment and risk management strategies, which work well when not needed but are apt to break down when they are. This is not to suggest that they should give up on diversification. People understood diversification long before Modern Portfolio Theory, but they tended to practice it differently and more wisely. Diversification was assessed by committees of experienced practitioners, who took a long-term view and relied on their judgment rather than unreliable correlation estimates – a far cry from modern practices of modern fund management, with its obsession with short-term performance assessment
Investors should demand transparency. Perhaps the most sobering lesson we have learned since the subprime crisis broke is the benefit of transparency in business dealings. Time after time, when a fiasco has occurred, a key contributing factors has lack of transparency. Subprime mortgages, CDOs and credit default swaps were all financial innovations that relied crucially on nobody asking too many questions. So too with the vast Madoff Ponzi scheme, involving some of the most sophisticated investors in the world, which rested on the same fatal human omission.
Download Chapter 16 to read on.
From Chapter 17:
The restoration of a rational and stable financial system inevitably requires major reform on a number of fronts. History gives much guidance here and also a role model: the period we should seek to emulate is the nineteenth century. Then money was sound, the dominant currency of the time, the pound, was literally as good as gold, while financial institutions were conservative and generally stable, and an altogether healthier financial ethos reigned.
It is very common these days to sneer at the gold standard: after all, it was Keynes who once dismissed it as “a relic from a barbarous age”. We would suggest, on the contrary, that a gold standard or some suitably 21st Century commodity equivalent would be highly desirable, and put an end to the disastrous century-long experiment with fiat money and its attendant miseries of inflation and monetary instability. The fact that Keynes opposed the gold standard is a further reason to support it.
The nineteenth century model would also entail major reforms to financial institutions and the regulatory system: greater liability and greater responsibility, the repeal of deposit insurance and investor protection legislation and the abolition of the big financial regulatory bodies such as the SEC and FSA. And by nineteenth century standards, we really mean early nineteenth century standards, those that pertained to the period before the Bank Charter Act of 1844 and the Companies Act of 1862, when liability was very real.
As for the banking system, we would suggest that the role model is Scotland pre-1845, when the Scottish banking system was virtually free of state control, unhindered by a central bank, and equally admired and envied across the world – and copied by countries such as Canada and Australia. In all three countries, free banking systems operated highly successful for very long periods of time. Indeed, the Canadian system was widely admired in the United States – and many US reformers in the late nineteenth century saw it as their ideal. The Canadian system was highly stable – apart from the failures of two small Alberta banks in 1985, its last notable bank failure was that of the Home Bank of Canada back in 1923. There were no Canadian bank failures in the 1930s and, even after the establishment of the Bank of Canada in 1934, many still regard the Canadian banking system as the best in the world.
Our first choice environment would be one with a commodity standard, free banking (no central bank) and financial laissez-faire, restrictions on the use of the “limited liability” corporate form and the most limited government. Even if we don’t return all the way to these early nineteenth century standards (and we can imagine the opposition!), we should still move as much as possible in that direction, though we would not advocate the reintroduction of the notorious debtors’ prisons immortalized in the fiction of Charles Dickens! However, our proposed reforms herein are adapted to the “second best world” (if it’s actually that; it may be about thousandth best of all the ‘parallel universe’ possibilities) in which we live, with relatively large government, a fiat currency and a central bank.
The most important institutional policy that must be solved is that of an excessively expansionary monetary policy. Simply making the monetary authority “independent” does not achieve this if the monetary authority retains its interactions with politicians and the financial community, both of which want loose money. The ideal to aim at is a hard money Fed, a Paul Volcker Fed.
Download Chapter 17 to read on.
You can also pre-order Alchemists of Loss at Amazon.
Further Reading
- Huerta de Soto, Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles
- Baxendale, A day of reckoning: how to end the banking crisis now
- What is wrong with banking, part 1: the legal nature of banking contracts
- Frank Whitson Fetter, Development of British Monetary Orthodoxy 1797 – 1875
- F. A. Hayek, Denationalisation of Money: The Argument Refined
- Gordon Kerr, How To Destroy the British Banking System and Bailing out the Banks – Glaring Evidence of Moral Hazard
- James Tyler, My Journey to Austrianism via the City, Money is not working and How to avoid future encounters with financial meltdown
- Irving Fisher, 100% Money, 1935
By Steven Baker, on 25 January 10
 Should banks be permitted to operate with a fractional reserve on demand deposits or should 100% reserves be a legal requirement? Should there be a central bank with a monopoly on note issue? What are the consequences of these choices? These were mainstream questions in the 19th century and they demand attention today. Here, following the ESCP Europe/Cobden Centre “Colloquium on Honest Money”, Steve Baker frames the debate to be had about money and banking.
