Banking

Another dangerous Quango in the offing

From our UK edition

This government’s love of quangos reached new heights in today’s Budget when Darling announced the creation of a ‘credit adjudicator service’. This will allow companies who feel they have been unfairly denied credit by their bank to appeal the decision to the credit adjudicator service which will have the legal power to order the bank to lend the money.    The Treasury is quick to stress that businesses will have to have claims referred to the credit adjudicator service by their regional business body. But this quango, which will cost five million pounds a year to run, strikes me as a quite absurd attempt to second guess commercial lending decisions. It is also unaccountable.

Two blasts from the past

From our UK edition

Michael Savage observes that Cameron’s denunciation of Brown’s 'weak' premiership recalled Tony Blair’s famous savaging of the ‘weak, weak, weak’ Major government . Here it is: After watching that, I chanced upon an exchange between Blair and Cameron, dated November 2006. Their subject? NHS budget cuts. The first two minutes of the clip reinforce just how complicit the Conservatives were in Brown and Blair’s free for all. Cameron was aghast that "budgets were being raided to solve financial deficits".

Osborne colours the water blue

From our UK edition

George Osborne has long been in the City’s crosshairs, and criticism peaked last week when less than a quarter of a City panel believe he has the mettle to be Chancellor. Today, Osborne fights back in the FT, with a piece co-penned by Jeffrey Sachs. The pair set out an argument for immediate ‘frugality’, rather than ‘cuts’, and damn Brown’s economic policy as short-term politicking: ‘We are sceptical that a sustainable economic recovery can be based on either reinflating the sectors that have declined or believing future job creation can come simply from the public sector payroll.

City middlemen don’t like Osborne precisely because he is competent

From our UK edition

The City’s elopement with New Labour has ended violently. A poll of leading financiers, conducted by City AM, reveals that 73 percent think that a Tory majority would be best for the economy; a mere 10 percent support Labour. But the City has little enthusiasm for George Osborne: 23 percent believe he has the mettle to be Chancellor, 13 percent behind Ken Clarke. So where is it going wrong for Osborne? James Kirkup observes that the Tories recent collapse in the polls coincided with Osborne and Cameron obscuring their economic message. But the City’s antipathy to Osborne is long established. Disquiet reigned even when Osborne and the Tories were storming the polls.

Hague and Cameron are vindicated for leaving the EPP

From our UK edition

Daniel Hannan breaks the, sadly, not very surprising news that MEPs have voted overwhelmingly in favour of an EU Tobin tax. The margin: 536 to 80. Only the European Conservatives and Reformist group and a handful of radicals opposed the motion. The EPP, which describes itself as ‘centrist’, voted uniformly in favour. Cameron was right to withdraw from a grouping whose interests are at odds not only with British Conservatives but with Britain itself: a tax on all financial transactions would castrate the City. What does this division mean for Britain? On the face of it not a lot: anyone of the member governments could veto it. However, many European governments, including our own, seem alarmingly pro the measures.

Clegg: Heir to Thatcher?

From our UK edition

Nick Clegg has a blue rose in his mouth in tomorrow's Spectator, serenading readers - and showing his hidden Tory side. I have to say, he puts his heart into it. Not only does the Lib Dem leader say he'll end the structural deficit with 100 percent spending cuts (not the 20 percent tax rises, 80 percent cuts combo that the Tories advocate), but he even heaps praise in Lady Thatcher. More, he describes her as something of an inspiration: just as she took on vested interests in the 1980s, so he will take on the banks now.   Personally, I can't quite see the equivalence - and Clegg as the Heir to Thatcher is an image that I just can't conjure in my mind. But you can't blame him for trying.

An interview packed with Brownies

From our UK edition

Brownies galore in our PM’s interview with the Economist. So many, in fact, that I thought I do a quick Fisk:   The Economist: The big worry seems to be the deficit—the deficit. What should the message should be? Gordon Brown: I actually think that the first thing that we’ve got to do as a global community—and I said it this morning and I’ll say it again—is that the reforms of the global financial system are not complete. As far as Britain is concerned, we are dealing with a one-off hit as a result of globalisation. FN: Let us pause, here, to consider the brazenness. Brown’s policies pumped the UK economy up with the steroids of debt. The banking collapse hit us harder than any country because he took the wildest risks.

