Category Archives: Global Economics

BREXIT will not isolate the UK in Europe

univestBREXIT will not isolate the UK in Europe

I have received a number of comments suggesting that BREXIT will isolate the UK in Europe. As I have absolutely no interest in isolating the UK from Europe I would like to address these comments.

If you look back to the various blogs about the EU I generated in 2013 it should be clear that I consider that the UK should be at the very heart of Europe. If we look back at the two configurations suggested by Winston Churchill we essentially see one option where the UK would act as broker between the then OEEC (Organisation for European Economic Co-operation) and, primarily, the USA – a role we still perform in part today. The other option was to create a United States of Europe where the UK was the dominant player at the very heart of Europe. Never, in his wildest dreams, would he consider a role as a marginalised player in the autocratic EU of today.

So where is the confusion? Fundamentally BREXIT is about leaving the political system that is the EU – not Europe. Furthermore, BREXIT would lead the way for others member states, who cannot wield the power of the UK, but of similar mind, to follow. Other EU members who do not favour or qualify to join the German-Franco dominated Eurozone, could also combine with the UK to seek a new arrangement. This is where the UK, after the experience of BREXIT, would be ideally placed to take the lead role. A new grouping, under UK leadership, would be based on free trade with the Eurozone core (not the nonsense contributory scaremonger version), and on mutual interests elsewhere in the world – not least the Commonwealth countries. The new form of cooperation would be between independent sovereign European Nations and absolutely free of compulsion towards economic convergence or political integration.

Thereafter survival of the remaining EU ultimately depends on the fiscal union of those who use it. Fiscal union, defacto, demands political union. So the EU can only survive for as long as the remaining rich countries are prepared to transfer a proportion of their wealth to the poorer ones, and those poorer ones are prepared to endure the stark conditions of austerity the rich countries impose on them for receiving it. But the imposition of political union on the 19 nations that use it, (let alone the other 9 who do not, and may join the UK) no longer looks like a realistic option. As with the failure of the Schengen agreement on open borders, common sense suggests that we must have a fully integrated United States of Europe model for the Eurozone to survive. The reality is that there is little appetite to integrate 28 nations with disparate economies, different backgrounds, culture and languages under an undemocratic autocracy. Therefore, we need to find another way.

What I have always insisted is that the UK must have an alternate plan for Europe post-BREXIT that provides for the unity of the countries of Europe, but without the political integration. It would even be possible to keep the Eurozone for those member States that feel it beneficial (remembering that fiscal union means political union), albeit with a democratic oversight.

I am still firmly of the opinion that BREXIT will be the beginning of the end of the EU in its current form. The EU blind determination to continue its drive for ever closer union is in fact driving it rapidly towards the rocks of disintegration. If the EU were to recognise the impending disaster in time to materially change course before the June referendum, then it might be in the UK’s interests to stay in and participate in the process of reconstruction. But this is the only positive argument that can be made for staying in. As we saw with the Cameron negotiations the EU hierarchy seem so obstinately oblivious of the impending danger, that the case for us to leave is compelling. Remaining in without major reform would consign Britain to being a second-tier state in a United States of Europe controlled by the German-Franco-led Eurozone – which is totally unacceptable.

I was lucky enough over the past weekend to gain access to a paper ‘The Referendum – a step towards a Democratic, Prosperous and Safe Europe’ jointly written by Walter Reid, formerly Professor of Accounting and Financial Control at the London Business School, and Chairman MDA Training Ltd, and D.R. Myddelton, Emeritus Professor of Finance and Accounting at Cranfield School of Management. Rather than me summarise a lengthy paper I will provide an extract that speaks volumes of a proper English approach to the referendum:

Quote:

The paper proposes the establishment of a European Multi Currency Union [EMCU] to operate alongside the Eurozone.  Unless the Eurozone and the Brussels Commission come to realise that some such change is essential to hold the EU together – which seems unlikely – it will be necessary for it to be set up by a new Treaty outside the EU by member-states wishing to be free of the current Mission.  A parallel structure between the EU and the EMCU will enable Europe to present a common position in areas such as defence and internal security and any other areas where it is in the mutual interests of both parties to work together.

Britain has an important role to play in helping to set up this new democratic Europe.  It could provide a way for both Britain and our fellow-member-states who also want to escape the oppressive actions of the Eurozone to protect their national interests and build together a democratic and prosperous Europe.

To help achieve this crucial aim, David Cameron should adopt an approach that would mitigate further acrimonious and divisive argument between the Remain and the Leave groups – which could split his party and indeed the country. This would involve agreeing that his recent negotiations achieved much less than the ‘fundamental and far reaching change’ he sought in his Bloomburg speech and that the concessions gained are being challenged.  Further, they are causing serious divisions across Europe as other countries seek similar exemptions.

End Quote

The last paragraph indicates a needed change in position by David Cameron which would also stop all of the adverse speculation in the markets, which in itself is unnecessarily damaging the UK. I would hope that this paper becomes readily available in the public domain.

Advertisement

BREXIT – What a difference a week makes

univestBREXIT – What a difference a week makes

The past week has yielded so many interesting events that I have shelved my scheduled blog to consider the potential impacts to the whole EU debate.

In no particular order let us start with the UK Budget speech given by George Osbourne last Wednesday. All sounded good with much bravado albeit two of his three fiscal rules were already in shatters. But the economy is growing so such rules are only political rhetoric. However, he used this platform to make a clear statement that the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had provided evidence that UK exit from the EU would damage the UK economy in the short-term. This statement clearly aggrieved the OBR as, by tea time, they had completely refuted his representations as they only provided (conveniently selected?) views provided by third parties.

Then he expounded the view that we were all in this together as he slashed corporate taxes at the same time as slashing benefit payments (some £4 billion) to the most disadvantaged. Whereas there is no doubt that the welfare budget in the UK does need to be reined in, it cannot be achieved merely by setting arbitrary limits and crossing out figures on a spreadsheet with a complete disregard for social justice. Again, by the end of the week, these welfare cuts had diluted from hard cuts, to a discussion, to kicking into the long grass, to being scrapped with the very public resignation of the Work & Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith who gave an impassioned account of his position on the Sunday morning Andrew Marr show. Let us not forget that this happened to Osbourne in his last budget as well.

Also, during his budget speech, he confirmed that the continued refusal by the EU to relax VAT rules to allow tampons to be zero rated, the so-called tampon tax (some £500 million pa), would result in the taxes collected continuing to be distributed to various women-based charities. The following day David Cameron went to an EU Summit meeting in Brussels regarding the important refugee crisis. Apparently, during a coffee break, all 28 EU leaders agreed to relax the EU VAT rules. Clearly not planned. Has Europe realised that BREXIT is gaining support? How many more rabbits will be drawn from EU hats between now and 23rd June?

It was interesting to tour the Highlands of Scotland a few weeks before the Scottish Independence referendum to test my view that Scotland would be stronger in the Union, and thus the vote would be to stay part of the UK. Having purposely stayed in B&B and small privately owned hotels it was interesting to speak privately with the Scottish people about their thoughts. In those 8 days only one person clearly stated that they wanted independence. Much was offered by the UK Government in fear of the noise by those shouting ‘independence’. Had they copied my trip they would determine that no deals were necessary. Everyone else was keeping their thoughts to themselves because of what they were seeing in places like Glasgow where Alex Salmond’s equivalent of Hitler’s brown shirt nationalistic youth movement were intimidating those who openly wanted to remain with the UK. Come the day the silent majority, proud of their heritage within the UK, prevailed. I would therefore suggest that rabbits from the EU, at this late stage, will not work. Indeed, I think the canny Scots are likely to deal Nicola Sturgeon a blow in the EU referendum. Ouch, Nicola.

Then we have the third fiscal rule imposed upon himself regarding converting the current budget deficit into a surplus by the end of this parliament. The general view on this pronouncement is that he needs a major event, such as an exit from the EU, to provide a credible excuse for missing this target, as most surely will be the case. But not because of misguided ambition as a budget surplus should be the goal for fiscal prudence, but the target has to be reasonably achievable with a balanced approach. Ouch for political ambition.

