Russell Brand begins his financial education

READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Debt: we will have to default

Denninger points out that if interest rates return to normal, two-thirds of taxes will go out to pay the rent on the debt. He urges default and says we should replacement private lending by banks, with direct money issuance by the government.

Whether or not his idea will come to fruition, this proposed desperate remedy shows that the disease is equally desparate.

Starve the beast

I don't know if there's anything similar in the UK, but if this takes off the system would indeed change. Move Your Money website here.

Bringing down the Temple of Dagon

I listend to Radio 4's Any Questions? last Saturday and a question about bankers' bonuses reared its lovely head. And then the pundits fell down, one after another.

I can't answer the conundrum about the sound of one hand clapping, but I sure heard the sound of punches being pulled. Perhaps some of the speakers have banker friends; perhaps some are hoping not to alienate the Masters of the Universe in the weary stagger up to a General Election. But here's what I'd like to have said, and it proceeds from a simple question:

Did the bankers know the likely consequences of their actions?

If they didn't, they are incompetent and instead of dithering about the threat of the RBS' board to resign, the government should sack them and all like them. Doctors who are that bad at their jobs would be sued and/or worse.

If they did, they should be jailed. In my view, Max Keiser is not exaggerating when he calls them terrorists. They have wrought destruction on our economies and though the human cost may be hard to assess accurately, it is and will continue to be terrible.

So, why isn't it happening? A number of reasons occur to me:

1. It is convenient for politicians to have a few people earn (sorry, be given, legally steal) vast sums of money. The lucky recipients of this largesse can be taxed at 40% (or even 50% as under today's draft Budget proposals) and still have more than they can possibly eat, drink, wear or stick up their noses. "Tax doesn't have to be taxing", as that wretched radio advert chirrups.

2. Clapped-out politicians may one day be looking for a well-overpaid sinecure, like T--- B----. Best not to be too hard on your potential future employer.

3. Embarrassingly, the roots of the credit crunch are not (not merely) in socialist profligacy, but date back to the early 1980s. It was a so-called Conservative government, supposedly a convert to monetarism, that opened the floodgates of credit and tsunamied the economic "boom". Not a genuine boom, and now a very real bust. Criticising the present hapless bunch too sharply would beg a loud, sustained argument of "tu quoque" ("thou also didst so").

4. Just as an addict is partly responsible for the sins of the dealer, the consumer is implicated in the phoney house price rises and the spending spree. But I say that the Devil has the lowest place in Hell, because his knowledge was greater.

5. Nevertheless, if push came to shove, the bankers could point out that effectively, they were acting as the agents of a government determined to win re-election.

Very well, then. Let us have our punishment - we shall, anyway, and the next generation after us. But they must have theirs - the bankers, the politicians and the Fourth Estate that got too close and too cosy for too long.

Go for it.

My hero!

Banks: "parasites... financial bastards... should never have lent the money in the first place... bankrupt them... nationalise them... cancel debt... or the economy will die... never-ending Depression."

Straight-talking Aussie economist Steve Keen, talking to teeth-clenched grinning, gonzo (but still on the money, in my opinion) "Wall Street are terrorists" Max Keiser.

Turkeys Reunited

Goldman Sachs are on the brink of a massive new consultancy contract, it is rumoured. An unnamed source within the organisation hints that ITV may be asked to take over Lloyds Bank and Northern Rock.

"ITV's £105 million operating loss is peanuts," said the trader. "We at GS paid out £1 billion more in bonuses than we got in bailout money last year. The guys at ITV don't think big enough. If they don't wise up fast, they could be in danger of making a profit."

This alleged development lends credence to the long-standing speculation that the American and British governments are secretly planning the creation of a "Super-Turkey", merging all remaining manufacturing, banking and finance into a giant loss-making enterprise that will employ increasing numbers of the population until everybody starves.

The dam may break after all

Jesse reports on another big bank about to go down; Karl Denninger speculates that the FDIC is colluding in the cover-up of widespread bank insolvency, so it isn't forced to step in when there's no money left in its kitty - for the only thing after that is load more of the losses onto Uncle Sam, i.e. the taxpayers and all our descendants.

