Risk – tricky stuff.

Risk – it’s a tricky concept. And becomes even trickier when bankers start to play with it and not only put numbers on it, but then try to buy and sell it. Modern banking is all about risk and its management. Yet despite paying themselves a fortune and extolling their own skills as risk managers, they have, as a group, demonstrably and undeniably failed to control or even properly understand the risks they exposed themselves and everyone else to.

Back before the ‘crisis’ there was ‘risk’. Risk that a loan extended might not be paid back. Bankers measured such risk, put numbers on it and priced loans and debts according to their risk. Risk became an important part of the value of something. You might have thought the riskier something was, the less it would be worth. If you did think that then you’ll never make it as a banker. Risk is valuable. A loan that isn’t risky has a low interest rate. Whereas a loan that is risky charges higher interest and therefore brings in more money. IF it is paid. Of course the risk is that it won’t get paid, it will default and you get nothing or very little. Certainly far less than you would have got with the less risky loan. So the mathematics become a little more complicated. Potentially more money to be made but with a risk of default. What you want is risky , high interest rate loans without the risk.

Bankers wanted high returns without accumulating too much risk. Securitization solved that one. Banks could make risky loans but not accumulate the risk on their own books simply by selling the loan on after they had made their commission  for ‘originating’ the loan. From the bank’s point of view once the loan was sold the risk had ‘gone’. Poof ! Just like that. Where had it gone? In to ‘the market’. Like pollution down a pipe it was washed away in to the great unknown. Instead of a few banks accumulating risk on their books, the risk was diluted into the larger flow of ‘the market’.

Of course in ‘the market’ someone had bought it. But the market was so big relative to anyone’s particular risk that it was considered gone. And no one was paid to think about loans other than their own. So the cumulative effect was largely overlooked. The market ‘would always provide’ was the wisdom of the boardroom.  And then to make the magic even better, if those who had purchased the ‘risky’ loans were ‘clever bankers’ they would have also bought insurance to protect them from whatever risk was left.  Enter loan insurance. Call it insurance, call it CDS, call it Emmanuel. I don’t care. What mattered was that the risk was now perceived to have been even further diluted. Now insurers were housing some of the risk as well.

Once insurers began to ‘help’ with risk other people saw that products that were once too risky for them were now not risky at all. So people who could not afford to take many risks, like pensions funds, felt free to buy the higher return products that were once too risky but now weren’t. And so it went on. More and more risky loans serviced by more and more insurance all disappearing in to the market. The market was, it was felt or assumed, virtually limitless. There would always be someone there to buy up risk and pay up in the unlikely event that any of the potential risk materialized. The risks were so small, (weren’t they? The ratings agencies certainly said they were) and the markets were so big.

But then one day the equations of risk management and in fact the entire world of banking turned itself inside out. Suddenly it was found that so much risk had been flushed in to the market that a toxic bloom of debt had turned the trading boards red. Risk was everywhere all at once, saturation point seemed to have been passed without anyone noticing and the market itself was now at risk.

Systemic risk was the new phrase. That which had been the sink hole for risk was spewing it back and might die of the shock.

What to do? The market had to be saved. The market was, after all, what dealt with risk. Without a functioning market goodness knows what risks we would be exposed to. That stupidity is what we were told. So the answer was to take the risk back out of the market. To cleans the market of what had poisoned it. Not by getting rid of the risk entirely, by making those who had bought risky debt suffer a loss. No, no that would impoverish the very people who were in charge. Naturally they had a better idea. They would simply quarantine the risk, by storing it somewhere until it all ‘recovered’. So the toxins were removed from the markets, but not destroyed. They were hidden away, safely outside the markets and new clean blood was pumped in. The body financial felt better. Or at least no longer at death’s door. Of course the transfusion were costly. But someone else was paying so what the hell.

Every bank did it. Every nation did it. And everyone who tried the cure felt better. Huge national debt mountains were created in the process as the debts were purchased and stored away. But then another ‘unexpected’ thing happened. All the risk began to go critical. Like stored uranium and plutonium too much was stored in places both too small and not designed for the job.

The National banks where it was all stored found they were running out of space and money. They decided they themselves now needed to go the markets and borrow money to pay for all the purchases and the cost of storage.. But now that they were the repositories of so much risk it was difficult for them to get a loan. So they ‘instructed’ the banks whose debt they had bought to buy the nation’s bonds in return. To sweeten the pill they said the banks could pay by pledging as collateral even more of the risky debts they might still have on their books. Turned out the banks had a lot more that they hadn’t mentioned when earlier questioned. But mum’s the word and nothing was said that might frighten the public.

So the banks now bought AAA rated sovereign bonds/debt and pledged more of their risky rotten loans as collateral. This seemed to do the trick again. The private banks got yet more risky rubbish  off-loaded, and received in return much lower risk sovereign debt in return. While the nations could trumpet how rumours of them not being able to sell their debt were exaggerated – they were selling it as fast as they could print it!