And Peter Mandelson amused me by suggesting that if Maggie Thatcher was still in charge that she would vote to stay in. Having known her views, I’m sure that she found the surrender of so much UK sovereignty to the EU by Tony Blair in her final years as depressing, and would certainly have returned from negotiations with a credible reform deal before even thinking of such a stand to remain a member. It was also interesting that Mandelson had conveniently forgotten that he proposed we join the Euro. Beware of the so-called Prince of Darkness.

Then I read a City Comment in the London Evening Standard by a journalist with the name of Anthony Hilton. Firstly, he was abusing a quote by a long deceased industrialist, Sir Arnold Hall, “What problem do we have which is so serious that (BREXIT) could possibly provide the answer”? Then he used comparators that demonstrated his armchair approach to journalism. For example, he states that the German economy can operate very well within the EU, so why can’t the UK? If he remotely understood the difference between the German and the UK economies he would understand the answer. Whereas the UK sits with the USA economy as an outsider, or open structure, the German economy is quite the opposite as an insider, or closed structure. Ownership of German companies is protected with incestuous patrimonial linkages between German banks and companies, with preferential proxy votes and cross-shareholdings. Foreign ownership of a German company is so rare that it is major news. An example of the vast difference this closed structure reveals can be illustrated by reference to the steel dumping by China. The incestuous linkages in Germany mean that steel users (car production construction, and other major engineering companies) can be compelled to buy from German steel manufacturers rather than buying cheaper steel being dumped by China. This is protectionism. Our open system cannot compel our companies to use British steel. So when our steel companies suffer the impact of dumping we can do nothing about it because it would require Government intervention – not allowed by the EU. And will Germany fully support an anti-dumping campaign against China – not likely as China is an important market for Germany exports. We should also remember that Germany makes the trade rules within the EU to favour Germany, as with the Euro fiscal policy.

He further cites Wolfgang Schäuble, the German Finance Minister, and one of the nationalistic dinosaurs standing in the way of the much needed radical EU reform, who stated at the recent BCC conference that, after BREXIT, any trade deal with the EU would be conditional on maintaining free movement, and continuation of some form of payment into Brussels. This is typical scaremonger nonsense. Do the USA, or even Canada suffer such impositions in their trade agreements? The German Foreign Minister was far more realistic. He endorsed the view that a free trade deal would be agreed within days of BREXIT irrespective of EU political views not least because the German Government would be bombarded by their major companies and banks because of the high level of exports to the UK, not to mention that imports from Germany to the UK are significantly larger than UK exports to Germany.

I could further dismantle his arguments, but would suggest that he listens to someone like Sir Peter Hargreaves, the co-founder of the very successful Hargreaves Lansdown investment manager, who has a real-world experience and suggest that not only would the UK be better off outside of the EU, but such a stimulus would re-energise the British people to take more pride in the UK, buy British, and put the ‘Great’ back into Britain. For certain the UK has problems in productivity, poor venture investment, and lack of manufacturing. Perhaps a refusal by the EU to provide goods will stimulate the UK to make their own – a boost to employment, and needed reduction in the balance of payments – all positive. We could also relabel our much heralded sparkling wine as Champagne (as do the Americans), retain our traditions of sausages, Cornish pasties, pork pies et al without meddling interference in the British way of life from Brussels.

My final observation for today is the visit by Obama to Cuba. The opportunity to re-engage with Cuba has been staring at Europe for some years, with the doors open to engage. Whilst visiting a few years ago on an exploratory trip ‘America’ still invoked hatred with the Cuban people because of the Bay of Pigs incident. The opportunities for European businesses was considerable, as was the opportunity to substantially re-establish original European businesses in sugar, and other agri-products, as well as new off-shore oil & gas finds. The inward looking nature of the EU has surrendered this opportunity to the USA who will now move in and, no doubt, ignore repatriation of former European assets. The British understand the importance of such opportunities because of their historic trans-global, outward view of the world, in stark contrast to the introspective view of the EU.

Let us hope that the coming weeks are somewhat quieter, and less damaging.

 

 

BREXIT – What Deal?

univestBREXIT – What Deal?

When David Cameron elected to engage in a referendum regarding UK membership of the EU his pronouncement was that he would seek much needed fundamental reform to the EU, or support an ‘out’ vote. These reforms included substantial issues such as curtailing the role of the European Court of Human Rights in UK determinations, to scrap the Human Rights Act, reclaiming sovereignty for both our parliament and our judicial system, and to have sanction over immigration into the UK.

What he achieved is zero reform; only some tweaking at the fringes which, until written into Treaty are no more than what the Courts call mitigating circumstances in determinations, the existing Treaty being the fundamental basis on which they will make determinations. Few, if any of the EU leaders who agreed this tweaking will be in office when the next Treaty is discussed, and the European Parliament can most certainly vote down any, if not all of the concessions. Thus why the ‘deal’ is already in the dim past of the EU referendum debate.

As a trained negotiator I have an unease about the lack of any substance to the ‘deal’ as Germany most certainly needs to keep us within. Did Cameron not have the heart for such a negotiation? Is there a deal behind the scenes regarding the future of Cameron? Was he the wrong man to negotiate? History may tell us the answer, but until then we must accept that the ‘deal’ does not remotely meet with the initial basis of the referendum.

I am not going to debase my discussion by using speculative monetary values, or the use and abuse of statistics. As it is clear to see in the media the business and financial community are divided on opinion based on their specific vested interests – thus irrelevant. As argued in previous blogs this debate is about the future of the people in the UK. All of the economic and political arguments pale against the right outcome for the British way of life. Business and finance will continue regardless of the choice made in June. As one dear lady so elegantly put it in a Jeremy Vine interview last week, ‘so-called experts built the Titanic, but not the Ark’.

I do not believe the people of the UK will engage with the current political and business debate. So let us bring the argument down to a reasonable comparator argument that anyone can understand. Our base will be a recently new golf club where the charter debenture holders (the people who essentially financed the building of the club) sought preferential treatment as part of their contribution. This creates a two-tiered system of membership even though much of their initial investment has been redeemed through subsequent debenture sales. What will happen over time is policy committee members will change, and privileges of the charter members will become fuzzy, and erode, until they have no more privileges than any other member, i.e. harmonising rights to all members. This is what will most certainly happen in the EU. Fuzzy memberships such as Norway, the UK, and Switzerland will be tolerated in the short-term, but over time the boundaries will be eroded until they are eradicated. In Political Risk parlance this is called creeping expropriation. If the UK elects to remain an EU member it will most certainly not retain any special status over time.

The generally accepted current situation of the EU is fragile, and in need of serious reform. So what is the future if the UK votes to remain within – uncertainty. What is the future if the UK votes to leave the EU – uncertainty. So what is the difference – control of the uncertainty. The UK is not a Switzerland or a Norway. The UK is the 5th largest economy in the world – and carries much power and influence in the world in its own right (as endorsed by the German Foreign Minister on Radio 4).

Let us look at uncertainty, again in an easily understandable form. Uncertainty is as much part of life as day and night. The obvious relevant examples are life-changing decisions to get married, have children, or God forbid – divorce. They all require uncertain adaptability, but are all undertaken with the hope to a better future. For a while they can be a struggle, but the outcome is generally worth it. Ask any woman who has gone through labour, but yielded a healthy baby – the pain of labour is soon forgotten. A BREXIT includes a 2 year ‘grandfather clause’ where all of our existing relationships with the EU continue giving time to agree alternatives such as free trade agreements. The UK will see some immediate benefits in that the irksome elements of the Human Rights Act can be ignored, immigration can be brought under control, and our transport infrastructure can quickly progress without the interminable interference of Brussels. Therefore, our uncertainty has a short-term safety net which negates the scaremonger argument that the short-term will be turbulent; but does have some valuable upsides. The UK successfully recovered from 2 World wars without help, so a relatively simple exit from the EU should be a breeze. I would suggest that most people will not feel any immediate difference.

There is one element of the uncertainty that I have yet to see any comment. What is likely to happen to the EU without the UK as a member. There are a number of relevant uncertainties. Other net contributor countries could see the UK exit as a sign that the current EU model is really broke, and thus elect to do the same – especially as the EU will have to increase contributions of other member States to fill the vacuum left by the considerable contribution by the UK. The right-wing elements of France could rise and depose the French Government. France has much to lose by a UK exit. Where were these concerns in the deal negotiations – or wasn’t the threat of the UK leaving a serious consideration?