If the pressure continues, maybe we'll end up doing what some have said all along needs to be done: step back and let the losers fail, to flush all the rubbish out of the system. Well, all the rubbish that Uncle Sam hasn't already been forced to eat.

More difficult for us in the UK, though, since we don't have lots of second-tier banks ready to take over the loan books. Maybe Barclays and HSBC will profit enormously? Or how about the Bank of China, now moving into the British market?

Us banks vs UK banks

We are now getting used to hearing that the UK is the worst-placed among the G20 countries to recover from the credit crunch. One reason is that we have few banks, and almost all of them in trouble.

By contrast, as you see here, the US has 8,500 banks, most of them in good condition. The problems are concentrated in their handful of giants. Over there, it would be possible to bust them and have others ready to take on their books of loans (discounted) and deposits.

Here, I think we'd have to create a new bank, if only to provide some competition for Barclays and HSBC.

Still not the truth

J. S. Kim (htp: Jesse) considers the $700 trillion derivatives market (worth maybe 23 times all the stockmarkets in the world), and notes that it's being used to disguise the true woeful state of the banking system. It is as though, when listing his personal assets, a compulsive big-time gambler could include all his current Lottery tickets and horse-racing betting slips:

"... when FASB suspended mark-to-market accounting rules recently, major international banks were allowed to re-value some of their derivative products closer to their notional value on their books to pad their balance sheets. Due to this change in accounting law, I can almost guarantee you that before market open Friday, Citigroup will announce better than expected financial results as they carried huge amounts of illiquid mortgages and financial derivatives on their balance sheets."

I fear that many major banks may be thoroughly ruined, and until the lying stops, effective action cannot be taken.

How much is left in the banking system?

Mark Wadsworth refers us to this US banking information, from which I extract and interpret the following:

This information is a year out of date - more, in the case of credit unions. I wonder where we are now? Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports that US housing has dropped 29% from peak. Is the system, as some say, basically bust?

Who ruins Britain?

It's not just the bankers and the politicians. I'm reading Robert Peston's book "Who runs Britain?" and I'm wondering about the social benefits of private equity entrepreneurs.

Take store group Arcadia, for example. In the year 2000, it was acquired by Stuart Rose, at which time it had a turnover of £2.5 billion, debts £250 million and a market capital value somewhere around £100 million. "The business was viewed as dead meat when he arrived." Two years later, the turnover was down to £2 billion, but all the debt was cleared and the group was making an annual profit of £106 million.

Rose then sold out to Philip Green for a reported £850 million (Peston says £775 million), of which Green's personal investment was only £9.2 million.

In 2005/2006, Arcadia's sales were down to £1.8 billion, but profits had risen to £300 million, according to Peston. Green then made it declare a £1.3 billion dividend, £1.2 billion of which went to his wife - who by then was, technically, domiciled in tax-free Monaco. This record-breaking payout was funded by bank loans to Arcadia totalling £1.35 billion, with the result that the group's net asset position went from plus £303 million (in August 2004) way into the red - minus £807 million. You'll see that the dividend accounted for the decline in Arcadia's net worth, and more besides.

Stuart Rose is like a man who buys a sick donkey, nurses it back to health and sells it at a profit. Green appears to me like the new owner who nurtures it further, then suddenly puts back-breaking quantities of heavy stone in its panniers and wanders off on other business, whistling merrily while the poor, over-laden beast staggers behind him in the wilderness. If it should stumble...

I can see what's in it for the bankers (less so, their shareholders). I can certainly see what's in it for Philip Green. But what's in it for us? We work, earn money, pay taxes and what is left we spend in stores that export our capital.

If this is to be the pattern for British business, we are finished. I don't see Johnny Foreigner making plans to take on the obligations of our Welfare State when we no longer make anything he wants; if he's looking for maltreated, ill-bred, indolent slaves, he'll find all he needs closer to home.

Are we making a nation fit for Marxists?

And now, the bad news

The top five U.K. banks have $10 trillion of assets and their GDP is only $2.13 trillion. The whole country could fall into the ocean. The top five U.S. banks represent only about 60 percent of GDP by comparison.

September 15, 2008: the secret bank run and corralito

According to Paul Kedrosky (htp: Tim Iacono), Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke scared the wits out of Congress with references to a potential $5.5 trillion electronic cash withdrawal from the US banking system, which would have led immediately to economic and political Armageddon. Electronic money accounts were closed down to stop the flight and collapse.