Unfortunately this fooled the public but not the banks since they were in on the scam. The national banks had been supposed to be big enough to store the great toxic flood of bad debt until the sunshine of better days shone down and evaporated the toxic sludge. Only, those days never came and the flood kept coming. So there came a day when the private banks in their guise of the Bond Market, began, with crocodile tears in their eyes, to say to the national banks, “We’re very sorry, but your sovereign bonds have become a bit risky. Given that you have so much risky paper sitting on your books now. So regretfully we will have to charge you more for buying your bonds/debt. The nations felt a little put out but the logic was sound. They paid. The higher the rate the private banks and bond buyers demanded the more money those banks were making on the deal. The more of it they wanted. So for a while bonds sold. MF Global accumulated over 6 billion euros worth of bonds from Europe’s riskiest countries. They could have bought German bonds but chose, of their own free will, to buy Italian, Spanish and Irish instead.

The banks were happy to buy the debt because it paid such a good rate of interest. All that was required was that it not default and all that required was for everyone to stick to the plan. The bail out “No one gets left behind to default” plan. And they could still pose as the good guys because they were supporting their sovereign by buying up its debt. Lots of banks did it. Especially, rather sadly, those in the countries whose banks and now whose national banks were in the most trouble. That’s why Greek banks have so much Greek sovereign debt.

It worked for a while. Pressure on the central banks was eased somewhat but at a cost. The cost was that the risk which had been removed from the market and stored in the central banks was now being wheel-barrowed back out and put back in to the banks and the markets. The private bonds were still in the central banks but the risk itself,  had now moved in to the sovereign bonds which were flooding the markets and the holdings of the Private banks.  A kind of toxic backwash. Madness you might say. Yes, but profitable.

But as it went on the risk began to slosh back and forth in a rather turbulent and unpredictable surge from the market to the sovereigns and back again. In, out everyone was getting thoroughly shaken about. The central banks had been supposed to remove risk from the markets but had instead become the markets and had overwhelmed everything and everyone else. Risk was not only back it was now piled up in fewer and far larger and more ‘catastrophically-dangerous-if-they-fell-over’ piles.

What do do – again?

The answer, because they couldn’t think of anything else, was to do the same again only bigger. Find an even bigger place to store it all and wait for that mythic sunny day that would make everything good again.

So risk that had been in the market, then taken out only to find its way back was now to be taken out again.

Now the debt would be siphoned from both the markets and the national banks in to the über banks of last resort and über bond buying funds. Step up the Fed, the ECB and the EFSF. Of course the Fed had been at this for a while. But the virgin ECB was bashful about filling its pants with other people shit. But hey! Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. But it was a hell of a measure and M. Trichet walked a little oddly afterwards; but no one liked to say so.

Did this solve it. Of course not. Moral hazard was simply taken to another higher dimension. But by this time the phrase “moral hazard” , which the bankers had never approved of and had quietly boycotted till no one dared use it any more for fear of being accused of being a banker basher, had been all but forgotten.  So no one in the media mentioned it.

Instead what happened is that the Sovereign debt of the riskier, ‘lucrative’ nations just got a better insurance behind it than the nations themselves could give it. Here was another chance to run the original logic a third time only bigger and faster. And with better ‘insurance’ this time from the ECB (which meant France and Germany). There was no time to loose. First with his face in the trough would get the most. Now you could buy risky sovereign debt with an ECB guarantee standing behind it.

And so the sale of sovereign bonds could continue a bit longer. The nations who sold them could bail out their banks a bit longer. And as an added bonus of perpetuating the debt bubble a bit longer, a long standing neo-liberal political desire could finally be forced through, namely of dismantling the welfare state, of forcing privatizations on people who were not in favour of them and of rolling back half a century of laws designed to protect the rights of working people. The cry was – it was too risky not to.  What a stroke of genius.

And now we are almost up to date. The risk has never gone away. It has been concentrated and now no one thinks even the über banks and bail out funds can contain the risk. At least not without printing up vast amounts of new money or getting Germany to take the entire risk on to its tax payers. And still no one will allow any discussion of how we could force the debts and the accumulated risk from the system.

The final question is where does the risk and debt that no one will get rid of, end up? Where is big enough to store it? And the answer is in the future. The future is BIG. Really, really big. It is virtually limitless and the amount of wealth in there, to pay off those debts is also potentially limitless. The only problem is keeping the debt in there and extracting the wealth. To do so requires that none of us, whose future is now a dumping ground for bankers toxic waste, and whose wealth must be extracted to pay off the debts, be allowed to object. Which means no pesky democratic voting. Voting has the power to over-turn the bankers plans and present arrangements. Democracy has the power to decide to default on the debt. So what the bankers need to do above all else is to elevate financial contracts ABOVE democracy.

If bankers can get us to believe that a contract signed by a politician to pay the bankers debts is above the will of a people to decide their own future then the bankers will have definitely won. Democracy will have ended and so will your children’s hope of a better future.

