Is Banking Reform Possible?

Mrs. Clinton is ducking the big issues about big banks.

William Cohan writes:   The new movie “The Big Short” dredges up a lot of bad memories of how badly the country was screwed by Wall Street. It goes into what went horribly wrong inside the big banks seven years ago and how a small group of clever traders made fortunes betting on the crash of the American economy. After they figured out that Wall Street bankers and traders had stuffed one bad loan after another into the mortgage-backed securities they sold as solid investments the world over, the guys devised the Big Short to bet against this crazy behavior. When the economy collapsed, they cashed in. And those were the good guys. It’s not just the movie, of course, that brings back unhappy times. Judging from the kind of rhetoric being bruited about on the campaign trail, you would think Wall Street might be just a little antsy about public sentiment—starting with Bernie “big-banks-are-always-bad” Sanders and his astonishing rise in the Democratic race against Hillary Clinton. Even top GOP candidates like Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have been at it, channeling Elizabeth Warren’s populist message against the Street.

But the truth is, Wall Street isn’t the slightest bit worried these days. Indeed, it is happily making plans for the future, no matter who becomes president: Highly paid bank lobbyists are working overtime to gut Dodd-Frank regulations (as part of riders on the year-end budget bill). And what makes the elite of the Street most happy is they are hearing all the right things from Hillary Clinton, the near-certain Democratic nominee with an excellent shot at the White House.  Why Wall Street Isn’t Worried about the Political Class

 Laughing All the Way to the Bank

 

Economic Effect of Terrorism in African Countries

Koffi Alle writes:  Terrorism on the scale witnessed in Paris last month is nothing new in Africa. In Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, and Niger, the extremist group Boko Haram – famous for its kidnapping of 276 school girls in 2014 – has inflicted thousands of casualties with suicide bombings and assaults on civilians. In Kenya, the Somali group Al-Shabaab has carried out two major attacks, on Nairobi’s Westgate shopping mall in 2013 and on Garissa University in 2015, as well as many smaller acts of terror.

Meanwhile in Tunisia, the Islamic State has targeted tourists – orchestrating attacks on a museum and a beach resort. And in Mali, shortly after the attacks in Paris, gunmen belonging to an Al Qaeda affiliate stormed the Radisson Blu hotel in Bamako, killing 22 people. Terror, it seems, has become part of the new normal in Africa.

These attacks, and others, have cast a dark shadow across the continent’s long-awaited economic rise. It is not difficult to see why. Terrorism risks derailing Africa’s economic and political development in six important ways.

For starters, there is the sheer scale of the humanitarian catastrophe. Since 2009, Boko Haram alone has killed more than 10,000 people in Nigeria and has driven nearly a half-million from their homes.

Second, terrorism is undermining GDP growth and weighing down overall economic performance in affected countries; the economy of northern Nigeria, for example, has been devastated by the ongoing violence.

Already, economic indicators in these countries have been revised downward after terrorist incidents.

Third, the fight against terrorism is sucking up scarce financial resources. Scaling up military missions is costly, and the unpredictability of terror strikes often requires extra spending on security, which sometimes causes governments to miss their fiscal targets.

In Central and West Africa, the fiscal pressure has been especially intense. In addition to the outlays required to equip the armed forces engaged against Boko Haram, Nigerian officials estimate that billions of dollars will be needed to rebuild ravaged infrastructure in the north. Similarly, Chad’s soldiers fought alongside French troops against terrorists in Mali, and now they have coalesced with those of Nigeria and Cameroon in fighting Boko Haram. In April, the country was granted $170 million in debt relief – the payoff for years of economic reform. But now it is being forced to use part of its hard-won fiscal space to finance the fight against terror.

Fourth, the countries at risk are among the most promising frontier markets. In Nigeria, which recently became Africa’s largest economy, a dynamic private sector has been diversifying an economy that has long been dominated by oil production.

Fifth, terrorism is undermining state building.

Finally, the risk that fighting terrorism poses to civil liberties is especially acute in Africa, where institution building is still an ongoing process.

Most of the civil conflicts that held back Africa’s development for decades have finally come to an end. But terrorism risks undermining the continent’s hard-won stability and strong GDP growth.

