Criminal Complicity

Finance, it is claimed by its practitioners, is the equivalent of 4 dimensional Chess and can only be played by the gifted few. It is far too complex for run-of-the-mill human beings to get their minds around. We are the spectators, if not fans, of the thrill of money even if someone else has most, if not all, of it. And, as with all spectators, we are overcharged - in this case not for seats, hotdogs and chips but for homes, mortgages and credit cards. And who knows what else?

I’ve met bankers. More than a few of them, or I’d choose to. They were the ones drinking splits of Champagne when we were drinking pints – you didn’t particularly want them in your round. I’ve met brokers and traders, economists and regulators. I’ve engaged them all in conversation and I have to say that I didn’t find any of them spectacularly smart – especially given their level of hubris. Their choice of idiom made them sound more like real estate agents or used-car salesmen than responsible managers of untold quantities of other people’s money. The term that came to mind to encompass most of them was “lightweight”. I’d long before concluded, from the rich folk I’ve met, that you obviously didn’t need to be a member of Mensa to make a lot of money so I put it down to luck.

More the fool me it turns out. That 4 dimensional financial Chess game was a chimera if not criminal complicity. It may not have started out that way but it certainly seems to have ended up as one. Except, as is now exposed, it isn’t 4 dimensional it is 5. This additional dimension is inhabited by politicians, civil servants and the press - another zone where the term “lightweight” must be applied.

We are expected to accept that the same people can be permitted, without external interference, to investigate a possible criminal case of their own making. How? Why? They can’t be relied upon to prosecute themselves. The Prosecution is already briefed to lead for the Defence. Even though most, if not all of them, were aware of, and thus complicit in, interest rate rigging since at least 2007 they are now rushing to the front of the queue of the innocent claiming false outrage in an equal quantity to total ignorance. Do you expect the pickpocket who stole your wallet to return it to you and face charges of theft? Then why expect these guys to give you your money back.

Maybe the term “criminal heavyweight” is more appropriate.

So what else are they capable of being complicit in - fixing Oil prices, raising Food costs, ramping-up Power charges? How about crime? Where will the trail lead – “follow the money” straight offshore. To the land of NOD – No Oversight Desired. This land can be found instantly by a banker at the mention of the word “Tax”.  Bankers in NOD appear to have assisted in the transfer of $billions worth of laundered money into the USA for the likes of, in one instance among tens of thousands, Russian used–car dealers. The Banks excuse; “our controls could and should have been stronger and more effective”. This sounds a bit less than sufficient given that the bank ignored $60tn worth of wire transfers and account activity and had a backlog of 17,000 account alerts regarding suspicious funds. All of which was known to the appropriate regulators but about which nothing was done.

It’s been a bad week for banking. does anyone care?

Dead Cat

The box is open and the cat is dead. The mathematical theoretical physics behind the "no risk" financial market experiment has ended up killing it. Theoretically the possibility of a loss was insured out of existence.

For example;

• Bank A issued a financial instrument and took out a CDS with Bank B against a possible default or loss.
• Bank B took out another CDS with Bank C to cover the possibility of Bank A's financial instrument going bad.
• Bank A took out another CDS against Bank C if it had to pay Bank B if Bank B payed Bank A 
• Bank A gets both the original loss back from Bank B but also the same again from Bank C.
• Bank C took out yet another CDS with Bank D to remove the risk of having to pay Bank A
• Bank D took out a CDS against Bank A's original financial instrument with Bank A.
• Bank A then used the payment from Bank C to pay Bank D.
• Ad infinitum 

So which Bank loses money? Nobody knows, not even them - but somebody eats the loss. Seems the citizens of any country with a Bank eat it.

The problem we have here is that the same folk that created the problem are trying to solve it. No fresh thinking, no real change in policies - accompanied by the dictum not to let a good crisis go to waste. Using this, or any, crisis to inject more of the same that caused it doesn't, unsurprisingly, appear to work. Never mind, we'll keep going until the life is choked out of it.

Not unexpectedly Obama and Cameron have popped-up demanding a quick fix. Primarily because when, not if, it all goes to rat-shit their banks will topple along with the rest. London and New York are the places that most carcinogenic financial instruments call home.

Let's not forget that, back when all this started in 2007, the estimated value of financial instruments lurking about the world was somewhere between 100 and 300 trillion dollars. Even if only 10% of them go bad - a joke - more like 40% on present estimates - then somebody has to print between 10 and 120 trillion dollars worth of money and give it to the banks.  And these estimates are on the conservative side. As all these instruments are in US dollars that would be bad, bad, bad for them - hence Obama's deep interest in having Europe not fuck the US economy.

Inflation won't solve it. Given the present state of the world's economy the result of a sufficient increase in money supply will be Stagflation - which we are already seeing signs of. Eviscerating trust in money and the printing of 100,000 Dollar, Pound, Euro notes to buy a cup of coffee doesn't sound like one of the better solutions.

So a very, very big turd is about to drop into the fan. This has been constipating since International Accounting Standards, introduced in 2005, prevented companies from provisioning against potential losses before they actually incurred them. Which is, of course, why banks are only now announcing hundreds of billions of losses and looking for some more free cash. Those now looking for the money are the same folk that lobbied for the change to accounting standards in the first place - so they could artificially keep their profits up - even if they knew that a debt was going bad. Better for the share price and the bonuses.

Anyway, I get back to my contention that Globalisation contains the seeds of it's own demise. When there is too little or no domestic industry, manufacturing or production and the banks are making unprecedented piles of money that money has to go somewhere and it, by default, goes into real property as that is the only place left for it to go

Around the turn of the millenium the same lack of alternatives created the "Tech" bubble.