As long as the bankers can keep their debtst in our future to be paid off by us, the tax payers, for as long as it takes then today, here, the bankers can make money and live it up. Jam today for them, misery for the rest of us stretching away in to the future. Our future, not theirs.

Theirs, they are trying to make brightly lit and debt free. While yours, if they get their way, will be blighted before you ever see it. This is the risk we now run.

Risk – its tricky stuff especially when bankers get hold of it.

 

58 thoughts on “Risk – tricky stuff.”

  1. Sounds like “odious debt” to me. Do you think we will be able to get some politicians elected to tell the banksters to sit on this and spin?

  2. Your narrative is very much like The Emperor’s New Clothes or even the chain of consequences in JB Priestly’s An Inspector Calls. I agree – but what does it take to bring this alive in public consciousness? I get a feedback of unspoken disbelief from undergrad and even some mature classes. I start with risk as a conservation law – much as conserved in your story. I use a Steve Keen-like spreadsheet. I’ll have done peek-a-boo accounting from the shop floor to RBS before the fall (managers doing each other stock favours on quality audit days to the slush banks). I may be wrong, but I think a lot of the resistance is down to the numbers not adding up, sensibly, like a high school sum.

  3. Thats the most succcinct precise of where we are to date, but please David refrain from the “l33t” speak “teh” it makes you sound immature, and I should know I started it to hide my age on TB1;) If we can spead this message wide enough it will be a turning point in history! 😉

  4. backwardsevolution

    That was an absolutely great write-up. Thank you. I hope everyone spreads it around the Internet. The following article re risk by Charles Hugh Smith complements your article well:

    “We all know some 3 trillion euros of debt in Europe is uncollectible. So why isn’t anyone talking about the one and only solution, which is writing off all that debt? […]

    Let’s start with the most basic fact about all this uncollectible, impaired, bad debt: every euro of debt is somebody else’s asset. Wipe out the debt and you wipe out the asset. That’s why there’s no willingness to accept the writedown of debt: somebody somewhere has to suck up 3 trillion euros of loss. […]

    There is no free lunch. And since there’s no free lunch, then we have to ask: who should suck the losses when 3 trillion euros vanish in a massive renunciation/writeoff? Answer: those who took the risk. I know this is a shatteringly obvious conclusion, but it reveals the central flaw in the global financial system: risk has been disconnected from return.

    Those who made the risky bets have diverted the risk to others: taxpayers or the general public who holds currency. The gains from the bets are private, and theirs to keep, but all the losses are distributed to the public via government bailouts or money-printing. The first shifts the losses to the taxpayer, and the second shifts the losses to everyone holding the currency being devalued.”

  5. backwardsevolution

    Article continued:

    “Those who made the bets should rightly lose everything–yes, be wiped out. If risk and return are actually causally linked, then this is the only result of a big bet that sours: those who placed the bets should be wiped out. That includes money managers, bank honchos, bond-fund gurus, and everyone else who foolishly bought all this debt without investigating the risks.

    Investors in banks made their investment to reap a return; as a result, they are exposed to the other side of return which is risk. They should be wiped out as well.

    Who should not suck a loss are those who did not stand to gain: the taxpayers and holders of the currency. To repeat: the most basic fact about all this uncollectible, impaired, bad debt is that every euro of debt is somebody else’s asset. Wipe out the debt and you wipe out the asset.

    There is no way to avoid the 3 trillion in losses. the only question is who should absorb those losses: those who stood to gain, or the innocent chumps whose only crime was being a taxpayer or owner of euros? If there is any justice (or classical Capitalism) at all in Euroland, then those who made the bets and invested capital in the bets to reap a return are the ones who should absorb the losses.

    Ideally, the dominoes will cross the Atlantic and take down the parasitic “too big to fail” banks and Wall Street leeches in the U.S. After all, they too made bets on euro-debt and they should absorb the losses.

    If those who made the bets for their own private gain aren’t forced to absorb the risk, then we don’t live in either capitalism or democracy; we live in a financial-fascist tyranny.”

    http://www.oftwominds.com/blognov11/renounce-debt11-11.html

  6. That was the disease. Now we have the cure. Banks failing. The sooner the better!

    With OPM cascading into markets the bankers etc would have to be ninnies not to record profits selling products to one another.

    Now, it is different. They will lose 80% of their jobs and 90% of their pay as soon as the debts are written off. They know that. Lots of money being shipped in suitcases to politicians to keep banks going!

  7. backwardsevolution

    From the Automatic Earth:

    ” Monti and Papademos are there to execute a short lived “transition” job, and to then vanish.

    To sign a whole bunch of things into law which facilitate yet another round of bailouts and other support measures for their financial industries, and which will cause enormous hardship for the people (you ain’t seen nothing yet). Afterwards, someone else can take over and claim it’s not his/her fault.