Today, people are well aware that we have a banking crisis, a “credit crunch“. That is, there is a problem in the financial system, a system which is centrally planned — see Economic Interventionism, Banks and the Crisis – and an approach which necessarily works badly – see Strip the Bank of England of its power. So, what are the features of the present system and what are the alternatives?
The two important features of the present, orthodox system are:
- The banks are not required to keep money in reserve to the value of demand deposits. That is, they operate with a fractional reserve. As Toby Baxendale has pointed out, today if more than one person in 34 asks their bank for their money back in notes and coins, which is a reasonable, contractually-sound request, we will have a systemic banking crisis — a run on all banks — because there is simply not as much cash as people’s bank statements say there is.
- There are, across the world, central banks in which committees of experts set “monetary policy” — see The kindness of geniuses – a rate of interest which, through various mechanisms, affects the entire economy. And the economy is, of course, what people choose to do, since the economy is nothing more or less than the cooperation of thinking, acting individuals and of corporations run by thinking, acting individuals; therefore, manipulating the interest rate necessarily distorts the actions of people and the productive structure. Central banks also act as “lenders of last resort” in the event of a run on a particular bank — which is possible because of their fractional reserve — but in the case of Northern Rock, the Bank of England did not ultimately fulfill that role.
Stepping back from today’s monetary orthodoxy — a fractional reserve and a central bank — the options are plain: we can have a 100% reserve on demand deposits, or not, and separately, we can have central banks with a monopoly on the supply of currency, or not. Hence, Jesús Huerta de Soto models (PDF) the banking debate as follows:
 The shape of the debate (click to enlarge) As Irving Fisher, one of the founders of Monetarism, pointed out in the sub-title and content of his book 100% Money, there are potential benefits to be gained from moving to another system. For example, Fisher identified the following as the headline benefits of moving to a 100% reserve requirement:
- keeping chequing banks 100% liquid so that there can be no more runs on banks,
- preventing inflation and deflation,
- largely curing or preventing depressions,
- and wiping out much of the National Debt.
Since we have had a run on a bank, since the money supply has deflated, since attempts to reflate the money supply risk price inflation and distort the economy, since the boom-bust cycle is evidently still in progress and since we are doubling our national debt, it is perhaps worth taking seriously the question of how our system of money and banking is organized.
Furthering that discussion was the purpose of the recent ESCP Europe/Cobden Centre Colloquium on Honest Money directed by Founding Fellow Dr Anthony J. Evans, Chaired by Corporate Affairs Director Steve Baker and attended by Chairman Toby Baxendale amongst 9 other academics and practitioners in the field of money and banking.
We will continue to develop and promote a range of ideas to open up and further the debate on money and banking.
Further Reading
- Baxendale, A day of reckoning: how to end the banking crisis now
- Frank Whitson Fetter, Development of British Monetary Orthodoxy 1797 – 1875
- F. A. Hayek, Denationalisation of Money: The Argument Refined
- Huerta de Soto, Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles
- Gordon Kerr, How To Destroy the British Banking System and Bailing out the Banks – Glaring Evidence of Moral Hazard
- James Tyler, My Journey to Austrianism via the City, Money is not working and How to avoid future encounters with financial meltdown
- Irving Fisher, 100% Money, 1935
By James, on 20 January 10
A speech by James Tyler to the Adam Smith Institute Next Generation Group, 6th October 2009. This speech is also available on hedgehedge.com.
I have spent the best part of the last two decades picking my wits against the market. It’s an unforgiving game: I’ve seen ups and downs, and many of my rivals buried under an avalanche of hubris, passion, illogical thought and unchecked emotion.
I have witnessed the sheer folly of the ERM crisis, the Asian crisis, the failure of the Gods at Long Term Capital Management and the insanity of the tech boom.
