Category Archives: Global Economy

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

Do the political problems in the USA over recent weeks indicate that democracy in the USA is flawed, and now, with self-sufficiency in energy, can they be trusted with the obligations of a global reserve currency?

univest

Do the political problems in the USA over recent weeks indicate that democracy in the USA is flawed, and now, with self-sufficiency in energy, can they be trusted with the obligations of a global reserve currency?

The brinkmanship demonstrated over recent weeks between the Executive, House of Representatives and the Senate reveals a total disregard for how a few ultra-right wing politicians can cause great concern in the international markets. I argued in my blog, EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On – A New Government, that having the upper and lower houses in a democratic system both elected, especially at different times in the economic and political cycle, can result in stagnation of the governmental process.  This has to be a flaw in the democratic system, especially when just a few people can hold the World economy to ransom. The USA has shown time and time again that, in any global issue, their own interests are most certainly the top priority. Albeit that, if my calculations are correct, this stand-off stagnation has occurred 18 times during the past 30 years does this fact make the global uncertainty created any more palatable? As USA debt reaches levels that are unassailable in terms of any hope of repayment is it time to seriously look at this problem?

The debate that I think is needed is related to the introspective nature of the USA, as provider of the global reserve currency. Only some 15% of USA citizens have passports, very little is taught in their schools regarding the World at large, they are taught that America is the best place in the World, they are the biggest and the best at everything (they have a World Series in a sport that is only played in the USA), and very few can indicate on a map of the World where major countries are located, let alone cities. Indeed I took my teenage daughter to the USA some years ago where she was told that a nominal relief in Boston was the largest relief in the World, and when we walked past the CBS building in New York there was a screen proclaiming ‘America, the oldest surviving democracy in the World’. Is such a culture to be trusted with the broader obligations of the holder of the global reserve currency?

Up until recently one of the fears within the political circles of the USA was their increasing dependence of the greater World for strategic resources such as oil & gas. This did provide a more tempered approach to how they dealt with international issues. However they have now become energy self-sufficient so will this change attitude to international issues as they recede into their natural state of introspection?

The other side of the debate is what is the alternative? Forget the Euro or Renminbi replacing the USD as the global reserve currency as neither is remotely qualified to assume this role. However it was not so long ago that the USD, and thus the World economy, was linked to the Gold Standard, and this was removed overnight; driven by the UK. Can we devise an alternative that can both commands the level of confidence required by the World markets to be acceptable, and disconnected from the introspective political wrangling that artificially impacts it credibility, and thus stability.

I am reminded of structures in the past such as a basket of currencies, e.g. Special Drawing Rights (SDR’s) but these can be unduly influenced by stronger participants, albeit more dampened than the impact of the USD as a sole reserve currency.

My thoughts are that there is a lateral solution out there, and long overdue. I also suggest that recent events make a solution to this problem ever more urgent as I do not see the USA reforming its political system to prevent the stagnation we have seen over recent weeks.

Related articles

FUTURE ENERGY GENERATION – Why are our major oil & gas companies, apparently under threat by the environmental lobby, not diversifying into energy generation as part of their future strategy?

univest

FUTURE ENERGY GENERATION – Why are our major oil & gas companies, apparently under threat by the environmental lobby, not diversifying into energy generation as part of their future strategy?

Having watched with interest over the past weeks discussions relating to the strategic development of future energy generation I noted one discussion that questioned if the major oil & gas companies today would be the energy companies of tomorrow. This question did not arouse much discussion, but then I thought that if we beg the question of why these companies have not already diversified into the energy generators of today we might have a more interesting debate. After all they have both the Balance Sheets and the income generation to engage in energy generation, and they have the environmental lobby trying to drive them out of the business of fossil fuel production. So why have they not, at least, diversified their activities, but continue to pursue ever more costly development of fossil fuel production?