If Germany can find the means to support the Eurozone then it will more rapidly consolidate its hold over the Euro countries – and the people of the UK will be thankful that they departed. Of course we still have the Greek issue which will most certainly be a thorn in the side of Germany – will this lead to conflict within the Eurozone? We have seen that the poor response by Germany to the economic situation in the Eurozone when they refused quantitative easing some 4 years ago. The too little – too late plan by the ECB yesterday was greeted with derision by the markets.

The UK has a proud history as the banking centre of the world boasting excellence in financial capability (even when Labour are in Government), and the ability of the UK to rise from both the irresponsible spending of the last Labour Government and the financial crisis lays testimony to the intelligent and speedy response to such events. Should this be sacrificed to the incapable Eurozone mandarins who clearly do not have the experience, or the global market understanding?

In summary BREXIT will yield uncertainty whichever way it goes. Therefore, the issue is whether or not the people of the UK want control over such uncertainty, or do they want to surrender decisions to Brussels – unaccountable to the people of the UK, and not so interested in preserving the British way of life.

 

 

The Foundation Stones of the BREXIT issue

img1The Foundation Stones of the BREXIT issue

Before embarking in any detail blogs regarding the political and economic merits relating to BREXIT I would like to consider the environment leading to this referendum.

I think what is happening in the USA at this time allows us to sit back and observe what happens when the people feel that politics is stagnant, and thus irrelevant. If we use a simile of the US Congress and the House of Representatives as two conflicting factions of Europe, and President Obama as the people wanting to move forward in their lives but stifled by the conflict, then we can understand why Donald Trump is doing so well. My view is that the European Commission has lost sight of the problems in Europe being more interested in the degree of curvature of a banana than the real problems of economic inequality, global instability, and now the refugee crisis. Indeed, the refugee crisis demonstrates the difference between out-of-touch grandstanding vision, and reality.

In the late 1970’s, my mentor, Walter Wriston, and probably the most influential banker in the world at the time responded to my question regarding the political influences on deregulation of financial services and global capital flows (Big Bang in 1986) by stating that politicians come and go. Business drives economic prosperity, and the banks are the enduring stable force to ensure the required liquidity to facilitate global trade. I have never forgotten his response, essentially because it has shown over the years to be the case. I was also taught by him that there are two factors in global business decision making; inevitability, and consequence. To him (in 1979) deregulation of financial services was inevitable, with timing being the only consequence of interference from politicians.

I had the opportunity to attend a presentation to senior bankers by Jacques Delors when President of the European Commission. He was expounding ever closer European union in his attempt to convince senior bankers of the merits of forcing European federalism upon the UK. I suggested to him that businessmen, rather than politicians, would drive any unity in Europe, if deemed beneficial, while the politicians were still talking about it. Even his (French) economic adviser could not dispute the reality of my comment. It was interesting last week to see how few of the CEO’s of major corporates in the UK were prepared to openly endorse the views of David Cameron regarding BREXIT.

My opinion from many years of experience throughout the world is that the EU model is broke. The Cameron negotiations demonstrated that there is no appetite from vested interest parties to fix it other than tinker at the edges. In recent years the faults in the USA federal model have clearly demonstrated how damaging such models can be to the people when vested political interests can completely stifle the function of Government, and thus damage the lives of the people it is there to protect. Therefore, the only other route is to let the EU empire fall, and then remodel into something more worthy of consideration by the people. Does the UK want to be part of this (inevitable?) decline when it has other options? I think that a risk analysis would err on the side of caution, i.e. stand outside as a spectator and watch. And let us not forget that the Greek crisis revealed another truth – that the big decisions were made in Berlin – not Brussels.

Business will always find a way to trade, and thus survive. Thus BREXIT is only about the people of the UK, and their influence over decisions regarding their own future.

The General Election 2015 – A Sorry Tale

univestThe General Election 2015 – A Sorry Tale

Are we all now completely disillusioned with the current General Election? Whatever happened to integrity of manifestos and campaigning? Now it’s down to who has got the biggest ……

It is also noteworthy that Ed Balls has been demoted to the second rank of campaigners. The stench of his part in the last Labour Government, plus the number of times he stood at the dispatch box during the recent term condemning economic policy which actually worked in spite of the debacle in the Eurozone. So much for the Eurozone signally the end of Rule Britannia as and when we leave the EU –  it’s the EU that will collapse as well it should – for the third time.

Whilst I appreciate that some greedy bankers created havoc in the financial markets right under the eyes of the so-called regulators, this was mainly in the USA. The previous Labour Government had still spent all of the people’s hard earned taxes on populist social experiments that all failed, or left the public sector in substantial dire straits, e.g. PFI for hospitals and school that can no longer afford the poorly negotiated high payments. Indeed I am struggling to recall one Labour Government since WWII that did not leave the country bankrupt or near bankrupt with the banks being called upon to use the might of the London financial markets to beg, borrow, or otherwise as much foreign money as possible to keep the country afloat. Thus why Maggie Thatcher spent so much energy putting the “Great” back into Great Britain. I also remember that when Tony Blair took office the previous Conservative Government left him with a surplus in the Treasury.

So what about our lefty Ed Milliband; what will he do? An accountant friend of mine has put together a little tale of how our tax and benefits system will work using Ed’s plan. It is a sobering message.

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

  • The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
  • The fifth would pay £1
  • The sixth would pay £3
  • The seventh would pay £7
  • The eighth would pay £12
  • The ninth would pay £18
  • And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody’s share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

The result was that the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).

The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).

The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).

The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).

The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).

And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).

Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got £1 out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved £1. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next week the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

German Domination of Europe – When will they learn that there is a better way

German Domination of Europe – When will they learn that there is a better way

The poignant D Day events of last Friday reminded me that this year is also the centenary since the start of the First World War, or the Great War as it is more commonly known. Although I have many good friends in Germany, and hold absolutely no prejudice against the German people of today, it occurred to me that, for 100 years, the elite of Germany have attempted to mould Europe in their own image, initially through two catastrophic world wars, and currently through self-serving political and economic influence within the European Union.

It cannot be disputed that the engine-room behind the introduction of the Euro was Germany, and in spite of the so-called stringent rules of entry into the Euro, Germany allowed such rules to be significantly relaxed to allow countries to participate where compliance with the entry rules would result in such countries otherwise unlikely to qualify for entry for years to come. It is no secret that Germany has significantly prospered under the Euro – at the expense of the other member nations. These nations now seek financial support, and the German Government have a hard time selling these bailouts to the already over-taxed German people, albeit a problem created by Germany in its self-serving quest for the domination of Europe.

Sometimes I reflect that Germany, having left Europe devastated in 1945, forgets that much of their subsequent prosperity was built on their substantial participation in the Marshall Plan (whereas the United Kingdom, as victor, did not qualify for any such support and has been required the swallow the cost of the wars, and rebuild using its own resources). As with the so-called super-model of Japanese prosperity in the 1980’s I do not subscribe to the German economic model of today, and certainly would strongly oppose this model being at the centre of the European Union. The current German economic model has a fundamental incestuous instability at its core, just like the proverbial pack of cards, and just as with Japan before its economy collapsed.

And this week the German elite are flexing their self-serving muscle again by instruction Angela Merkel to support a tame federalist like Jean-Claude Juncker as European Commission president, a move that is counter to the fundamental reforms needed by all donor nations – except Germany.

I have just noticed a news headline  ‘German chancellor Angela Merkel has cautioned David Cameron not to use threats of a UK exit from the EU in his campaign to block a federalist candidate from taking the helm of the European Commission.’

Without these reforms my view is that the UK should not threaten to leave the EU, but make it very clear to Germany through the promised referendum that the people of the UK do not see their future dominated by the German vision of Europe. Maybe then the UK will have to pick up the pieces of an imploded Europe for the third time.

A New Multilateralism – Realisable or Wishful Thinking?

univest

A New Multilateralism – Realisable or Wishful Thinking?

I listened to the Richard Dimbleby Lecture on Monday evening with expectation of some new thinking on the way forward. The lecture was called ‘A New Multilateralism for the 21st Century’ and was presented by Christine Lagarde, incumbent MD of the IMF. My initial reaction was that it presented some interesting ideas, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on the relevance of these ideas. So, on Tuesday, I printed off the transcript of her speech from the IMF website. Having now studied this speech in some detail I find it endorses my view that the multilateral institutions of which she leads the IMF are essentially out of touch with the real problems that we face in the 21st century.