Terrorism in Africa

Entrepreneur Alert: Alliance with Government for Clean Energy Projects

Mariana Mazzucato writes:  The global agreement reached in Paris last week is actually the third climate agreement reached in the past month. The first happened at the end of November, when a group of billionaires led by Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos announced the creation of a $20 billion fund to back clean-energy research. On the same day, a group of 20 countries agreed to double their investment in green energy, to a total of $20 billion a year.

Of the two pre-Paris announcements, it was that of the Breakthrough Energy Coalition (BEC) grabbed the headlines.  If a technological breakthrough is needed in the fight against climate change, whom should we expect to provide it, if not the wizards of Silicon Valley and other hubs of free-market innovation?

On its own, the free market will not develop new sources of energy fast enough. The payoff is still too uncertain. Just as in previous technological revolutions, rapid advances in clean energy will require the intervention of a courageous, entrepreneurial state, providing patient, long-term finance that shifts the private sector’s incentives. Governments must make bold policy choices that not only level the playing field, but also tilt it toward environmental sustainability.

Advances in clean energy will require the involvement of both the public and the private sector. Because we do not yet know which innovations will be the most important in decarbonizing the economy, investment must be allocated to a wide array of choices. Long-term, patient finance must also be available to help companies minimize uncertainty and bridge the so-called “Valley of Death” between basic research and commercialization.

The BEC’s argument – that the “new model will be a public-private partnership between governments, research institutions, and investors” – shines a welcome spotlight on the relationship. Unfortunately, however, aside from Gates and his colleagues, there are few signs that the private sector can be counted on to lead the way.

The energy sector has become over-financialized; it is spending more on share buybacks than on research and development in low-carbon innovation. The energy giants ExxonMobil and General Electric are the first and tenth largest corporate buyers of their own shares. Meanwhile, according to the International Energy Agency, just 16% of investment in the US energy sector was spent on renewable or nuclear energy. Left to their own devices, oil companies seem to prefer extracting hydrocarbons from the deepest confines of the earth to channeling their profits into clean-energy alternatives.

Meanwhile, government R&D budgets have been declining in recent years – a trend driven partly by under-appreciation of the state’s role in fostering innovation and growth, and more recently by austerity in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

The main public-sector bodies playing a leading role in promoting the diffusion of green-energy technologies are state development banks. Indeed, Germany’s KfW, the China Development Bank, the European Investment Bank, and Brazil’s BNDES are four of the top ten investors in renewable energy, amounting to 15% of total asset finance.

The public sector can – and should – do much more. For example, subsidies received by energy corporations could be made conditional on a greater percentage of profits being invested in low-carbon innovations.

While charitable donations by billionaires certainly should be welcomed, companies should also be made to pay a reasonable amount of taxes. After all, as the BEC’s manifesto points out, “current governmental funding levels for clean energy are simply insufficient to meet the challenges before us.” And yet, in the UK, for example, Facebook paid just £4,327 in tax in 2014, far less than many individual taxpayers.

The willingness of Gates and other business leaders to commit themselves and their money to the promotion of clean energy is admirable. The Paris deal is also good news. But they are not enough.

Government and Clean Energy

Fed Uptick on Interest Rates and Inequality

 The Fed has been accused of exacerbating inequality. Seven years of near-zero interest rates have hurt Americans looking to put money aside for retirement (effectively losing money in deposit accounts when inflation is taken into account), but helped the wealthiest by propping up the value of share prices and other assets.

Fed officials believed the “wealth effect” from quantitative easing would benefit the broader economy – akin to the Republican premise of trickle-down economics – by allowing people with more valuable assets to spend more. This has not happened.

The 20 richest Americans have amassed a fortune that is larger than all the wealth of the least wealthy half of the population, 152 million people, according to a recent study by the Institute for Policy Studies, with the biggest income gains coming in the last six years. Since 2009, some 95 per cent of the earnings growth has floated to the top 1 per cent.

Almost 50 per cent of US aggregate income went to upper-income households in 2014, up from 29 per cent in 1970, Pew Research said in a report last week showing a hollowing-out of America’s middle class. The share going to middle-income households has fallen from 62 per cent in 1970 to 43 per cent in 2014.