Looking at the business model of the major oil & gas companies such as BP, Exxon, Shell, etc. they all engage in exploration, development, production, refining, wholesale and retail distribution of fossil-based products. Thus their business model fully accommodates the substitution of power generation (even nuclear as a means to offset the fossil fuel debate) for refining which then provides for both wholesale and retail distribution of electricity. The companies have both the Balance Sheets and income profile (cash flow) to support the development of new primary generation capacity using the new generation of nuclear reactors, namely thorium reactors, as a logical diversification away from fossil fuels.

Before anyone raises the fact that these companies, in various degrees, have invested into renewable energy projects I would suggest that an intelligent review of their capital commitment to such projects is less than their annual promotional costs, and would further suggest that these projects are undertaken as part of their promotional costs, taking full advantage of all available government grants and subsidies, in order to create the illusion that they care about the impacts they may, or may not, be contributing to climate change. Of course we must remember that such impacts are not as yet reasonably proven, and are essentially propaganda by bodies fronted by the UN IPCC committee.

So why do these companies not take the environmental lobby seriously? Why do they continue with the ever increasing cost of developing ever more expensive fossil fuel recovery, yet do not spread their risk into other sources of energy?

Could it be that the latest IPCC climate change report provides a significant clue as to why these companies do not see the need to contemplate energy generation as part of their business strategy. Indeed could the advent of successful fracking for both oil and gas provide an even stronger foundation to the forward strategies of these companies in that the net production costs of recovering fossil fuels is getting cheaper? And the quantum of fossil fuel recoverable reserves has never been in doubt other than by the doomsayer environmentalist activists.

Why do these major oil & gas companies not see the need to diversify into energy generation even though such activity fits within their existing business model? I would suggest that they understand the business of energy, and their fundamental involvement in secure supply of fuel for the foreseeable future – much to the chagrin of the environmental lobby. These companies know that they will maintain their position as the primary source of fuels for generations to come, regardless. They are the only consistent source of fuels for primary energy generation, especially now that the nuclear program has been stalled by the unrealistic (but understandable) reaction to events such as the Fukushima incident. They are likely to have to find ways of reducing the hostile emissions of fossil fuels but, as with the creation of solutions such as the syntroleum process to remove the sulphur content from natural gas thus providing clean feedstock diesel fuel, they will find cost-effective solutions to other emission issues.

I share their confidence – that is until either/or thorium reactors and fusion reactors provide a significant commercial alternative. Other initiatives such as hydrogen fuel cells are unlikely to be cost effective enough to replace internal combustion engines. Indeed there are cheaper and much cleaner fuel alternatives that can be used in the existing internal combustion engine – if the powerful oil & gas interests will let such fuel alternatives see the light of day, even though they are the logical producer and distributor of these alternate fuels.

The major oil & gas companies are formidable political lobbyists. They will ensure that the revelations of uncertainty in the latest IPCC climate change report will set back the climate change/fossil fuel debate by decades, and I expect to see political support of the environmental lobby begin to cool. Indeed politicians in need of votes are likely to slowly but surely defuse the debate by asserting the current lack of reasonable evidence. Germany has irrationally indicated its lack of support for nuclear, not by reference to renewable alternatives, but to a return to coal of which they have significant reserves. Thus I propose that fossil fuels are the preferred reliable source of primary energy generation for the foreseeable future, and as such the major oil & gas majors are in no hurry to diversify.

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Climate Change 2013: Does the lack of media interest indicate that this group have cried ‘wolf’ once too often?

univest

  IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Climate Change 2013: Does the lack of media interest indicate that this group have cried ‘wolf’ once too often?

The 5th Assessment Report on Climate Change was published last week, but did anyone notice? Where were the media? Scant reference in the visual and radio media, and very little in the printed press – the London Evening Standard, having the lead over the daily newspapers, had all of 2 column inches on page 4. Have these climate change disciples cried ‘wolf’ once too often, and no-one believes them anymore?

Intrigued by this lack of obvious interest, even by the serious news stations, I waded through the 36 page report summary, and the press release, over the weekend to see what it had to say – the full report is a real tome. The striking feature throughout this report is the obvious desperation to convince the reader that this time they have it right. They have better observation techniques, better data, blah, blah, blah. However, without boring the pants of one and all, the essence is that mankind is a major contributor to global warming (around 50% – compared with the 99%+ stated in 1999) with a 90% degree of confidence. It also indicates that some 9,000 scientists around the World agree with the findings of this report. So what does this really tell us?