Back in the 1970’s, during the oil boom, individuals in the Middle East were accumulating vast amounts of US Dollars in cash because Western banks did not want it. Indeed I remember Swiss banks charging up to 3% p.a. to take these deposits. I actually walked into a room in a palace and saw a pile of US Dollars, and was told that this pile amounted to USD 1 billion. In an attempt to give some visual impression of this pile I am reliably informed that a standard 40ft sea container will hold USD 1 billion in fresh print USD 100 denomination bills. This money was not participating in any economic benefit whatsoever, and there was no possibility that the owner could reasonably consume these funds in their lifetime. Yet just one mile away there were ordinary working people struggling to find the money for their next meal. It occurred to me that if these funds were deposited with SAMA, and used productively producing even a nominal return, such return could be used productively to provide food for these people without any degradation to the original money. Yet the owner had no interest in such a proposition, and was content to accumulate yet more piles to look at.

Unfortunately this sorry tale has since increased in propensity, and as we saw a few weeks ago, Oxfam calculated that the 85 richest people have the same wealth as the bottom half of the World’s population. Christine Lagarde added that the richest 1% in the USA captured 95% of all income gains since 2009, yet the number of people in the USA needing food parcels to survive is now reaching pandemic proportions. She further states that in India the net worth of the billionaire community increased 12 fold in the past 15 years, enough to eliminate the poverty of that country twice over. So why has she not rationalised this into the real threat to the World Order in the 21st century?

We have seen so many billionaires created out of emerging economies such as the former Soviet Union, China, and India, sapping vast amounts of sovereign assets. The rapid nature of such wealth creation should arouse suspicion. However the point that I make is that somehow a few own wealth beyond any reasonable expectation of spending throughout their life. Many will say that they invest much of their wealth, but this only increases their existing wealth. Having met a number of these oligarchs their primary objective is to continue to increase their wealth, usually at the expense of others.

What about if each billionaire set aside USD 1 billion for investment and applied just the income to relieving poverty.

In 2013 an investment return of 15%+ was easily achievable. This would provide in excess of USD 150 million from each billion invested. The billionaire has not lost their capital, but much could be achieved with the income stream. Of course a few of these billionaires are already philanthropic and names like Bill Gates easily come to mind, and who clearly understands that he does not need such vast wealth, so uses his business judgement to make every dollar count in his selected beneficial projects.

Having brushed along with the World Bank, the IMF, and the UN for over 30 years I would suggest that they are political institutions populated by political appointees and academics who have no idea about the real world. I have witnessed a number of World Bank projects which did no more for the recipient country than to provide work for a donor country corporate, create an inappropriate monster that, within 5 years, was derelict leaving the recipient with sovereign debt but with no value to show for it. I have also seen appropriate solutions costing a fraction of the price of the expensive inappropriate concrete alternative discarded because the amount of the appropriate solution did not warrant World Bank intervention. It is interesting that Christine Lagarde acknowledges that it was the fast response of the G20 that stopped the world descending into meltdown 5 years ago rather than the institutions such as the World Bank and IMF founded to deal with such events. I think that this is a good template to use in stating that the current multilateral institutions are not good at delivering effectively solutions.

Although I am clearly in support of the outcome of Bretton Woods, we should also remember that not enough people there were visionary enough to accept all of the ideas of Keynes, and which were subsequently quickly adopted as catastrophe loomed, e.g. removal of the gold standard. Other than those wearing rose tinted spectacles no-one would suggest that the institutions that emerged remotely fulfil their ambitious mandates. I have already mentioned the lack of effectiveness of the World Bank and the IMF, and the UN is little more than a toothless talking shop today – Bosnia being a classic failure.

Christine Legrande suggests that the multilateral outcome of Bretton Woods produced ‘unprecedented economic and financial stability …. Disease eradication, conflict diminished, child mortality reduced, life expectancy increased, and hundreds of millions lifted out of poverty’.

Do we not count Korea, Vietnam, Congo, Sudan, Yugoslavia, Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria …….etc as conflicts? All consumed the lives of many thousands of people including Western soldiers, left chaos and destruction in their wake, and they are still very much in our minds today. When was the last time that the USA was conclusively successful in any serious military conflict? Therefore Europe and the USA may have seen peace and prosperity since Bretton Woods but how many thousands of American and European soldiers and civilians have died in the name of preserving this peace?

To suggest that Europe has been conflict free is also short-sighted. In the past 6 years Europe has been involved in an economic war. Not too many people killed with bullets and bombs, but many have become disenfranchised, lost everything, displaced, and descended into poverty. Is this not symptomatic of a conventional war? When the vision of a European Union was first put to the people the rhetoric promised peace and prosperity for all citizens. I accept that the banking crisis made a bad situation worse, but how many European politicians in France, Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland and the UK breathed a sigh of relief that they could hide their failure to create a credible EU behind the banking crisis?

Let us examine the two reference dates that she used, i.e. 1914 and 1944. She suggests that prior to 1914 the birth of the modern industrial society brought about massive dislocation between protectionist nations, and inequality between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’. Take away the country boundaries, essentially the impact of the digital age, and what is different today?

So where do I see the powder kegs of the 21st Century? Perhaps controversially I do not see the North-South Conflict as a major threat. An implosion within the Islamic community is more likely with primarily Sunni against Shi’a. If you think about it, most of the current conflicts involve the Islamic nations, and are driven by extreme religious division. The intervention by the West in some of these conflicts in the name of protecting the West has no logical outcome. These people have no regard for Western democratic values, or of secular tolerance.

At one end of the spectrum we have the blatant inequality of the distribution of wealth. We are experiencing 2 critical phenomena, both of which are counterproductive to a peaceful, all inclusive world. We have individuals and corporates accumulating vast wealth to the point where the resulting power exceeds that of some major nations. Albeit a few of these have taken a philanthropic stance we should note that such philanthropists are mostly from Western countries. Many of the new billionaires are from emerging or developing economies where democracy does not really mean very much, and a market society is the norm, i.e. everything has a price, even social and civic values. All we need is a charismatic megalomaniac, as depicted by the Carver character in the James Bond movie, ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’, to cause chaos and suffering for many throughout the world. Unfortunately Western civilisation has degraded over the past couple of decades towards a market society thus adding a significant sting to the ever increasing differential between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. For example diminish the rights of the ‘have nots’ to education, justice, political influence, and healthcare because they have no money and you have a significant pool of would-be terrorists for our megalomaniac to exploit because they have nothing else, and nothing to lose.

Then we have corporate greed. So what can the people see? During the past 6 years the people have become very aware that their corporate executives have suppressed the salaries of the workers (the value drivers) to below inflation levels whilst increasing their own already attractive remuneration by some 40% average, and which has been allowed by investors because dividends have been maintained to these investors. So the people at the top have handsomely profited whilst real income to the workers has diminished. So much for sharing the pain. In addition these executives are immune to any accountability should they fail. Have any of the avaricious people who profited from the banking crisis been prosecuted, or had their ill-gotten gains repossessed? The banks themselves are being penalised by regulators who should have been more alert to the problems in the first place, and some of these funds do go to Government coffers. But these large fines diminish the capital of the banks, and thus inhibit their capability to finance the very enterprise we need to re-energise the employment market, i.e. they inadvertently stifle recovery, increasing disenfranchised young entrepreneurs.

At a micro scale we can look at the fate of RBS under Fred Goodwin. He was a megalomaniac trying to build the biggest bank in the world. Everyone I spoke to in the City of London at the time leading up to the acquisition of ABN Amro agreed that the terms of that deal, at twice the price that anyone else was prepared to consider, was insane. Yet no-one stepped in to stop him. How much pain, and destroyed lives has RBS caused to many thousands of people. But Fred Goodwin is made for life financially; so well in fact that sticks and stones may break his bones, but he will not lose a night’s sleep over the names that he is called.