The Fed’s rate hike may not help alleviate the pain of economic inequality either. Banks and credit unions may decide to keep interest rates on savings low while cranking up rates on mortgages and other consumer loans, using the higher rates to recover fees and boost profits.  Fed Uptick on Interest Rates and Inequality

Inequality

Rethinking Economics 101

Jag Bhalla writes:  Economics is in our nature. But it is not, as most economists promote, the narrowly self-interested kind. Our paleo-economics required inalienable other-interestedness. The logic of our “natural economics” can help tame modern market errors.

There are three evolutionary ideas that economics can benefit from —evolution and economics are both in the “productivity selection” business.

First, anthropologist Christopher Boehm’s work on our evolved moral-rule processors.

Second, economist Robert Frank’s “Darwin’s Wedge” patterns that show how competition can create inefficiency.

Third, studying “objective moralities” can fix the “Naturalistic fallacy,” and describe an as yet unnamed natural principle that “survival of the fittest” must yield to.

 

  • There are many factors of competition that can create inefficiency.
  • There is a higher (yet unnamed) natural principle that “survival of the fittest” must yield to.

Rethinking Economics 101

Hunt and Gather

Junk Bonds Risk Premiums Rising!

No one can fail to understand this argument after seeing the new film, “The Big Short.”

Citigroup analysts led by Anindya Basu point out that spreads on the CDX HY, as the index is known, are currently pricing in an expected loss of 21.2 percent, which translates into something like 22 defaults over the next five years if one assumes zero recovery for investors. That is a pretty big number once you consider that a total of 41 CDX HY constituents have defaulted since the index really began trading in 2005, equating to about 3.72 defaults per year. A big chunk of those defaults (17) occurred in 2009 in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

What to make of it all? Actual recoveries during corporate default cycles tend to be higher than the worst-case scenario of zero percent. In fact, they average somewhere in the 26 percent range, which would imply 29 defaults over the next five years instead of 41.

So what? you might say. The CDX HY includes but one default cycle, and those types of analyses tend to underestimate the peril of tail risk scenarios (hello, subprime crisis). Citi has an answer for that, too. Using spreads from the cash bond market going back to 1991, they forecast the default rate over the next 12 months to be something more like 5 percent to 5.5 percent. (For comparison, the rating agency Moody’s is currently forecasting a 3.77 percent default rate.)

“CDX HY spread levels are pricing in about a 21 percent loss over a five-year period, whereas the highest we have ever seen over a five-year period is 14.2 percent, and that included 2009,” Basu said in an interview. “Of course, the spread level includes a spread risk premium over and above the ‘pure default’ risk. Even from that perspective, we believe the risk being priced in is too much.”

In fact, Citi says “high-yield spreads are currently pricing in a 2008-like market selloff over the next five years.”

All of which raises the question of just what has been pushing spreads up so high. Perhaps more than any other asset class, investing in junk bonds is an emotional one. It takes high levels of confidence to lend to companies with risky balance sheets, and that confidence is prone to evaporating when headlines about bond mutual fund redemptions flash across Bloomberg terminals and Gawker’s front page.

“There are a lot technicals that could be responsible–we have a lot of negative headlines coming through for high yield that is creating anxiety in the markets and pushing investors to hedge themselves using CDX HY protection, which is pushing spreads up,” said Basu. “That isn’t to say that there are no serious concerns, but the question we are asking is, are spreads  pricing in too much risk? I believe the answer is yes.”

Junk Bunk risk Premiums Rising

Can the World Economy Turn Up?

Ross Finley writes:  The world economy may be set for another year like 2015, with modest growth in developed economies offsetting persistent weakness elsewhere but generating very little inflation and keeping interest rates low.

The U.S. Federal Reserve’s long-awaited rise in rates from zero showed confidence in the world’s largest economy, but rival China is still struggling for a foothold with rate cuts.

Although some countries, such as Brazil, have mainly home-grown inflation troubles, the Fed’s first post-crisis rate hike is an unlikely cure for what ails the rest of the world.  With exchange rates dominating the policy debate in many countries, what happens to the dollar will matter a lot.

Along with an abrupt downturn in the volume of global trade and a continuing fall in commodity prices, the dollar’s rise this year has brought U.S. industrial growth to a near-standstill, keeping a lid on inflation pressures from abroad.

The other extreme is that the United States, via a strong U.S. dollar, will simply become the latest victim of the deflationary pass-the-parcel which has plagued the global economy for a decade, and find itself following all of the other developed market central banks which raised rates but soon found they had to reverse course.