    We’ve come to a point where there is really only one major choice left to make. It’s either to support the financial industry, which is irrevocably linked to both the financial and the political system, or to support the people. The fairy tale we’ve consistently been fed that they’re one and the same, that saving the banks will save the people, should have been laughed away and wiped off the table long ago. But it’s 11-11-’11, and the fairy tale’s still there. It’s a big fat lie that serves only to take hold of what scarce money you have left.

    We find ourselves in a full blown credit crunch. Chris Whalen may call it a “slow motion” credit crunch, but that, however tempting the idea, is at best partly true. The reason why lies in the trillions in future taxpayer liabilities that governments have pushed into the banking sector. Without those trillions, hardly any lending would be taking place. And with the trillions, the whole house is still coming down anyway, no matter all the talk about a recovery. […]

    Still, whether fast or slow, a giant credit crunch driven by debt deflation is irrevocably heading our way. Trying to stop it is entirely useless; using what scarce future wealth there will be to execute the futile attempt at doing so is extremely harmful. The world needs something better than finance industry henchmen like Papademos and Monti if we wish to minimize the upcoming suffering of the 99%.”

    http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2011-11-14T11:12:00-05:00&max-results=1

  8. backwardsevolution

    From BBC Hardtalk – Kyle Bass, hedge fund founder, says that “the profligate members have Germany by the short hairs.”

    If Germany ponies up more money, then they will spend it. If Germany then steps in and says, “Gee, you’ve really got to start paying back your debt”, the profligate members will threaten to default. Germany cannot win going this route.

    Three minute video – worth the watch.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9639507.stm

  9. backwardsevolution

    From Automatic Earth:

    “Everyone and their pet parrot are by now clamoring for the ECB to step in and buy everything under the sun, but that horse is already dead tired. The ECB itself doesn’t want to be lender of last resort, Germany doesn’t want it to be, and it also happens to be plain illegal to let it, under EU law and probably under that of some of its members as well. […]

    So what to do? It’s really very simple. It may lead to economic pain and political chaos, but other than that, it’s not that hard at all.

    Europe needs to grow a pair. It needs to refuse to bail out financial institutions that can no longer stand on their own two feet without bail outs to prop them up. It then needs to demand full discovery of any and all assets in the bank vaults. It can offer temporary support to those banks that remain viable as going concerns once all their paper has been marked to market, insure any and all deposits from citizens and businesses, and subsequently close the doors on those banks that are going concerns no more.

    Washington and Wall Street will shout fire, murder and brimstone, but you know what? Let them take care of their own for once. The notion that -future- European taxpayer revenue must be put at risk to save Wall Street banks needs to be put out by the curb. It doesn’t work, not for the European taxpayer.

    Both Wall Street and European banks that hold too much American and European private debt, sovereign debt and/or derivatives, need to be purged from the system. Europe can make a start, and if America knows what’s good for it, it will follow suit. If not, tough luck.

    It’s high time to come clean, to stop the incessant lying. To stop pretending things are a bit hard right now, but otherwise just fine. They’re not. Extend and pretend works only so long. Then it snaps back in your face with a vengeance. That’s why the bond markets are so successful in bringing down Italy and Greece. Not because the ECB doesn’t step in, since that would only serve to cover up reality for a little bit longer, but because they’ve both lied for so long about their real predicaments.

    No, just stop lying. The consequences and challenges will be formidable, but they’ll be that anyway. You can’t cover up the debt and the losses forever. And the chances of growing your economies out of the cesspit are zero, if not below.”

    http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2011/11/november-14-2011-growth-paradigm-has.html

  10. Nicely put. There is talk of tighter political integration in Europe (took them long enough). Enda Kenny is already talking to Merkel, probably discussing the cost of democracy. Will be interesting to see if they try to swing this without a referendum.

  11. There is a simple test that can be applied to judge whether a person truly understands the nature of risk. Take the following statement:

    “There is a fundamental law of the conservation of risk. No amount of financial engineering can majestically transform or transmute risk, it merely gets temporarily mispriced, disguised or transferred.”

    True or False?

  12. Keeping the world with a dominant specie productive, healthy and content is a daunting task.

    One that needs wisdom and commitment.

    Instead we opted for a game and created a virtual world and gave it legitimacy by believing it had substance.

    The result is a world of middlemen and the productive world of real supply, demand and innovation is reduced to the derisory derivatives controlled by middlemen.

    This is X Box computer game theory gone viral and entering the psyche of the addicts who subscribe to it. Which is why risk is an oxymoron when the effect of repercussions are removed from the equation.

    When reality has been swamped by nonsensical fiction the only sensible cure is to get rid of it – or if that proves too traumatic to wean the world off it.

    It is after all is said and done only an addiction. One with all the false hopes, illusions and subsequent failures inherent when toxic night gives way to real day.

    Candidly I couldn’t give a damn nor a dime for money theories. We as a species, have shown our abilities to take the gift of innovation,. whether for good or bad, to turn the inch of the possible into the mile of the exploitable. This is the way the use of money as a means of exchange has developed into the exponential usury we are struggling with.