I have enjoyed the ‘NICE’ decade (None Inflationary Constant Expansion), and scared myself silly during the credit crisis.
I am a trader.
I risk my own money and live or die by my decisions, and face the threat of personal bankruptcy every time I switch my screens on. I get no salary – indeed I turn up at the start of the month with a large office overhead – a ‘negative’ salary. I have no fancy company pension scheme, no lucrative monopoly or franchise.
I eat what I kill.
Mistakes cost me my livelihood, so, above all, my decisions have to be rooted in practical and logical decision making.
Some have called my kind parasitic, but I would have said that I bring order, efficiency, predictability, stability and deep liquidity to crucial process: a process that makes the whole world keep ticking.
I make money work.
I make the market in interest rate derivatives: a market born out of the neo classical revolution in finance fostered in Chicago during the 1970s. I am a child of Freidman, Fisher Black, Myron Scholes and the modern international financial system.
My analysis was steeped in the neo-classical, efficient markets paradigm.
Friedman’s ideal was working. Enlightened central bankers guided the free market with gentle nudges and short term liquidity infusions, free floating currencies gently adjusted themselves to the constant flow of new information and efficient and rational markets took all in their stride.
Credit flowed, people got wealthier, economies developed and all was well.
And then the crisis struck.
Continue reading “My Journey to Austrianism via the City”
By Steven Baker, on 19 January 10
This article has been brought forward in response to the widespread positive reception of Baxendale and Evan’s measure of the money supply at Conservative Party Conference.
 In their working paper Assessing UK money supply measures in the light of the credit crunch, Toby Baxendale and Anthony J. Evans provide a better measure of the money supply. In this article, Steven Baker explores the background to the paper and indicates some key findings.
Many people know the Bank of England is creating new money through quantitative easing but if the quantity of money is being increased, how is that quantity being measured? What is counted as money?
As the Bank of England explains:
When the Bank is concerned about the risks of very low inflation, it cuts Bank Rate – that is, it reduces the price of central bank money. But interest rates cannot fall below zero.
So if they are almost at zero, and there is still a significant risk of very low inflation, the Bank can increase the quantity of money – in other words, inject money directly into the economy. That process is sometimes known as ‘quantitative easing’.
But when I consider quantitative easing, I am concerned with the following problems:
- It is not clear that the Bank of England has a useful definition of the money supply. The present measures do not correspond to economic activity — which is what the Bank is trying to increase with new money — and this crisis was famously not foreseen.
- As commentators have reported, “the Bank’s Governor, Mervyn King, seemed pretty confident that QE could work. But even he would admit he has no idea how long it will take – or how much money he will have to print to get there.” This uncertainty seems less than ideal given the risk of price inflation.
- As the end of the present round of QE approached, it appeared it was not working.
- According to Austrian-School economic scholars including Hayek and Huerta de Soto, injecting new money can create only a harmful illusion of prosperity.
As my colleagues point out in their working paper, the fact that the monetary authorities have turned to increasing the quantity of money will focus attention on how that quantity is measured. This article provides some background information and indicates Baxendale and Evans’ key findings.
Continue reading “What is money?”
By Antoine Clarke, on 7 December 09
This paper originally appeared as Economic Notes No. 39, published by the Libertarian Alliance in 1992. The Paper is available in full here.
This paper is not primarily intended as a contribution to economic theory. It is instead intended to steer the debate on free banking away from statements of loyalty to the “line”: that orthodoxy of political views which is often incoherent and always an affront to individual reason. This is accomplished by concentrating upon the process of argument.
In “A Credibility Problem” (Part I), there is a critical evaluation of the depth of understanding by free banking’s supporters of their own position, and a hard evaluation of the likely effectiveness of these arguments. Then in “How To Do It” (Part II) micropolitics are applied to the free banking issue.
PART I: A CREDIBILITY PROBLEM
To expect the introduction of legal private currency – that is to say not state owned, not state regulated, and the use of which will not result in prosecutions on the grounds of issuing counterfeit notes, fraud nor ‘economic sabotage’ – is to dream.