God stand up for bankers

From our UK edition

He’ll have to because nobody else will. As Robert Peston says ‘Poor RBS, poor Britain’ – today’s figures are catastrophic. Peston’s been digging and the news gets worse: ‘But perhaps the most chilling numbers are these: we as taxpayers put in £25.5bn of new equity into this bank last autumn, the second instalment of the £45.5bn we have invested in total; but over the past year, the equity of this bank has increased by less than £16bn to £80bn. So almost £10bn of the £25.5bn we've only just put into RBS has already been wiped out by losses. Which, I think, is probably the best measure of the degree to which RBS is still haemorrhaging.

The Real New Statesman

From our UK edition

I am the last person to speak ill of the New Statesman. But even during those golden years when I worked at the magazine, I have to admit we struggled with a tendency towards earnestness. During the Kampfner era, the senior editorial team tried time and again to introduce a little levity among the wonkiness and hand-wringing. I am now prepared to admit we didn't often pull it off. But our successors have finally pulled it off -- by creating a spoof online business section. At first sight it looks like a crude aggregator of corporate press releases. But look a little closer and I defy you to find anything funnier on the web today. It is quite brilliant. Unfortunately, the NS has seen fit to pull down the piece "Cold Stone Creamery unveils chocolate-dipped strawberry ice-cream".

Bank-bashing with a vengeance

From our UK edition

Over the decades of (relative) macroeconomic stab- ility in the second half of the 20th century, profit-seeking com- mercial banks and state-owned central banks worked together to lower the cash-to-asset ratios in the banking industry. An understanding grew that profitable and well-capitalised commercial banks should be able to borrow cash from the central bank if they had trouble maintaining a positive cash reserve balance. The associated arrangements were technical and complex, and were of no interest whatever to politicians and journalists. Fashionable economic commentators regarded them, or rather ignored them, as the municipal drainage of the financial system.

Obama is playing politics<br />

From our UK edition

FDR was plainly confident when he indicted the "practices of unscrupulous money lenders" during his 1933 inauguration address; Obama’s speech yesterday was scented with desperation. He exchanged eloquence for provocation. “If these folks want a fight a fight, it’s a fight I’m ready to have.” Bankers do not want a fight with a President seeking cheap political capital; they want to turn profits and do business. Obama’s proposals frustrate that aim - by carving up corporations and neutering investment banking on the grounds of excess risk. As Iain Martin notes, Obama has departed from the G20’s emerging narrative, and though the details are imprecise there is no doubt of the direction Obama is headed. It is the wrong one.

What will Labour do with the extra £1.5bn?

From our UK edition

Labour’s tax on banks that pay big bonuses was budgeted to yield £550 million. But because the tax has failed to change behaviour it is going to bring in far more than that, at least 2 billion according to recent reports. This raises the question of what will Labour do with the extra 1.5 billion? The responsible thing to do would be to use it for deficit reduction. We can expect, Darling who has said that his “number one priority is to get the borrowing down”, to take this position. But we can expect the more party politically minded members of the government to want to use this money for extra public spending. For example, one can easily imagine them wanting to use the money to help meet their target of ‘eradicating’ child poverty by 2020.

The not so steady creep of inflation

From our UK edition

As Mark Bathgate and Fraser warned, the economic crisis now has an added dimension: inflation. The government’s preferred marker, the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) rose to 2.9 percent in December from 1.9 percent in November, which as Andrew Neil notes is the biggest monthly rise in the annual index since records began. And the Retail Prices Index (RPI), used to calculate welfare payments and wage re-negotiations, rose to 2.4 percent from 0.3 percent. The underlying RPI rate rose to 3.8 percent from 2.7 percent.  We are now seeing the long-term effects of Quantitative Easing and the use of debt to finance further government borrowing.