    Life it self is a gamble, to allow this insignificant concept to influence the odds is utterly stupid.

    Emperors clothes! Not quite – the Emperor doesn’t need clothes he’s only virtual.

  13. Bill Mitchell:

    ”The rise of the economic technocrats is being hailed as a model to avoid complicating factors like worrying what the voters might think or want or do. We know best so shut up and take the medicine. There are two problems with this. First, it is undemocratic. Second, even if you are not worried about that, the technology these technocrats bring to bear is the same box of tricks that created the problem in the first place. Somehow they think if they just scorch these economies into submission, the market will finally start working again. Quite apart from their flawed technology, the reality is that the private sector will not be in a position for some years to drive growth strongly again on the back of a credit binge. Public deficits will have to persist. The very anathema of these economic technocrats. That is now emerging as the problem, quite apart from whether you think the people should get a say in who they elect.

    I thought the Bloomberg Editorial noted in the introduction was somewhat extraordinary. Apparently, leaders who are immune from political influences are “Europe’s best hope”.
    The article was about the demise of four elected European premiers in the last year with a suggestion that a fifth might be added when Spain goes to the polls on November 20. Apparently, these democratically-elected leaders:
    … lost their jobs because they failed to fix their countries’ mounting debt problems.
    And then:
    The take-away: When leaders fail to address urgent fiscal matters, the capital markets will punish — and ultimately remove — them by making the cost of financing debt prohibitively high.
    That is not the “take-away” that I would have concluded. Here is my take-away in as many words: Europe is now fundamentally undemocratic and the proponents of free markets are really setting up totalitarian regimes run by a cabal (EU, ECB and the IMF) who have lost touch with the needs of the citizens.
    The other angle that the Editorial advances is that these elected leaders have been replaced by unelected “economic technocrats with no particular party loyalty”. They might have added – with no particular connection to the people they are now ruling.”
    http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=16935

  14. An economist’s view:
    “Take the argument we’ve been having recently. Should we be trying to increase aggregate demand or should we be reducing the deficit? How could we have such basic disagreement on this? You would think economists would have solved this issue. Should we let the debt keep on increasing and worry about it later, or should we tackle it now and make it the main priority? Well, a model is not going to give you the answer because it depends on whether you write the model in such a way that getting aggregate demand up is a good idea, or whether you write it in such a way that people are really worried about future deficits that are coming around the road and they won’t invest because they know that taxes are going to be high in the future.

    These things are rigged into the model from the beginning when it’s such an unsettled question, and we don’t really have an exact science-based way to answer it, which is why we argue about history. You know, what should one have done in the Great Depression? Or we try to point to other countries’ experiences. And that’s a good way to learn, but it’s not something that economists are great at. A lot of economists don’t look at other countries’ experiences and a lot of economists are very ignorant of history.

    Economists don’t have to be free-marketers. But that ends up being the canonical model, and then everything else ends up being a departure from the canonical model, which you’ve then got to explain why you’re departing from. It’s not because the canonical model is right, it’s because you ask most economists and they’ll say, “At least we understand how that economy works very, very well. So you want to tell me that we’re going to move away from this one and move to something else, that’s fine, but you have to explain why you’re putting in all of these imperfections.” So it’s not that you can’t write those things down, it’s just that there is less of a standard way of doing it.

    Economists essentially have a sophisticated lack of understanding of economics, especially macroeconomics … So, yes, it’s true that the average guy on the street doesn’t understand economics, and it’s also true that we don’t understand economics. We just have a more sophisticated lack of understanding than the guy on the street.

    http://www.thestraddler.com/20118/piece4.php

  15. Neil (the original one)

    Mario Monti, Italy’s new leaders, has appointed himself finance minister (wonder if he’ll be claiming two salaries?).

    Telegraph snippets:

    “Italy’s new cabinet includes no politicians, one banker, and a defence minister who’s commanded two submarines. […] Banker Corrado Passera [CEO of Intesa Sanpaolo – ED.] the new Minister for Economic Development.” (Monti himself is a banker, so shouldn’t that be two?)

    “It looks like European Union leaders have told the European Parliament that they are pushing for greater intervention into countries’ governance.

    Jose Manuel Barroso said that for countries running excessive deficits he would propose giving the European Commission power to make recommendations on draft national budgets before they are voted on by parliaments.

    While Herman Van Rompuy said governments should also consider giving a central eurozone body the power to more directly intervene in the budget process of member states.”

    Zerohedge:

    “In a departure from the ‘technocrat’ government of Ciampi in 1993, the Monti government has no elected representatives.”

  16. That is so disturbing – are the MSM picking it up at all?
    By which I mean, the Telegraph are listing who it is comprised of, but where is the discussion around the destruction of democracy here?