At the other end of the spectrum we have the demographic issue. We have already seen a growing view amongst the young generation of workers that their taxes should not be funding the pensions and healthcare of the graying generation. The younger generation see that they have to pay taxes to support the pensions of an ever increasing graying population, and being told that they also have to contribute a significant proportion of their disposable income to their own pension provisions as State pensions will slowly but surely phase out by the time they retire. All of this at a time when real incomes are diminishing in real purchase power terms. Rightly the graying population state that they have paid their taxes, in the form of a special National Insurance tax specifically for the right to a State pension and healthcare, throughout their working lives and thus their State pension is rightfully theirs. The problem is that successive Governments have not ring-fenced these contributions over the years, preferring to spend it in the hope that future generations with continue to fund the requirement; a little like a Ponzi scheme. Add to this the migration of young labour where they have no historic interest in the local graying population, and expect to be able to send money home to support their own aging family, and we have potential serious discourse and unrest. Bring both of the above phenomena together and we have a powder keg just looking for a fuse.

So from where can our fuse emerge? Our fuse already exists in the form of the global internet, social networking, and twitter. Christine Lagarde is right in that the Arab Spring was fuelled by the galvanising of the people through media such as Twitter and social media. But likewise these facilities can also be used to fuel discontent and confusion. Great philosophers such as Aristotle, Kent and Hume have all commented on the importance of gossip to the masses, and our lesser quality media thrives on this obsession. So the touch paper is a disenfranchised charismatic individual or group exploiting the power of gossip through Twitter and social networks. We have seen the impact of disenfranchised ‘have nots’ in riots in many cities over recent years. It is when all of these groups can be galvanised together that we need to be concerned.

Investment Banking – The Way Forward

univestInvestment Banking – The Way Forward

Having previously looked at the history of investment banking, and where they are today, what is needed in the future to ensure the credibility of these important banks.

Even today, post the 2007/08 meltdown, we find the mavericks still essentially in control of many of the investment banks, epitomised by the most recent scandal in the UK whereby corporate bankers, probably from an orchestrated script that even they did not understand, were encouraged to sell complex SWAP instruments to small corporates with devastating effect. Bonuses taken, but leaving the banks to face humiliating fines and further damage to reputation.

If it is accepted that we have defined a major, if not predominant, flaw in investment banking culture then what practices could be instituted to change this culture to a more acceptable form of banking without losing the creative skills for formulation of new and applicable products, and the liquidity environment to make such products attractive to the widest range of investors.

The Role of Regulators

The typical cry from outraged politicians across the world (who for all intent know little or nothing about these markets) is for more regulation. This is nonsense as no amount of regulation will impact a short-term culture environment where traders will take whatever risks they need to make their bonus as they will be long gone to their retreat in Barbados before the devastating  (both reputation and financial) impact of their actions are felt by the banks. The only changes to regulation that will extract any effect would be the prosecution of reckless traders who profit from the damage they do albeit I see a legal minefield differentiating between rogue trader, and irresponsible trading with plausible deniable consent of management. The legal maxim actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea comes to mind. Furthermore the UK Financial Services Act would need to be amended to bring habeas corpus into effect for individual prosecution so that banks could limit their legal liability to the trader and thus impose some responsibility discipline into their actions without removal of the rights of the individual in Common Law. The Serious Fraud Office, who would have to seriously increase their skills, would need to be the prosecutor for UK based traders. Importantly any such change of this type of prosecution needs parity in each of the major financial centres to have any real deterrent value. Rendition of individuals to the USA when London is the heart of the financial World is not a reasonable solution.

Furthermore my experience of regulators is that they have little or no knowledge of the complexities of securities products, or the markets. Forensics and post-mortem after the event is a far cry from being able to evaluate the impact of new financing structures, e.g. super-senior debt, and realise the impact of such artificial concepts on the market, and thus prevent its introduction. It is also worthy of note that the independent rating agencies and monoline insurers also need to take responsibility for what they are prepared to acknowledge as worthy credit, and in the case of monoline insurers, their capacity to manage major defaults.

Regulators such as the FCA in London do not have remuneration structures at a level to attract the people skilled in such instruments. Why regulators appoint youngsters when there is a vast body of 50+ knowledge and invaluable experience who may desire a more relaxing environment than the daily frenzy within the banking environment to see out their days. It was the smart youngsters who were encouraged by the mavericks to engage in casino transactions, without knowledge of impact, thus bringing the system to its knees. If regulators are to regulate the markets against transaction types that will create havoc then they need a ‘poacher turned gamekeeper’ approach to recruitment – and reward these people properly. If this credibility existed within regulators then every new instrument proposed by investment banks should be approved for full or specific limited usage. Likewise, as a general rule, unregulated OTC markets should be seriously curtailed, if not banned, or fully regulated. Leaving a door even slightly ajar invites clever investment bankers to find a way through it.

There is no point or value in having regulators in different major financial centres who cannot exactly agree on how investment banks and products should be regulated. I believe that the decision by the SEC unilaterally allowing the US investment banks to increase their capital gearing to 40:1 was a major contributor to the financial problems through 2007/08. Not only did this encourage casino gambling by investment banks in the USA but also provided a competitive edge to US investment banks that had to be mirrored throughout the whole investment banking community to maintain a level playing field. Securities and associated derivatives are the essence of a global capital markets and, just as with Central Banks, requires one central governing body regulating capital adequacy and risk. Regulators throughout the World have to be in harmony on the essential capital and risk management of investment banks, and the products in which they can engage. This would also prevent anticompetitive meddling such as the EU Governments attempting to impose a financial transaction levy on banks throughout Europe which would clearly be more detrimental to London than anywhere else.

It might also be worth considering nomination of major financial centres in the World where every investment bank in those centres operated under identical rule sets. Indeed this idea could be expanded to contain all investment banking activities to these major financial centres and thus all investment banking would be under the same regulatory umbrella. Much of such investment banking activities occur in the recognised major financial centres today so this would not be onerous to implement.

At the beginning of the widespread use of International securities in the 1970’s every Eurobond instrument was supported by an identifiable asset, even if just a Balance Sheet. This provided a clear understanding of the risks involved with holding the Eurobond. When more complex securities such as asset-backed securitisation came into being there was still a pool of assets that could be clearly identified. With mortgage-backed securities the asset cover was usually provided by a ‘AAA’ rated monoline insurer credit wrap (without stressing the Balance Sheet of the monoline) thus the asset was the Balance Sheet of the monoline insurer backed ultimately by the underlying property assets. Today it is very difficult with many securities products to adequately identify the underlying asset in a direct way, if indeed any such asset exists. As existing securities are partially stripped and repackaged the underlying asset becomes blurred, and there is no fundamental economic benefit that can accrue from such instruments. So is it time to retreat from synthetic casino instruments of no real economic value and thus ensure that there is a clear economic reason for the issue of any securities product, including derivatives. In recent years banks have used casino instruments such as the Snowrange issues that essentially bet on stock market activity or interest rate movements to raise cheap capital. Having studied a number of these issues I am disappointed that banks need to use such nebulous mechanisms in this way when, if structured with some thought, they can provide a needed and valuable project finance collateral instrument, especially in developing economies, and which achieves the same objective for the bank, but also provides real and identifiable economic benefit. Perhaps investment banks should use their financial skills to revert to structured project finance to win back credibility. If investors are provided with a continual flow of instruments which are no more than a casino gamble then this consumes capital that could be more usefully employed in economic growth. If regulators remove casino products from investment banking then investment bankers have to apply themselves to raising capital for economic activity. This would also force mainstream banks to use depositor funds for lending purposes rather than engaging in casino gambling.

 

The Role of Compliance

It is very rare to meet a compliance officer within an investment bank with the knowledge and expertise to be accepted as a positive contributor to the business rather than the person to be avoided as a constraint to business because of the ‘if in doubt, say no’ where doubt can be interpreted as the lack of knowledge and understanding of the business.

Compliance officers are essentially the eyes and ears of the regulators. Therefore their knowledge needs to be thorough, and their role clearly defined. In my early days at Citicorp we had compliance in the form of an internal audit team the head of which reported only to the President of the bank, and with the absolute authority, without the consent of the President, to close down any operation or entity that was considered non-compliant. Internal audit consisted of a small team of inspectors that could go to any operation anywhere in the World without notice. Within each corporate entity there would be representation proportionate to the size of the entity and who reported only to the head of internal audit. They could summon the inspectors if they felt that something was wrong, and had not been corrected to their satisfaction. Believe me that this internal audit team put more fear into every aspect of the business than any compliance team I have encountered post-big bang. Bob Diamond suggested that Barclays had some 200 compliance officers yet he was still allowed to operate as he pleased. Compliance similar to the internal audit team I experienced at Citicorp but where they are paid by the bank, but ultimately report to a senior regulator, should impose much needed discipline into investment banks, especially at a senior level. However, such compliance officers need to be well trained, and worthy of the power that they wield.