I said a month later that Paulson looked like a bully. But when Congress threw out the first bailout plan, he had also looked scared-angry, turning his head this way and that, like a bull throwing off dogs.

Perhaps the scare story was true. Perhaps not. Shame it took the ex-head of Goldman to drive the Bill through. I assume that rescuing the banks also rescued much of his personal $500 million wealth.

It's time for us to leave off discussing the affairs of the Gods, and return to our own interests. We ordinary mortals don't have the luxury of that kind of money transaction facility. If the system had gone down, presumably it would have taken our little all with it. And is anyone so brave as to say that it's been fixed?

Be prepared; don't be panicked (as it seems Congress was), but take what sensible precautions you can.

Denninger: deflation

Belatedly, I refer you to Karl Denninger's end-year review and forecast. He sees continuing deflation, and makes a number of other plausible and worrisome predictions - scroll to the end of his post for the horrid gallery of prognostications.

In short:

...rallies are to be sold, cash is to be raised and prudence is to be practiced in your own personal financial affairs. Don't get creative in all things finance, get stingy and prudent. Your personal financial survival could well depend on it.

So instead of staring at the low interest on your cash balance, think of the real capital appreciation of your money as measured by what big-ticket items it will buy. And for once, the government can't easily tax your capital gain.

You may also want to hold more cash away from a bank ("Round #2 of severe bank instability gets served up on us in the second half of 2009").

And maybe diversify your currency holdings:

The Dollar will not collapse. This is not because we're in great shape or will truly recover, it is because the rest of the world is in worse shape than we are... The rest of the world is literally on the precipice of a full-on collapse. European banks are more-levered and less-transparent than our banks as just one example... I see the potential for the pound and euro to both reach par with the dollar.

I think Denninger on the one hand, and Faber/Janszen on the other, may both be correct. It's a matter of timing - deflation now, debasement of the currency later. Because nominal debt gets relatively bigger as assets and incomes decline in value, something will have to give.

The banking crisis: did we have a choice?

Could any of the leading nations have retained their moral fibre during the monetary inflation of the last decade and more? Wouldn't prudent, restrained lenders have lost out to foreign sellers of "liar" and "fog a mirror" loans? Wouldn't the currency have risen and crippled exports? Could considerations like this form part of the "don't shoot me" defence of our busted banks and discredited politicians?

Or would it have been a trial by fire, where the virtuous are rewarded at the end? Denninger: "It is also increasingly clear that there are literally hundreds of midsize and smaller banks that are perfectly fine. They did not lever up, they did not write a bunch of crap commercial or residential construction paper that cannot be serviced and they most certainly did not drink the KoolAid of securitized synthetic garbage debt. Even in bad economic times traditional banking is a very profitable business - so long as you lend money to people who can pay you back or you have sufficient collateral so that if they default you don't lose your shirt."

In which case, the original offence of reckless finance has been compounded by the failure to punish it. The bailouts whisk away the deserved reward of the good, and teach a hugely damaging lesson to all onlookers: you can Get Away With It.

Of course, you can't - or rather society can't, though individuals will. And when injustice finally falls, it will take down with it many of the good, the poor and the powerless.

Not Chicken Little: the sky could really be near falling

Jesse is not an air-filled doomster, yet here he has become really sombre. Pound heading for parity with the Euro, major banks insolvent, action ineffectual, hush-hush all around so the common people don't realize the gravity of the situation. It's rumour, but rumour that Jesse, clearly an experienced financial man, finds plausible.

Like I said, you've had your warning. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

You've had your warning

Lord Myners has been criticised for telling the truth too early, i.e. 3 months after the general public could have done anything to save themselves. On October 10, "major depositors" in the USA and Japan were preparing to withdraw their money, and were willing to paying any attached penalty to do so.

For the rest of us, the corralito: "The Mail on Sunday has been told that the Treasury was preparing for the banks to shut their doors to all customers, terminate electronic transfers and even block hole-in-the-wall cash withdrawals."

Even if they had caught wind of it, would we have learned anything of this from the mainstream media? (Scornful laughs) But what were MPs doing with their own money? Perhaps they'd have abandoned us to our fate, like Lord Jim. (I have often thought that the main reason for getting into politics is the opportunity to trade - in all sorts of ways - on inside information and networking).