  17. I was trying to imagine that I was looking back on what has happened since the 1990’s till the present day, as if I was sometime in the future reading a history book. Looking back on other major man made catastrophes like the great depression & WW2, with hindsight it’s easy to point out the stupidity & hubris from mainly our so called leaders, that caused these events. WW2 mainly being a result of the over punitive vengeful Versaille treaty, France’s greed over territory, the depression, the Weimar republic & appeasement. It’s also easy to pick out the idiocy that caused the great depression & the fact that nothing had been learnt from earlier depressions.
    Perhaps the repeal of the Glass-Steagal act put in motion this latest round of human stupidity, but that was just the start of it, I’m sure we can all think of other examples connected to banking, globalisation, etc, etc.
    I think that’s why I think we are in big big trouble, all the strands do not seem to lead to ” and they all lived happily ever after ” especially as those who are at the wheel are stuck in a rigid mindset that they cannot abandon. I used to think “how can they be so stupid, short sighted & greedy” until looking back, I realised that for the most part, they always have been.
    Maybe we need a tough guy to avert the abyss, he at least, as are many others, seem to be trying.

    http://www.ianfraser.org/mark-carney-%E2%80%93-the-new-sheriff-in-finances-global-village/

  18. http://politico.ie/crisisjam/8055-the-neoliberal-assault-on-democracy.html

    “What is emerging in fast and furious form is a constellation of neoliberal economic practices that are establishing a new paradigm for thinking about the relation between economic and social forms as well as modes of rationality, morality, and subject formation. And the problem, that which pushes tens of thousands of people onto the street, is not simply the rise of technological modes of labour and new ways of calculating the value of work and life. Rather, neoliberalism works through producing dispensable populations; it exposes populations to precarity; it establishes modes of work that presume that labour will always be temporary…”

  19. Golem, there is only one Eachran so far as I know.

    I quite liked your stuff on The G and I pop in here from time to time. I am having a bit of fun on The G website at the moment on Italy where Monti refuses to release the Q3 numbers : he says that we will have to wait until the end of December.

    Denoument comes to mind.

    On risk, I am doing a simple version of understanding risk for someone at the moment and when it is done I will send you a copy. I am sure that you understand it well enough but you may like to read another version that isnt entirely orthodox.

    Good luck and keep up your good work.

  20. Cait

    Not really hapenning is it. In the mainstream UK media the installation of “Technocratic” leaders is greeted with the positive spin that this provides “the required reasurance for the bond markets”.

    In other words, we all have to do what the Bond Market wants us to do, and be grateful for it, for “they know best” !

    1. Moreover, as Bloomberg has it, the people would vote for technocrats rather than have politicians foisted on them democratically, if only they had the chance (huh?)

      “Americans are fond of deriding European technocrats. Yet it’s the technocrats — a cadre of economists with international experience — who have accepted the challenge of stabilizing the continent, putting aside personal or political interest. They are Europe’s best hope.

      If Congress and the president can’t find a way to work together, one shouldn’t be surprised if Americans start looking for technocrats, too.
      http://goo.gl/zkYiN

  21. There seems to be a bit of a backlash against anyone having the temerity to question the current monetary system – or, at least, how its operation is (mis)represented, with the FT weighing in to discredit a recent Guardian post about the way money is ‘created’ which itself seems confused about how it all works – suggesting that it’s simply a case of transferring money from savers to borrowers.
    http://goo.gl/mTLtp

  22. Confused?
    Unable to get to grips with who owes what to whom?
    Puzzled by the complex international web of risk and debt?

    Never fear! Those nice people at the NY Times have compiled this easy-to-follow guide for our benefit.

    Look upon the complexity, ye Mighty, and despair!

    http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/10/22/opinion/20111023_DATAPOINTS.html?ref=opinion

    Sadly for me, every time I look at the graphic, I start to giggle. I think it’s nerves.

    BTW: Thinking of Whistleblower now he’s in the public domain. Best wishes to you, Sir, and Thank You!

  23. Charles

    Glad the money creation debate is causing a stir (first they ignore you, then they ridicule you….. etc).

    Page 4 of the paper delivered by Lord Adair Turner (Chairman of the FSA) at the recent European Conference on Banking makes it clear that Ben Dyson’s stance IS correct:

    http://www.mondovisione.com/_assets/files/Credit-Creation-Social-Optimality-Southampton-Uni-20110929.pdf

    “The most distinctive thing banks do, the essence of their function within the economy, is that they create credit and as a result create spending power.

    Banks it is often said take deposits from savers (for instance households) and lend it
    to borrowers (for instance businesses) with the quality of this credit allocation process a key driver of efficiency within the economy. But in fact they don’t just allocate pre-existing
    savings, collectively they create both credit AND the deposit money which appears to finance that credit. BANKS CREATE credit and money.” (My emphasis).

    Would love to see what the CiF troll(s) would make of that!!

    Steve Keen also proves that Bank loans PROCEED Central Bank Reserves (not the other way round).