One aspect of compliance which I consider unwieldly is the amount of written documentation involved in this process, much of it in a legal jargon. Is it reasonable to expect our compliance officers to be trained lawyers, or is it more important that they understand the business, the products, and the markets? The more cumbersome the role of compliance, the less likely that it will be effective. Therefore I would suggest that the whole concept of regulation be re-visited to determine the type of regulatory structure that can be reasonably and effectively implemented.

Much of who can engage in what activities can be controlled by rule tables within competent computer systems. If new products are pre-vetted by Regulators then, again, computer systems can control what transactions are admissible, and in what size, volume, etc. This was all possible in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s with the advent of AI. Technology has moved on to a more mobile capability, but the challenges presented by allowing high value transactions to be executed using such technology do require extensive risk/reward assessment where convenience is the very last consideration. I have experienced the attempts by traders to circumvent rules built into systems. For example we had a fixed income trader who wanted to step out of their allowed range of traded instruments to engage in gilt futures. A trader authorised in this product was on leave, but somehow had allowed his login details to become known to the fixed income trader who used this information to access the gilt futures markets. Unfortunately for him the computer systems knew that the gilt trader was out of office so an alert was posted to the trading floor manager, the head of settlements, the compliance officer, and the director of operations (me). Thus this potentially very expensive transgression could be swiftly dealt with.

This level of control is relatively simple when trading is contained to a trading room but, now I understand that there are traders who can use their mobile phones to trade from anywhere, and I  am also aware of trading stations at the homes of traders. This poses enormous problems for compliance. I would propose that unless every aspect of any transaction can be properly and fully recorded, including any and all voice communication, then trading should be contained to a specific trading room. Remote trading stations pose significant risks, not least from hackers. If hackers can infiltrate the most sophisticated (and budgetless) systems in the intelligence community then this is a risk too far. Furthermore remote trading opens the door to orchestrated trading, whether market manipulation or book distortion. If one analyses this problem laterally there is no excuse for remote trading out of hours as processes to overcome the global nature of trading were introduced in the 1980’s to roll active positions to a trader in the next time zone with instructions on how to react in the event of certain market conditions. If these market conditions do not arise then the position will revert untouched to the originating trader at the opening of the next business day.

Trading practices today centre around the ‘convenience’ to the trader, and the argument won on the basis of ‘profit’. A number of very expensive and publicised trader problems have occurred as a result of such practices, and I would wager from my own experience that many more have gone unreported. It is time to change the argument to one which states that if any trading practice cannot meet robust compliance requirements then such practices should not be allowed.

A Change in Culture

Although the regulatory and compliance structures outlined above would provide a more mature and robust environment for investment banking activities, the changes required to the current risk taking attitude of traders will not occur without a radical change in the way that investment banks are managed. Soccer players are a reasonable analogy to traders because their career is short-term, as is their perspective. I think it is arguably universally accepted that Sir Alex Ferguson is the most successful and respected soccer manager in the World. We know him as a strong character who can build and mould successful soccer teams using a well-honed balance of discipline and encouragement of flair with his players. The players know that Alex is the boss, and know that his words are essentially law. He instils a belonging in his players to Manchester United Football Club, the most renowned soccer club in the World, and commands loyalty and respect from his players and supporters alike. If any player thinks themselves bigger than the club, e.g. Beckham and Ronaldo, no matter how good a player, they are sold on as they have clearly forgotten from where their fortunes derive. Players such as Scholes and Giggs have been loyal to the club for the whole of their professional football career even though they were both World-class players who would be welcome at any other soccer club in the World. Players such as Cantona, who had such a bad reputation and not wanted by any club, was given an opportunity to redeem himself by Alex, and proved to be a great and loyal asset to the club for the remainder of his playing career. In a slightly different light we see that every Formula 1 driver expresses a desire to drive for Ferrari at some point in their career regardless of how Ferrari is performing. And note that these people vocally praise the support teams that make their success possible. These are success stories in an environment of high energy, high risk, short career span people who want to belong and are prepared to openly express their commitment and loyalty. How could investment banks learn and profit from a culture change that encourages long-term loyalty in a team structure that strives for success as a collective rather than individual reward.

Managing any self-respecting professional investment banker, whether deal origination/execution, support operations, or systems is a very special skill. These are not conventional people. They live on the edge of the box or totally outside of the box, and not willing to comply with boring rules of convention. This is the essential characteristic of their ability to be creative and productive in such an energetic environment where things happen in the moment with no dwell time to consider. They must have confidence and conviction supported with knowledge. If they have been through higher education, and succumbed to conventional wisdom during the process, they are unlikely to survive no matter how bright they are. Like soccer players they have individual skills and flair which needs to be positively moulded into a successful team. Teams of like-minded people create a sense of belonging and loyalty as a natural progression of working together. The management of such people needs to provide a suitable working environment which contains the necessary constraints regarding risk and excess without trying to apply any conventional management techniques that will stifle performance. Like the soccer players they are contained within the boundaries of the playing pitch, where they are encouraged to combine their individual talents to win the game within the constraints of the rules of the game. In our analogy to Alex Ferguson all team members know that the manager has a formidable knowledge of the game.

Asking a trading manager to operate with constraint is counterproductive as it is easier to ask forgiveness than seek permission. Equally you would not expect such a trading manager to determine credit or risk policy as this would invariably lean toward excess. The role of the trading manager is to maximise return on capital employed within pre-determined credit and risk boundaries and thus looks out into the market to seek opportunity. The trading manager, director, or whatever you wish to call him plays the role of the team captain in our soccer analogy ensuring that the play strategy is right, and that every player is contributing at peak performance.

Therefore a counterbalance is needed to ensure that rules and boundaries are independently derived, and then observed at all times in order to protect the Balance Sheet of the bank from inappropriate exposure, i.e. looking inwards. In conventional businesses such activities can be dealt with over days or even weeks, but in a trading environment with a turnover of some USD billions per day such attention can be minute by minute. Whereas a Credit Committee can provide overall guidelines on limits and exposure, the reality of the trading environment requires credit and risk limits such as new counterparties, trading in hybrid securities to fulfil a client requirement, etc. to be determined swiftly, and certainly within a trading day. Thus a combination of compliance, settlements, and funding act as the referee during the trading day (the game).

Likewise traders should not be allowed to determine their own strategies without reference and approval of a detached COO – the Alex Ferguson role. Traders who cannot properly articulate their proposed activities in a coherent manner should be refused the right of execution.

On the subject of behaviour it can readily be demonstrated why a trading director is generally not the right person to manage the discipline of traders – not least because the director of trading is one of them – they are the pack, and the trading director the pack leader. The trading director considers the loss of a good trader before the serious nature of his behaviour, and the behavioural impact on the other traders by forgiving unacceptable behaviour. I am aware of forgiveness of extremes of behaviour throughout the investment banking sector, but certainly not exclusively to it.

If we look at banks that have either failed (Barings, Lehmans), or banks that have suffered large losses under the heading of ‘rogue traders’ (SocGen, UBS), we will find a common denominator – the front-office was all powerful, and the back-office were considered irrelevant people with no voice. I know that this attitude to back-office exists in many investment banks today, yet a good operations support team is equally as valuable as the front-office in securing, realising and protecting revenues. If allowed to properly engage they provide valuable input to traders and are valuable eyes and ears of the COO who controls all of these activities. The COO provides the boundaries of the playing field, the rules of the game, and the moulding of all of the players into a team, including the Director of Trading whose natural self-preservation and ego will provide some initial hurdles. Having seen this in action turnover of staff diminished to an extraordinarily low level, and the ability to cross-cover in times of volatility was exceptional.

The Bonus Culture

How many investment banks still have the perverse attitude that traders should receive vast bonuses whilst the support function that at the very least minimises the cost to do business receive only a nominal percentage of salary. This attitude is so wrong in every respect and is an inherent facet of the corrupt culture within the investment banking sector where the top people take care of themselves, and spread a few crumbs for those that actually made their profits possible. A good support operation controls the downside risks thus more of the income is translated into profit.