“The outcome, we believe, is likely to be somewhere in between.”

A Reuters poll of 120 economists on Friday forecast the Fed would hike rates again in March, but probably won’t move as quickly next year as policymakers have suggested.

Other recent Reuters surveys of hundreds of analysts worldwide do not offer hope for a pickup in inflation, even in the United States where the central bank says it is reasonably confident this will happen. Even the most optimistic core inflation forecasts are not far above 2 percent.

The polls point to global growth averaging only 3.4 percent next year with scant prospect of touching 4 percent given the slowdown in China and the gloom surrounding emerging markets.

Nor is it easy to find analysts expecting broad weakness in the dollar, with the most aggressive views suggesting the euro could even fall below parity.

China’s renminbi, now a reserve currency, has fallen each day for most of the past two weeks, with many bracing for further devaluation by Chinese authorities still looking for ways to stimulate the debt-laden economy.

The U.S. growth and inflation outlook is bleaker than forecast this time last year, even after a sharp fall in unemployment. Wage inflation has picked up, but by less than many had thought it would.

Wall Street stock indexes are trading near their levels of a year ago, confounding predictions of a solid rise in 2015, with strategists still expecting them to climb despite downward pressure on earnings.

Over the past year, global fund managers have cut their recommendations for equity holdings to near their lowest since the financial crisis, even as they ramped up bond holdings.

U.S. Treasury yields are not far from where they were this time last year either, but they too are expected to climb, as has been the forecast for many years now, although by less this year than one might expect. reuters://realtime/verb=Open/url=cpurl://apps.cp./Apps/mm-bondyield-polls

Since crude oil prices began falling sharply 18 months ago from above $100 a barrel to below $40 now, the number of analysts predicting a rebound has dwindled. Some are now saying $20 is more likely than a sizeable move higher.

But there are some bright spots.  Underpinned by the European Central Bank’s 60 billion euros a month of bond purchases, the euro zone is finally generating modest growth and unemployment has begun to fall.

Inflation remains well below target, however, and so ECB stimulus, including the negative deposit rate, will remain in place for all of next year. That puts the world’s largest trading bloc — and most other central banks — on an opposite policy path to the Fed.

India is forecast to grow at a decent clip, underpinned by rate cuts earlier this year during a window of low inflation. And optimism about Mexico has grown as it slowly starts to take advantage of a recent historic reform in the energy sector.

But much can still go wrong. Food prices have already pushed Brazil’s inflation above 10 percent during a deep recession and could rise further.

 

Goods and Services Tax for India?

Pitching for an early take-off of the Goods and Services Tax, IMF managing director Christine Lagarde said it will help India create more jobs, increase revenue as well as promote domestic manufacturing.

She assured support and technical assistance for implementation of the comprehensive indirect tax reform, which will subsume excise and sales taxes.

“The implementation of GST will help India create jobs and help in raising revenue to finance health, education etc,” she said in a recorded video message at an interactive session of the industry with the Finance Minister on GST here.

Terming GST as a trade agreement, she said, a harmonised and unified GST will broaden tax base.

Simple to administer will make GST an efficient taxation too, she added.

“IMF is ready to lend support and provide technical assistance for GST implementation,” she said.

Speaking during the session, CII president Sumit Mazumder said in light of recent developments, the ongoing delay in implementation of GST is a matter of great concern.

If the Constitutional Amendment Bill is not passed in the current winter session, it will be a big disappointment for the industry and a roadblock in the development of the country, he said.

“CII has always maintained that GST would lead to 1.5-2 per cent increase in GDP growth. What better economic stimulus can there be?” he asked.

Terming the implementation of GST as a poverty alleviation measure, Onkar Kanwar, Chairman of Apollo Tyres, said: “The government is trying very hard to push the Constitutional Amendment Bill. I hope some good sense will prevail in Parliament.”

Ford India president Nigel Harris said: “GST needs to happen now. It will give India a lot of credibility and ease of doing business. I don’t think everyone is giving up (on GST). We are just re-emphasising this is the right thing to do.”

Confederation of All India Traders president Praveen Khandelwal was on the same page.  “It will unify all indirect taxes and tax administration will become simple,” Khandelwal added.