    1. Hawkeye:
      The FT puts it like this (after ridiculing a Guardian article explaining debt creation:
      “By borrowing from the future anyone’s life experience can be a better one. You’re borrowing from other people who can afford to lend today, because you could very well be in a position to lend to them when they need your help. More specifically, the point is to smooth over the seven years of plenty over the seven years of famine, usually found in the earlier part of life. Debt is thus a hugely efficient wealth distribution mechanism.

      The debt obligations (money) which come about through this process are just the IOUs allowing us to cash-in early on the total productivity of our lives. Before they’re extinguished via payment for goods (or via the payment of tax in return for spending done on your behalf by the government) they stand as a useful means of exchange, which has facilitated trade and barter and progressed our lives as a whole.

      But the system depends on a) matching those with something to give with those who have something to give back in exchange and b) determining how many units represent your likely productivity (or what you can realistically borrow). A job which has conventionally been done by banks, and one which they have conventionally been compensated for with interest payments.”
      http://goo.gl/mTLtp

      Which seems to fall back on the idea that banks are simply intermediaries between savers and borrowers?

      1. Isn’t it great how the monthly cheque influences reactions. It seems to be endemic throughout the MSM.

        Candidly the article you highlight is, to me, one of the most absurd I’ve had the misfortune to read in this whole sorry saga of incompetence covered by billions of words, a strategy of confusion and self serving obfuscations.

        Truth is all of them – the players, the pundits and the backers, are desperate to keep the game going on nothing more than a busted flush.

        1. Interestingly, as soon as someone questioned the author’s understanding of the monetary system, the discussion was sidelined.

      2. “Debt is thus a hugely efficient wealth distribution mechanism.”

        Well, it depends on who’s on the receiving end of the re-distribution, I guess!

        Creditors do very well from debt, thank you very much.

        I don’t have the patience to read the whole of the FT article, but from what I see nothing in it fundamentally addresses the key assertions made by Ben Dyson. That is, that banks unilaterally expand the money supply when they make a loan. Lord Turner has said it clearly, they “create the loan AND the deposit”!

        Just look at a bank balance sheet and the mechanism of how they function in the real world (not the schmaltzy folk tale described by the FT) and all is clear.

        Definitely an F minus for the FT on that one.

      3. Charles et al

        Perhaps the FT should spend it’s time digesting high quality reports rather resorting to pumping out Mills & Boon level fairy tales.

        At least someone in the BIS is prepared to acknowledge how the finance sector creates it’s own credit:

        “The financial system can endogenously generate financing means, regardless of the underlying real resources backing them. In other words, the system is highly elastic. And this elasticity can also result in the volume of financing expanding in ways that are disconnected from the underlying productive capacity of the economy.”

        http://www.bis.org/publ/work346.pdf

        Rough translation of the bIS paper available here:

        http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/the-very-important-and-of-course-blacklisted-bis-paper-about-the-crisis.html

        1. Chris Dillow suggests that the monetary system has little to do with the current crisis – which is ‘a real phenomenon and not a monetary one’, arguing that anyone that questions the current system is a crank:

          “These beliefs they fly in the face of both neoclassical and Marxist economics, both of which downplay the role of money. To Marx, money was a veil which hid the real fact of workers’ exploitation. And in a lot of neoclassical economics money plays little role. Early general equilibrium models got by without it at all – consistent with the “classical dichotomy” which says that, in the long-run, money affects only nominal variables (the price level) rather than real aggregate ones such as output.”
          http://goo.gl/as3VH

          1. Charles

            Just read the Chris Dillow article:

            “Debt is a real phenomenon.”

            No. Debt is a social phenomenon. Money represents the allocation of claims, both in terms of the present and future ability to extract rent (i.e. unearned income in the form of interest) from debtors and hand it to creditors.

            In the standard interpretation Creditors are forfeiting purchasing power now (the money they Loan), in exchange for purchasing power in the future (Repayments). Debtors obtain purchasing power now, in return for handing over future income (i.e. forfeiting future spending power).

            The money system is just an extended and socialised method of managing claims and the allocation of purchasing power.

            The fundamental point that Ben Dyson makes (and many other monetary “cranks” such as Frederick Soddy) is that unlike a private two-way loan arrangement, when BANKS extend loans there is no real FORFEITURE of notional spending power. Nobody’s deposit is reduced when a bank makes a loan. Both depositors and borrowers believe that they have spending power at hand. It is only when all depositors start withdrawing their money (i.e. invoke the spending power potential of their savings) does the system start to crack.

            This is what happens with a bank run. It is not just a liquidity issue for a bank, but it exposes the accounting “trickery” behind the very basis of the money.

            Money is not real:

            http://www.theonion.com/articles/us-economy-grinds-to-halt-as-nation-realizes-money,2912/

            And debts are not real, and neither are savings!!