Three steps to cleaning up our toxic banks

From our UK edition

Fraser outlined the problem with the British banks in his earlier post, but I’d like to suggest a three-step solution.   1. To deal with the problem, you have to admit to the problem. This is the First Step for Alcoholics Anonymous 12 step plan but holds true for politics. Say it out loud: the banking system is still broken. It needs fixed, and the process won’t be pretty. There will always be a political temptation to turn a blind eye, as there was in Japan during its ‘lost decade’. 2. Use an objective and credible third party to analyse the ability of banks to withstand losses, and to go through their balance sheet with a fine tooth comb.

Osborne looks to Sweden, but let’s not turn Japanese

From our UK edition

The Tories have said plenty to dismay me in the last few weeks, so I was delighted to pick up the FT today to see George Osborne talking sense – and boldness. Given that we have to increase taxes, it’s an obvious one to raise. The “too big to fail” principle means that the state now provides de facto insurance to banks – so it’s reasonable that they pay for that insurance. The whole tone of Osborne’s interview is reassuring, especially as he indictates he is studing the aggressive Swedish reponse to the fiscal crisis. He indicates Tories are looking at plugging the deficit with 80 percent cuts and 20percent tax rises – even more radical than the 70:30 split which (as James told us back in October the Tories were then thinking about.

It’s not just the bankers who will be hanged

From our UK edition

Oh, Darling, what hast thou done?  There are few more pertinent, or more damning, examples of what the government’s soak-the-rich policies could mean for the country than the news that JP Morgan is having second thoughts about developing a £1.5 billion European HQ in Canary Wharf.  Of course, the bank may still go ahead with it.  But just imagine if they don’t: the work lost for construction workers and a thousand other contractors; the tax revenues lost for the public finances.  The damage won’t just – or even mostly – be to the financial sector. Thing is, I imagine that Number Ten will be fairly happy with the story.  As the Ephraim Hardcastle column demonstrates today, Brown & Co.

How much more will Darling have to borrow?

From our UK edition

The figure of £178 billion in the Budget – for 2009/10 – is by no means the full story. For that we have to turn to the Debt Management Office, which is in charge of flogging the IOU notes. It just now confirmed that it will need £223.3 billion by the end of this financial year - £5 billion more than expected. And a staggering amount, which I suspect the government simply could not raise if it did not have the Bank of England printing presses working overtime. Why the gulf between the two? Because of the bank crisis. This financial year a further £42 billion has needed to by pumped into the banks in various forms – not just Lloyds and RBS, but the smaller bank failures like Northern Rock and Dunfermline Building Society.

How long until the plug is pulled?<br />

From our UK edition

Moody’s AAA sovereign monitor was published today, and whilst the UK’s AAA status remains ‘resilient’ the situation is far from rosy. The report states: ‘The UK economy entered the crisis in a vulnerable position, owing to the (overly) large size of its banking sector and the high level of household indebtedness. Both continue to weigh on economic performance. Net bank lending to the UK business sector has continued to contract through Q3 2009, and repairs to household balance sheets (i.e. the rising savings ratio) may weigh on demand for some time to come. The depth of the crisis has been mirrored by the ongoing deterioration of public finances (with gross debt/GDP having risen from 44% at the end of 2007 to an estimated 69% at the end of 2009).

Saving the world | 5 December 2009

From our UK edition

The further revelations about the astonishing costs of the bank bailouts so far indicate just how much taxpayers’ money is now being used to plug the holes in the banking system.  A key cause of the bank crisis is explained by the above IMF graph, charting the decline of some of the trillions of AAA structured credit assets created during the boom.  AAA means “extremely strong capacity to meet financial commitments”, but now over 80% of the US AAA Collateralised Debt Obligations (CDOs) created between 2005 and 2007 are rated BB or lower, somewhere between junk bonds and default (and in some cases almost entirely worthless). In terms of getting things totally wrong this is hard to beat.

Bernanke trashes Brown’s tripartite system

From our UK edition

Gordon Brown’s much heralded tripartite regulatory system failed the first time it was faced with a financial crisis, proof that taking away regulatory powers from the Bank of England was a massive mistake. Now, Ben Bernanke — who is trying to secure a second term as Fed Chairman and keep the Fed’s regulatory powers intact — is citing the Brown model as what not to do, telling the Senate banking committee: "[O]ver the past few years the government of Britain removed from the Bank of England most of its supervisory authorities.