Can we change the existing bonus culture in a way that it will be adopted throughout the investment banking sector, help to avoid reckless transactions, and encourage more term loyalty of investment bankers. I have listened to a number of options in this direction, especially from grandstanding politicians and media reporters. However none have grasped the nature of bonuses in the investment banking sector so their suggestions, whilst sounding good to their audience, will be rejected out of hand by the bankers.

When sales people of any product or service complete a transaction they are generally entitled to a commission within a short time frame as part of their remuneration package. This commission is their incentive to perform and is the general nature of the sales process throughout the World. Some transactions involve a term timeline to completion so commissions are scheduled according to the value received at various points along the timeline. Some sales involve a sole sale person, others require a team approach and thus a commission pool is created and the value of this pool distributed to each team member at periodic interval tied to the value received by the company. Such commissions are referred to as bonuses in the investment banks, but otherwise share all of the above characteristics of commissions. I have already discussed the origin of bonuses in a previous blog. So how can the bonus system be modified to help to properly reflect performance, as well as to encourage loyalty. It is worth noting that an investment bank can have a daily turnover equivalent to that of a major corporation over a whole year, so understanding scale is important.

Deferred bonus for completed transactions is neither popular nor equitable. The bank has the value of the transactions in its profits, and thus the bonuses should be paid. It is also counterproductive as it causes discontent, and a headhunter can readily negotiate a payment of such deferred bonus as an inducement for a good trader to move. Alternatively, for a term transaction, a bonus should not be paid until the bank has accrued real value less any required contingency for future risk until such time as the transaction completes, and is without further potential liability. This is an equitable approach regardless of sole trader or team, and the latter case will probably have the greatest impact on bonus culture.

My experience suggests that the more important issue to be addressed by investment bankers is whether or not it is more appropriate to engage in pool bonus structures to encourage team performance, and thus loyalty. I am in favour of pool systems for a number of important reasons. Firstly and foremost it does encourage team performance which significant reduces the possibility of rogue activities, and provides a natural cover for sickness and holidays. Other benefits include natural selection in that if any member of a team is not performing this becomes immediately apparent making the exit of the non-performer self-evident.

As for quantum, remember our soccer players, Formula 1 racing drivers, and their short career span. I have experienced many traders freeze or completely fold at their desks over the years. These people will never trade again, and probably not work again so I do not resent high bonus payments as it might well be their last. The only time I have exception is when these traders are so greedy that they always look for ways to trade outside of the acceptable range of activity, and will not even consider contribution to a pool for the people who support them, and without whom they would not make any bonus.

Summary

From my experience the counterbalance resource that represents our Alex Ferguson role is an executive COO with the following characteristics:

  • Highly experienced in all aspects of investment banking – but not from a deal origination background
  • Has control of all aspects of the operational business base including risk, exposure, compliance, settlements, funding, and systems including origination/execution staff discipline, but excluding business daily strategy within approved guidelines.
  • If there is an investment bank CEO then this COO should have equal status and equal responsibility to the Board. If there is a parent company then both the CEO and COO should have equal representation on this Board.
  • This COO should be the main contact of the investment bank with regulators such as the Bank of England.
  • This COO should not be obliged to accept market sensitive information without the opportunity to check such information with the source.

This resource will provide the counterbalance to the ‘Bob Diamond’s’ of this World and preserve a more stable environment without loss of business opportunity, and without loss of credibility. Under such a structure rogue traders would be confined to history as there would be no means of hiding such activity, and any activities outside of risk and credit lines (which can occur during a trading day) would be monitored in real time and corrected within that trading day.

There is no doubt that the ‘Bob Diamond’s’ of investment banking are valuable resources as deal makers but if the bank is to achieve stability and credibility such people need a tight rein to curb their natural tendencies to push the boundaries beyond reasonable limits of risk and exposure in the name of profit. However, giving such people executive power is tantamount to giving a nuclear warhead to a fanatic. The Peter Principle needs to be applied with rigour, regardless of the demands/charm for executive status ‘as a requirement to perform’. They can assume the title of ‘director’ for market purposes, but without executive portfolio.

I have no doubt that, assuming that such existing people can be persuaded back to their deal making tasks, there will be continual clashes of personality and will to regain their executive control as their deal making ego will see robust management as a constraint to profit generation. But I have already referred to the specialist management skills needed within an investment banking environment, and shareholders must support this position instead of listening to the charm of fool’s gold from reckless risks. Assuming that you can walk into a casino, put all your money on ‘00’ at the roulette table expecting to win, invariable ends in tears.

The outcry about bonus payments need to be put into perspective, albeit they need to be rationalised as previously described to encourage loyalty and fair distribution.

Robust management supported by a regulatory system which has professional competence and provides pro-active oversight with universally accepted rules of engagement throughout the World will provide the framework for investment banks to perform their specialist and fundamental role in global economic recovery, and its continued growth. This does not mean more regulation by grandstanding politicians (just look at the mess they are creating in the Eurozone debacle). It requires a unification of existing regulation, and then implementation with the required skills. Investment banking is a global business, and needs a uniform global platform of regulation.

One important lesson of the past 20 years is that the door was open to let the mavericks take control, and they were treated as gods. They have taken their rich bonuses and so can live in luxury whilst everyone else has to burden the cost and pain of their activities. Only after a major reorganisation of investment banking, essentially from within, can we revert back to the banker’s creed ‘My Word is My Bond’ with any sincerity.

Are we at a collision point between socialism and capitalism, and is the global energy business driving this collision?

univest

Are we at a collision point between socialism and capitalism, and is the global energy business driving this collision?

Two events have occurred over the past few weeks which appear to encapsulate an observation that I have been considering for some time, i.e. whether or not capitalism has moved to the extremes of greed, and socialism has no answer to counterbalance this behaviour. Politicians and the media would have you believe that banks are the ultimate in capitalist greed. Whereas I have serious reservations about the activities in certain banks, I feel that the major energy companies from oil & gas production through to energy generation consider their power above that of politicians at the highest level, and that of the major trade unions. If my observation bears credible scrutiny then who are the winners, and who are the losers.

The two events that I would like to use in this debate, because they encapsulate the major drivers in this debate, albeit not the only events of concern, are the Grangemouth Refinery & Petrochemical plant debacle in Scotland, and the UK Parliamentary Committee meeting with the major UK energy companies this past week.

Perhaps a little background on the energy footprint in the UK will assist readers not familiar with the situation here.

According to Ofgen, the energy regulator, the UK has installed capacity for electricity of some 73GW of conventional generation and 9GW of renewable with ACS peak demand expectations around 60GW. Uncertainty around government policy (UK and EU) and future prices continues to limit investment in conventional generation and no new plant is expected before 2016. In the UK it is  estimate that around 1GW of new gas plant will come online before the end of the decade and the installed capacity of wind power will possibly more than double over the same period albeit that this must surely now be in question. In any event, given the variability of wind speeds, they estimate that only 17% of this capacity can be counted as firm (i.e. always available) for security of supply purposes by 2018/19.

More than 2GW of LCPD opted-in plant have also closed or converted to biomass since October 2012, resulting in less pollutant plant but with significantly reduced capacity. Around 0.5GW of nuclear capacity is reaching the end of its technical life and is expected to close by 2014/15, though extensions now have to be considered. Around 2GW of CCGT plant should be retired by 2018/19 for the same reasons, but will this happen?

As installed capacity falls in the next few years, all else being equal, prices can be expected to rise and it is possible that this will lead plant, especially coal fired, that is currently mothballed to come back online to keep prices affordable.

According to National Grid, the expected drop in peak demand is mostly due to increased energy efficiency in the domestic sector and increased Demand-Side Response (DSR) insulation of buildings, etc. I consider this to be a convenient explanation politically where the truth may be more damning.

For completeness the interconnection capacity between the UK and mainland Europe and Ireland is currently 3.8GW. Assumptions about the likely direction and size of interconnector flows therefore have a significant impact on the calculation of the risks to the UK security of supply.

Ofgen expect that, in a situation of tight margins (please), ahead of mitigation actions being implemented, prices would rise resulting in higher interconnector flows into GB. However, GB is not the only European country expecting de-rated margins to fall in the next six winters. France, Ireland, Germany and Belgium are also facing security of supply challenges, and have very similar patterns of demand and supply availability.