  24. Neil (the original one)

    Zerohedge:

    “Citi Chief Economist Willem Buiter: A Spanish Or Italian Default Could Happen In A Few Short Days [or weeks or months]

    ” I think we have maybe a few months — it could be weeks, it could be days — before there is a material risk of a fundamentally unnecessary default by a country like Spain or Italy which would be a financial catastrophe dragging the European banking system and North America with it. So they have to act now.” In sum – a rehash of the Deutsche Bank pitchbook to the ECB we posted earlier, only in Mutually Assured Terms that would make even Hank Paulson blush. At this point Germany has an option: tell Europe to take a hike, or go balls to wall in bailing out 250 million European’s early retirement packages. The ball is in Merkel’s court, who unlike Citi, JPM, DB, and everyone else, has to worry about this fickle, and potentially pitchfork bearing, thing called “voters.”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/willem-buiter-spanish-or-italian-default-could-happen-few-short-days

  25. Really well written article makes me what to share it with everyone, but people are so sick of me saying look at this read this that they’ll prob ignore it :-/

  26. Neil (the original one)

    Telegraph:

    09.05 BREAKING Northern Rock has been sold to Virgin Money for £747m plus another £50m in six months’ time.

    ITV’s Laura Kuenssberg tweets:

    We originally put in 1.4 billion – govt have been promised 50m more cash next year and will get something like interest payments over time

    Various reporters are pointing out via Twitter that only “good” part of the bank has been sold today. The “bad” bank – the home for mortgages unlikely ever to be repaid – is still on the British government’s books.

    From Faisal Islam of Channel 4 News:

    So taxpayers lose £400m on the good bank Northern rock sale, and get to keep the bad bank with the rotting 125% mortgages.”

    Privatisation of gains, socialisation of losses…

    1. Neil

      Only a cynic would conclude that !

      According to the BBC:

      Chancellor George Osborne said: “The sale of Northern Rock to Virgin Money is an important first step in getting the British taxpayer out of the business of owning banks. It represents value for money, will increase choice on the High Street for customers, and safeguards jobs in the North East.”

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15769886

      So Curious George believes that a “taxpayer loss of somewhere between £400m and £650m” (according to Robert Peston) is value for money. Hmmmm…

      For Richard Branson maybe, but not the UK tax payer!!

    1. Neil (the original one)

      Telegraph:

      “15.50 Greece’s new Government faces an extremely difficult situation. The IMF says this afternoon that it won’t make the next bail-out payment until it has “broad political support” for austerity measures.

      That could mean some kind of signed assurance from the new cabinet that they’ll push through painful spending cuts and tax hikes – but two out of three party leaders that make up the coalition have already refused to do exactly that.

      Meanwhile, huge protests continue to rumble on in Athens against those same austerity measures that the Government is being asked to promise to the IMF.

      “We will throw all of them out,” promised a banner held aloft by students, while another carried by anarchists read: “In the face of tyranny, one must choose between chains and arms.”

      15.35 The EU is helping Greece to claw back some of the €60 billion in unpaid taxes hidden away in Swiss bank accounts. That’s a huge amount when you consider that the entire bail-out package for Greece totals €110 billion.

      A team of EC experts have been sent to Athens to help negotiate with Switzerland, and their first feedback claims “concrete steps”. Horst Reinchenbach, the German head of the task force, said:

      “Solutions are being explored to provide Greece with an adequate way to increase tax revenue, taking into account the vast amounts channeled to Switzerland by Greek nationals.”

      But the good news only stretches so far – an EU official on condition of anonymity said that of the missing €60 billion, just half is “theoretically collectible” and only €8 billion are likely to be recovered “sooner or later”.”

  27. Fantastic summary of what at its it core should be really easy for anyone to understand. I guess as we all know, the point is to avoid that.

    I’m figuring out the best way to spread this throughout my networks mainly as an answer to those, especially here in NY, who keep asking the question ‘what are the Occupy Wall Streeters actually protesting ?’

    Something i’ve been thinking about a lot recently is where is Academia in all this ? Where are the student protests ? Where are the academic voices ?

    And, can someone also help me pull historical parallels to what is going on now ? There must be ? As much as things change they stay the same.

    1. Hi Mickey

      Keep spreading the message. The Occupy movement is a 21st Century “Enlightenment” !

      This whole crisis is a sort of repeat of the early 20th century breakdown of the Global monetary system which at the time was centered on the UK and the Gold Standard. Jim Rickards is a good source on the historic monetary breakdowns as well as the potential “scenarios” that could unfold in the coming months & years:

      http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2011/11/12_Jim_Rickards.html

      As another way of looking at it, this article sets the work of Karl Polanyi in context of our current crisis:

      “A hundred years peace [1815-1914] had created an insurmountable wall of illusions which hid the facts. No people could forget that unless they owned their food and raw material sources themselves, or were certain of military access to them, neither sound currency nor unassailable credit would rescue them from helplessness.”

      http://forensicstatistician.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/wall-of-illusions/

  28. I just couldn’t depart your site prior to suggesting that I extremely loved the usual information an individual provide in your visitors? Is going to be again regularly to check up on new posts

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.