Many moons ago in another life, when I started my training as a scientist at the Atomic Energy Research Establishment, we were given a number of books that we should treat as lifelong companions in our pursuit of truth. One of these was called ‘The Use and Abuse of Statistics’ and was intended as a constant reminder that the data must paint the picture, and not used or abused to create the picture that one would like the data to paint (e.g. in order to receive continued funding). I still have this somewhat battered book as I found it very useful when studying the data presented by the ultimate protagonists of such abuse – Politicians. Obviously this book defines how data can be presented to fit the required message, and the difference between relative levels of ‘confidence’ and ‘certainty’ as there is a big difference between confidence and certainty. You need to have a very clear idea of these classifications in order to make any sense of this IPCC report. I also know how frustrating it is when there is an unexplained hole in the data when you are under pressure to present your findings. Do you mention the hole, or assume it of little relevance and ignore it.

Let us consider a typical statement in this report: “The atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) have all increased since 1750 due to human activity.” The first part of this statement is probably a true and accurate – even an objective statement. But then the integrity is shattered by the second part of the statement i.e. “due to human activity” which indicates a level of certainty which can only be interpreted as desperate arrogance – it needed a qualification such as ‘probably, primarily, likely’ to be acceptable without absolute proof to the contrary. The remainder of this paragraph does not support the indicated certainty.

Just as a comparison on a Universe basis (as in climate change) I asked an astrophysics friend who had worked on the Mars Voyager mission if they would have launched Voyager with only a 90% degree of confidence in their calculations that Voyager would reach Mars – absolutely not. They needed to be better than 99% degree of certainty subject only to cosmic collisions that could destroy Voyager.

Let me be clear in that I fully accept climate change. Indeed the climate is constantly changing, and we are familiar with the climate change over the past 10,000 years since the last ice-age since when we are told that sea levels have risen some 110m and thus cities that were once on dry land are now beneath the sea. We are also told that there is evidence that sea levels have been some 10m higher than they are today in past history so our climate is a continually evolving system. My reservations are to what extent mankind influences changes in climate versus natural change as the earth continues to evolve. Leaving mankind to one side for a moment we are told that changes in the activity of the sun will render earth uninhabitable by humans in some 140,000 years’ time in any event. If science revealed with substantial levels of certainty that the behaviour of mankind was impacting climate change by, say 30%, then I think that mankind needs to be creative and resolve this influence. What I do not accept is that the arrogance of mankind can suggest that the full force of mother nature is a known and fully understood process, and that man has the capacity to change it, even unwittingly – something akin to King Canute standing before a tsunami.

Why did this report need to state that some 9,000 scientists agree with the content of this report? Do we know how many scientists disagree with this report, or even if some 9,000 scientists is a representative group in the global scientific community. Do we remember that when Copernicus (1473 – 1543) developed his treatise on a heliocentric model of the universe with the sun at its centre he was so afraid to publish that the first copy was placed into his hands on his death bed. When Galileo (1564 – 1642) assumed the mantle on behalf of Copernicus, and added description of the orbits of other planets such as Venus and Neptune he was branded a heretic and committed to house arrest for the remaining 9 years of his life. In the 15th century Christopher Columbus found it difficult to find a crew for his historic voyage of discovery because the general belief was that the earth was flat and thus he would sail over the edge into iniquity. History shows that the view of mankind, based on lack of real knowledge over arrogance, can lead to serious misunderstandings. This is where I see the claims of mankind’s influence over climate change today.

What this IPCC report really indicates is that, since their first report in 1999, there has been a number of step changes in thinking and understanding of the complexity of the problem – but without enough understanding to define a universally accepted solution. This is progress, but the contra argument is that we are still in an embryonic stage at the front-end of the curve of discovery. But the frenzy caused from the imposition of such imperfect science has reaped havoc in energy policy throughout the World, and thus my reference to crying wolf.