 

P2P Lending Important in China

Liu Mengkang writes:   Last month, China’s leaders revealed details of the 13th Five-Year Plan, which will guide the economy’s trajectory until 2020. Gone are the directives to expand industrial production at a breakneck pace that characterized previous five-year plans. Now, the focus is on achieving sustainable long-term growth, underpinned by domestic consumption, a stronger services sector, entrepreneurship, and innovation.

The Internet – which already has more than 680 million active users in China – will play a key role in facilitating this shift. In particular, online peer-to-peer (P2P) lending, a streamlined approach to credit allocation, may hold the key to expanding and deepening China’s financial sector, enabling firms to grow and innovate, and bolstering domestic consumption.   P2P Lending in China

 

Up Loss-Absorbing Shareholder Equity to Keep Banks Safe

Of the three remaining mainstream Democratic candidates, all three propose changing rules for the financial sector.  Only Mrs. Clinton would not re-instate Glass Steagall, the wall her husband broke down between investment and commercial banking activities.  It is well  to remember that both Clintons have made  fortune lecturing to the banking industry and that the Clinton campaign is based on contributions from banking.  The Clinton son-in-law runs a hedge fund that was set up for him by Goldman Sachs.

Simon Johnson writes:  The three candidates disagree on whether there should be legislation to re-erect a wall between the rather dull business of ordinary commercial banking and other kinds of finance (such as issuing and trading securities, commonly known as investment banking).

This issue is sometimes referred to as “reinstating Glass-Steagall,” a reference to the Depression-era legislation – the Banking Act of 1933 – that separated commercial and investment banking. This is a slight misnomer: the most credible bipartisan proposal on the table takes a much-modernized approach to distinguishing and making more transparent different kinds of finance activities. Sanders and O’Malley are in favor of this general idea; Clinton is not (yet).

This argument that some financial firms that got into trouble in 2008 were standalone banks like Lehman or an insurance company like AIG.  What happened “last time” is rarely a good guide to fighting wars or anticipating future financial crises. The world moves on, in terms of technology and risks. We must adjust our thinking accordingly.

At worst, the argument is just plain wrong. Some of the greatest threats in 2008 were posed by banks – such as Citigroup – built on the premise that integrating commercial and investment banking would bring stability and better service. Sandy Weill, the primary architect of the modern Citigroup, regrets that construction – and regrets lobbying for the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

Second, leading representatives of big banks argue that much has changed since 2008 – and that big banks have become significantly safer. Unfortunately, this is a great exaggeration.

Ensuring a financial system’s stability is a multifaceted endeavor – complex enough to keep many diligent people fully employed. But it also comes down to this: how much loss-absorbing shareholder equity is on the balance sheets of the largest financial firms?

In the run-up to the 2008 crisis, the largest US banks had around 4% equity relative to their assets. This was not enough to withstand the storm. (Here I’m using tangible equity relative to tangible assets, as recommended by Tom Hoenig, Vice Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and a beacon of clarity on these issues.)

Now, under the most generous possible calculation, the surviving megabanks have on average about 5% equity relative to total assets – that is, they are 95% financed with debt. Is this the major and profound change that will prove sufficient as we head through the credit cycle? No, it is not.

Finally, some observers – although relatively few at this point – argue that the biggest banks have greatly improved their control and compliance systems, and that the mismanagement of risk on a systemically significant scale is no longer possible.

This view is simply implausible. Consider all the instances of money laundering and sanctions busting (with evidence against Credit Agricole and  Deutsche Bank and almost every major international bank in the past few years).

This is the equivalent of near misses in aviation. If the US had the equivalent of the National Transportation Safety Board for finance, we would receive detailed public reports on what exactly is – still, after all these years – going wrong. Sadly, what we actually get is plea bargains in which all relevant details are kept secret. The regulators and law-enforcement officials are letting us down – and jeopardizing the safety of the financial system – on a regular basis.

The best argument for a modern Glass-Steagall act is the simplest. We should want a lot more loss-absorbing shareholder equity. We should ensure that various activities by “shadow banks” (structures that operate with bank-like features, as Lehman Brothers did) are properly regulated.

Building support for legislation to simplify the biggest banks would greatly strengthen the hand of those regulators who want to require more shareholder equity and better regulation for the shadows. These policies are complements, not substitutes.