To absorb the fists-full of money spewing out of the banks house prices exploded, builders went on the rampage. When regulations wouldn't permit this path they were changed or new markets created outside regulatory oversight. Not only did the finance industry believe they had found an infallible way to remove risk but they also didn't have to admit that they had lost the money until the instrument was undeniably dead and the loss was taken onto the books. So they had a few years to record record profits and bonuses before they became too big to fail.

The original bail-out money they were given was used to maintain this fiction - now that it has all been spent either they get another round of bail-out or they go down. Any money going to Spain to prop-up it's banks will be used to extend and pretend. When the next 100 billion of property market bad debt pops up, or RBS needs another 40 billion to survive, it'll be another matter entirely.

The Bankers' last Haka

We appear to be well into the Uncertainty Principle already - if the Market reaction is anything to go by. Germany and France are at opposite ends of this principle. Germany has stopped so it knows where it is and France has to keep moving to avoid finding out. Unfortunately the two of them have to come up with a compatible solution. Germany knows it has just about enough money to deal only with it's own problems but France hasn't. So France wants to keep the fiction going long enough for time to heal the wound while Germany - no stranger to overwhelming debt - sees no point in securing what amounts to France's, and the rest of Europe's, debt as part of any deal. Meanwhile the British are baffled - at the mercy of the banks that created the problem in the first place. The City of London runs the country via political proxy.

Seeing that most of the transactions take place Offshore beyond regulation any threat to withdraw from the City of London is pretty hollow. All the foreign banks are already outside most UK regulation and taxation which is why they came to London to begin with. The UK banks are only subject to UK authority on the money they earn domestically or repatriate - largely used to pay themselves. Regulating this is a bit of a problem as the whole convoluted system is designed to avoid oversight. It is also designed to avoid jail. Any solution, to the inequity of bankers' moral hazard being taken at the expense of taxpayers, would have to remove the Offshore ability of accumulating unregulated debt globally while the risk falls domestically upon those with clean hands. This would require the regulations to apply universally, bring offshore havens into the fold and remove any burden on the public purse to bail out banks and private financial institutions. This will mean reversing most of what has happened over the past 40 years. Not a bit of wonder that bankers won't tolerate the thought of it. To make the present financial behaviour illegal would see most of them end up in prison.

What is a decent salary for a banker? They already get a base salary that is well above the norm and, under the present circumstances, more than they deserve. The bonus culture is their way of winning the bet before the result is in. The bonus culture in corporations is not that much better than in banking. This time the fools that carry the risk are the shareholders. Guaranteed minimum 100% of salary bonuses, stock options, retirement plan contributions are all based on numbers manipulated by the recipients of this largesse. The growing importance and influence of CFOs reflect this apparent anomaly as they orchestrate the numbers. The movement of vast quantities of money into private retirement plans, under favourable government tax rules drafted on the advice of financial institutions, guaranteed rising stock price P/E ratios that allowed corporate management to falsify omniscience and overpay themselves. All very comfy until there is a market crash. At which time the shareholders take the hit and management continues to pay itself more than they are worth or are the recipients of, wholly undeserved, giant redundancy packages.

Economies run on infrastructure and spending - any money not designated to improve those should be dropped from the plan. The beneficiaries of this infrastructure should be properly and proportionately taxed for it. This would include equitably apportioning corporate and finance profits towards national prosperity rather than individual wealth. By this means the possibility of a popular revolution on the street may be avoided.

You're wrong about Libya being the first no troops (or very few) on the ground example of regime change by us. Afghanistan was rid of the Taliban with similar minimal help - unfortunately keeping it Taliban-free has resulted in many more boots on the ground than originally estimated and an open-ended obligation. We'll have to conjure up the war on terror though to justify our arrival in Libya in large, heavily armed, numbers. Not beyond the realm of possibility once the Libyan factions start a civil war. Syria will become our new best friend when US troops leave Iraq and Iran gains more influence there. Hence the lack of action against Assad Jr. - unless of course he looks like actually losing at which point we'll back the most friendly looking, non-islamic, alternative. There is an interesting Middle East dynamic developing where their democracy is a challenge to our democracy. Let's not forget all our oil bearing despotic arab allies fearfully eyeing the rise of democracy. We're in a bit of a conundrum.

By the time NZ won the Rugby World Cup I was prepared to support anyone else, including France, winning the bloody thing just to get it over with. You've got to start thinking that it is all a set-up with the winner pre-arranged on an as-needed basis (a bit like Formula One motor racing). I'll be truly relieved when the last flag, poster and sign of the World Cup is removed from every nook and cranny of this country. A country that, sadly, believes that rugby is the world's most important game and, even more sadly, is the only game their boys can play reasonably well. The Haka thing at the start of the game should be banned - a time-waster and unfair to those without their own Haka to perform. Although every nation that has more than 8 vowels in the players' names has one. When Tonga or Samoa play NZ they try to out-Haka each other. The French walk-up is only news-worthy because NZ (and the IRB) expects the other team to stand around doing nothing while on the receiving end of loud noises, rude signs and throat-slitting actions. My suggestion is that all teams have a pre-game dance routine. Highland dancing for the Scots, a Jig for the Irish, coal-mining movements for the Welsh and a Morris dance for the English. The possibilities are endless, Line-dancing for the Americans, Tango for the Argies, some sort of Ninja deal for the Japanese, Can-Can for the French - what the fuck the Canadians and Suth Ifricins do is up to them.