Do you think the banks have been saved? Mish doesn't think so. Is the pound safe? Jim Rogers doesn't think so (though this business associate of the sterling-busting George Soros may be playing a nasty little game of market manipulation - which is, scarcely credibly, not an incarcerable crime but merely a civil offence.)

Within the past 12 months, the pound has gone from USD $2.12 to $1.43 and Euros 1.40 to 1.06; to put it another way, imports now cost 48% more from the States , and 32% more from Europe. (O&A typical cash rates)

At least you can still get your hands on your money; but for how much longer? It may be that the crisis is over; but it may be that we are in the eye of the storm. Personally, after settling debts I intend (a) to draw extra cash, keep the slip to prove it's been legally obtained, and store it safely away from a bank; (b) to keep at least some of my money in foreign currencies - perhaps the Yen* and Euro*; (c) to look for a variety of non-cash stores of value - and not all of them with Government guarantees, either.

My trust in banks, politicians and journalists is broken. My faith in them is gone, because they did not keep faith with me.

*Though The Big Picture thinks Japan will move to weaken the yen and the Euro-zone is struggling to hold its members together. So, US dollars?

Rolling back the State

... won't happen. Only a major disaster is capable of breaking the hands that are strangling us. But maybe that is what is now on its way.

Mish reported yesterday how the banks are insolvent, and in his opinion monetary reflation can't work , for three reasons:

1. Putting more cash into the system to create inflation to reduce the real burden of debt, won't create jobs, raise wages, or stop outsourcing (China's nominal GDP per capita is $2,483, America's $45,725, according to IMF figures).
2. But "quantitative easing" - monetary inflation - will lead to a currency drop (if it succeeds) and the reaction will be a raising of interest rates as lenders try to protect the real value of their loans.
3. And if government creates jobs directly, it again skews the economy, giving higher importance to the objects it chooses than the market would, if left to itself; in short, what economists call "malinvestment".

A longish essay over on Mises looks at how the State has seized the wealth and assumed many of the functions of the private citizen, and how the First World War and subsequent events helped accelerate a process that had begun long before.

Back in the 70s, I came across the work of Ivan Illich. His general thesis was that the State takes over activities that previously we performed ourselves - teaching our children, tending to our sick and injured, etc. These functions are then made into organisations with big buildings, many workers and officials, and large budgets - all paid for by taxation. Sociologists call this "reification". It increases the size and power of the State - and here we are.

They don't even do the job well.

As someone in education (as well as finance), I don't subscribe to the airy assertion that "our youngsters leave school illiterate", but they don't read or write as much or as well as they did, and what the liberals have done to the curriculum in English (for example) is painful to see. Heads of English in secondary schools in the 70s literally burned or threw out their schools' textbooks and coursebooks (I remember hearing of three separate cases); but the temptation to micromanage returned. It's like the historical irony that saw the French kill their King and end up with an Emperor.

And having seen the medical service in action on my wife a few years back, I no longer have the blind faith in doctors that I used to have. Phil Hammond (the GP/journalist/entertainer) tells us that the NHS kills or maims about 10% of its hospital patients, and Illich was ahead of him again (Medical Nemesis, 1974).

That's not to say we don't need doctors or teachers, but once created, institutions develop a will to live and purposes of their own, and can drift perilously off-task. Individuals who join them can become sidetracked by career opportunities and political hobby-horses, and in any case have to accommodate themselves to working in a structure run by others who have already done so and altered the operational rules to fit their interests.

Looks like the banks have done the same.

We have to hope that, however painful, after the coming changes there may be some better balance between the citizens taking care of their families, and that black hole of wealth and power, the State.

Very scary

Mish doesn't come across as eager for Armageddon, which make his posts today really worrying. Is it time to get one's cash out of the dispensing machine, to avoid the Argentinian corralito?

Vice versa

“Good morning, Bank. Customer here.”

“Er, good morning...”

“I’ve been looking at your account with me –“

“I was going to give you a call...”

“ – and there are some matters we need to discuss.“

“I’m very busy at the moment..”

“ Tomorrow morning at nine, if you please.”

“Er, nine, yes.”

Click.