As for gas, DECC reports suggest that gas consumption reached a record high in 2004 of 1,125 TWh. Since then, consumption has seen an overall decline, and in 2012 total gas consumption was 845.6 TWh, around 25% below its 2004 peak. These longer term trends are driven by commodity prices, energy efficiency and, for domestic use in particular, temperature. However domestic demand in 2012 was high, up almost 16 per cent on 2011, reflecting the colder, protracted winter, but gas demand for electricity generation fell by almost a third to 214 TWh largely as a result of coal replacing gas use due to high gas prices.

UK gas production peaked in 2000 and has since been declining. With declining production the UK has become increasingly reliant on gas imports to meet demand. Since 2000 net imports have steadily increased year on year, with the exception of 2011 which saw a 3 per cent decrease on the previous year’s level. The recent fall in imports can be attributed to the reduced gas demand from electricity generators, being replaced by coal.

Imports of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) through the two terminals at Milford Haven remain substantial, but their shares of total imports have dropped from 46% in 2011 to 27% in 2012. Demand for LNG on the global market remains strong but the UK has a diverse pipeline infrastructure (from Norway, the Netherland and Belgium) and the proportion delivered through each route will depend on global market conditions.

It is probably also worth noting that Europe, as a whole, has over capacity in crude oil refineries. The UK has 7 refineries. According to HIS Purvin & Getz Research Group the UK imports 47% of its diesel fuel, and 50% of its aviation fuel. However the UK has a 20% surplus of petrol which it exports.

Now let us look at the politics. In March 2007, the European Council agreed to a common strategy for energy security and tackling climate change. An element of this was establishing a target of 20% of the EU’s energy to come from renewable sources. In 2009 a new Renewable Energy Directive was implemented on this basis and resulted in agreement of country “shares” of this target. For the UK, by 2020, 15% of final energy consumption – calculated on a net calorific basis, and with a cap on fuel used for air transport – should be accounted for by energy from renewable sources. There was much grandstanding by the politicians at the time, especially directed towards the USA, indicating that Europe was a good citizen of the world, and would be a leader in the climate change revolution, setting targets that many reasonably minded people thought optimistic. However there followed much uncertainty surrounding the implementation of this and and other market reforms thus having as much impact on plant investment and retirement decisions as the expectations of the impact of evolving energy prices. This uncertainty means energy companies suffer much frustration of their long-term strategy through muddled energy policy, or indeed the lack of any definitive energy policy by various governments.

On the other hand the USA refused to sign up to Kyoto and, other than a little dancing at the edges, ignored the grandstanding of Europe and other countries and allowed the market to determine the future. The USA gets many things wrong, especially much of its foreign policy, but when it comes to protecting its own market it invariably gets it right. Developing new technologies and techniques such as fracking, the USA is now energy independent, energy prices are around 20% less than Europe, and they can export enough cheap fuel to disturb the markets in Europe.

In the UK the previous Labour government blindly signed up to all of the EU energy initiatives, could not fund these initiatives through already excessive taxation, so the current leader of the Labour Party, then Energy Secretary, came up with stealth taxes in the form of environmental and social levies to be collected by the energy companies from the domestic consumer, currently £117 per household, to fund these initiatives making a number of people in the renewable energy market very rich without delivering any tangible value today, or tomorrow. We now have a coalition government where the predominant Conservative Party want to repeal these stealth taxes and no longer subsidise renewable initiatives from public money but find themselves frustrated by the minority Liberal Democratic Party who see some value (to them) of continuing to wave the environmental flag. In addition the Labour Party, who created these woes for the consumer now wants to go to the dark ages of socialism and freeze energy prices. Maybe a good soundbite for the uninformed, but ridiculous in the world of global energy markets.

So let us review the Grangemouth debacle. As I said refining capacity in Europe exceed demand. Furthermore cheaper energy supplies are being imported from the USA. The management of Grangemouth, owned by INEOS, (the refinery can process some 210,000 barrels of oil per day) claimed that they are losing some USD 8 million per month fuelled partly by US imports where USA refineries pay some USD 15 per barrel less than UK refineries. The management, knowing that they need to invest some £300 million in the plant, decided that they could no longer afford to run the plant with the then operating costs. They put a package of pay and pension reforms to the 800 or so workers. In essence the UNITE union, one of the largest remaining trade unions in the UK (Margaret Thatcher saw off most of the trade union power in the 1980’s) applied its usual socialist dinosaur approach threatening strike action. The refinery management refused to accept revised terms from, or to spend 3 months negotiating with UNITE (giving the Government 3 months to find an alternative buyer) so INEOS, who had already safely closed the plant facing the threat of a strike then announced that they were going to close it. Both the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, and First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmon, quickly came into play to rescue this situation. We can only speculate on what happened behind closed doors but the UNITE union completely caved in and announced that they would recommend acceptance of the INEOS terms for its members, and it was clear that INEOS had been offered some government deal towards the required investment in the plant.

What we saw during the Grangemouth debacle is an example of how commercial reality surpasses political and trade union power. It was suggested that the loss of this facility would have been devastating for the Scottish economy, and they complain about banks being too big to fail.

Then we look at the Parliamentary Select Committee interrogation of the ‘big 6’ energy companies bosses, having raised energy tariffs by some 10% average to domestic consumers against wholesale price increases of just some 1.8%. The only reasonable summary of this session is too much grandstanding by the political panel, and total indifference by the energy bosses suggesting that the high price of energy was down to the stealth taxes mentioned above. I understand that the UK domestic consumers pay the highest energy costs in the European Union. One interesting analysis on a news broadcast was that British Gas had increased their profit from £45 per customer just 5 years ago to £95 per customer today. Apparently they need these profits to satisfy investment returns for their shareholders.

So who are the winners, and who are the losers.

Winners

  • The capitalist (foreign) owners of Grangemouth
  • The capitalist owners of the major energy companies
  • The capitalist owners of the renewable energy companies who will be long gone with their accumulated wealth before the reality of this folly is known
  • It will be interesting to know who claims the victory of Grangemouth, especially with the up-coming Scottish Independence vote: David Cameron claiming a victory for a United Kingdom, or Alex Salmon who wants Scottish Independence.
  • The environmental lobby thanks to the short-sighted view of the Liberal Democrat coalition leader

Losers

  • The domestic consumer who has to bear the cost of the bailout of Grangemouth because of a dinosaur socialist union leader.
  • The domestic consumer who has to pay the cost of the increased energy tariffs, which could be indirectly attributed to the lack of energy policy by governments
  • The domestic consumer who has to bear the socialist imposed stealth taxes for renewable energy policies that are far too optimistic, expensive, and will prove to be a waste of resources. It should be noted that the socialist principal of payment according to what you earn was ignored thus betraying their core socialist vote.
  • The domestic consumer who has to pay for price increases to corporate energy users as they will pass their increases on to the consumer in the price of their goods/services.
  • The domestic consumer who will have to bear the cost of frantic, last minute efforts to maintain supply because of the lack of any firm energy policy.
  • It is claimed that reduction in demand is mostly due to the energy efficiency in the domestic consumer market. To some extent new technology and insulation will have an impact, but I fear that cost means that many domestic consumers cannot afford to heat their homes, and thus go cold. Thus the losers, again, are low income and pensioner domestic consumers – a direct reflection of capitalist greed.

I think that it was Socrates who observed that intelligent people discussed ideas, moderately intelligent people discussed events, and the vast majority, the uninformed, share gossip. Our largest selling newspapers, and to a degree some news channels, and political hype thrive on sensationalised gossip including important issues of energy policy – apocalyptic climate change gossip spread by brainwashed environmental campaigners sell more copies and buy more uninformed votes than mundane realities. There is a flaw in democracy if the noisy uninformed minority can unreasonably influence the uninformed, the impact of which is a substantial negative impact to the silent majority. It is an unquestionable fact that people united can make change happen. Therefore the people need to be properly and honestly informed.

Ironically all of this dithering means that the future is a return to non-other than the fuel which started the industrial revolution –Coal – because it is plentiful, and it is cheap, – look at Germany’s preferred fuel.

I would be very interested to hear how the above events in the UK would have played out in other countries, not least Germany and France.

References:

Ofgen Electricity Capacity Assessment Report 2013

Various DECC reports

HIS Purvin & Getz Research Group

Related articles