Most people divorce their dreams from reality. In the Conservative Party’s youth wings, home to many who “dream with their eyes open”, a majority does not as yet support the privatisation of money. Given the tendency in these sections of the Tory Party to “vote the slate” and “walk the line”, heedless of the anguished bleatings for moderation from Conservative Central Office, the fact that the “comrades” are not four-square behind the extirpation of state dirigisme is perhaps an indication of how unpractical currency liberation appears to be. Perhaps it is also a problem of definition: how many people could explain the benefits of currency demonopolisation? Of these how many would the enlightened comrade entrust with his savings? I leave the reader to make up his or her mind, but for my part I know no one personally who can simultaneously convince me of the urgent need for privatization, assure me that its introduction is remotely likely, persuade me that it won’t involve considerable disruption when introduced, and sell to me the proposition that I am better off using this currency without qualms about ‘funny money’ or ‘junk bonds’. I haven’t even begun to consider the technical operation of such a currency, which is where I consider that Hayek has left a host of questions unanswered. In short there is a credibility problem.
This is a matter that I have tested before writing this paper, by asking acquaintances of mine who are not intimately familiar with the works of people who write for the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Adam Smith Institute or the Libertarian Alliance. The test was carried out by asking the respondent what he or she thinks of the privatisation of money. The response that comes to mind most readily but is not always articulated (we do live in a civil society) is: “It’s insane!”
After a period of time devoted to demonstrating the possibility that currency denationalisation is not necessarily insane, the immediate reply is: “It couldn’t work.”
This is an understandable objection because it reflects a distinction between what Ayn Rand called “an error of knowledge” and “moral failure”. Some technical arguments exist, and I propose to evaluate some of them in the course of this paper, but it would be a gross overstatement of the public’s awareness of market economics to assume that these arguments are widely disseminated, assimilated, or even that they are conclusive. At this stage, after some explanation that the topic has been researched by Nobel prizewinners and that some historical studies have offered grounds for accepting the principle that private money could exist, in possibly atypical circumstances, the victim of my experiment may recoil at the notion of one of his or her standards for gauging reality being shattered. The response may then become: “It’s unnatural!”
By now emotional objections will have come into play; privatisation of the Bank of England is at least credible but the abolition of legal tender restrictions is – in appearance at any rate – the end of civilisation as we know it.
Having reassured the listener of the seriousness of my case and having suggested that civilisation might not end because the monarch’s head is not on every bank note the problem turns to the consequences of such radical reform: “It isn’t safe!”
This response is often considered awkward because anyone with the faintest understanding of economics, and banking especially, will feel inclined to agree …
This problem is therefore of crucial importance: are private currencies less secure than ‘junk bonds’ as well as non-inflationary? Those who answer glibly “No” to the former and “Yes” to the latter are probably not the sort of people that I will take private scrip from.
Scepticism about privatising currency is not merely understandable, in keeping with the view that the ‘masses don’t know where their true interests lie’, but is rather a healthy indication that people are wary of panaceae, immiment miracles and ‘leave it all to the market: everyone’s a winner’. Those who propounded the decimal calendar, lunar colonies before 1985 and the revival of British Lawn Tennis due imminently – since 1936 – are today on a par with those who promise the abolition of inflation and monetary stability.
The credibility problem is compounded by the additional correlation of forces supporting or opposing change. The basic list of opponents to change is more powerful than for any privatisation to date. The list of supporters of currency privatisation is the flimsiest for any privatisation to date.The opponents come in four categories: interest groups in favour of less choice in currency exchanges than exists at present (i.e. Socialists, certain sections of bureaucracy); interest groups in favour of the status quo (i.e. the Bank of England, H.M. Treasury); some financial institutions that would benefit in a marketplace, issuing currency, but with more to lose (in terms of market share to new operators and in faster clearing of credit) than seems prudent to stake on change (i.e. some banks and building societies, particularly the larger ones); those potential users of private currencies who would prefer to keep ‘safe’ state currency because it’s the known quantity and because it is ‘guaranteed’ (i.e. the entire population of the United Kingdom).
THE ANTI-PROGRESSIVE FORCES
Those whose interests lie with greater state control are of little concern to this study: its purpose is not to convert Socialists, nor bureaucrats. This study is more interested in the reasons why money privatisation is not in prospect in the UK, what the weaknesses are in the argument for free currencies, and whether or how the enterprise might succeed.
To read on: download the paper.
|
|