Using the UN to put their weight behind emotive propaganda regarding climate change has provoked responses from the environmental lobby that has delayed political decisions regarding replacement of current energy generation stock. Surely the UN has enough problems dealing with the issues relating to the essence of its being. Furthermore the people are being taxed to fund clean energy policies for which, to date, there is no proven argument as to the urgency. Blue skies science has traditionally been funded by benefactors, philanthropists, etc and so should climate change science until such time as the evidence is irrefutable. Public funds should not be invested in such embryonic science or technology. I have absolutely no problem with development of new energy technologies as this would be against my fundamental scientist instinct. However, as shown by our wind power investment, there is no payback in any respect to the people whose taxes, in whatever form, are used to develop such technologies so they get a double whammy with also trying to manage their lives in this period of austerity.

As for the IPCC report predicting what will be in 100 years from now I can only comment that had we asked the most eminent progressive thinkers of their time 100 years ago (before World War I) what the World would look like today, how wrong would they have been? My concern, and should be the concern of every one of these 9,000 scientists, is what do we need to do today in whatever reliable form to ensure that we can provide the required energy capacity needed in 10 years’ time to safeguard the momentum of mankind. What we do not need is energy starvation with the ensuing likely chaos and anarchy – even from those banging the drum about clean energy today. And please let us stop kidding ourselves that wind and solar can play any primary part in such delivery.

The irony of energy policy delay in much needed high capacity base load energy generation (as I will argue in a blog already in progress) is that the beneficiaries of these delays will be none other than the fossil fuel production companies – home goal for the environmental lobby.

Perhaps a glowing example from history from which we should learn is the story of the Mayan civilisation from around 2000BC – AD250. The mathematical and astronomy skills of this ancient civilisation are well known, and form part of our calendar today. There are many theories as to how this highly advanced civilisation suddenly collapsed. Their scholars spent most of their time observing the universe, and even lived high in the trees or on platforms never really taking much notice of life on the ground. The popular view to their demise is that their population exceeded the carry capacity of their environment, exhausting agricultural capacity, over-hunting, and converting their forests into cropland thus reducing evapotranspiration and thus rainfall leading to a lack of water. Are we focussing on the wrong end of the universe? Should we take our heads out of the clouds and look to how we manage the fundamentals of life such as food, water, energy, etc. Certainly the research needs a watching brief on the impact of human activity but do we really need to continue with the massive costs of this climate change circus when there are more pressing matters right under our noses?

 

Related articles

ENERGY – What does the future hold?

univest

ENERGY – What does the future hold?

There is much debate today about energy, whether it be renewables versus fossil fuels, nuclear, or the Armageddon view that by 2020 the lights will go out. I find these debates emotionally charged, and far from any form of reality.

Having been invited to express my views on the future for energy as someone engaged in energy in one form or another all of my working life I would like to expand these arguments and attempt to present a more sober and objective view of the energy requirements of the future, and how mankind, in its perpetual thirst for discovery, will most certainly overcome, and indeed it will be our contempt of the forces of ‘mother earth’ that are likely to prove the more formidable than anything that the consumptive excesses of mankind can create. So let me move away from the typical discussion about energy and take a more controversial, or as someone remarked, a ‘Clarkson approach’ to the future of energy.

Let us start with a short trip back into the 18th century to the start of the industrial revolution. Prior to this time wood had been the main source of energy in Britain, used for fuel in homes and small industries. But as the population grew, so did the demand for timber. As forests were cut down, wood had to be carried further to reach the towns. It was bulky and difficult to transport and therefore expensive.

Coal was the fuel which kick-started the Industrial Revolution – and Britain was very fortunate to have plenty that could be easily mined. Coal is a much more potent form of power, providing up to three times more energy than wood. Political, economic and intellectual conditions would all contribute, but at the heart of the industrial revolution was our use of this new and abundant energy source. Throw in the thoughts of Isaac Newton for good measure and we have the transformation to make the world in which we live today. Indeed coal is still in use today, some 250 years later, and there are still vast reserves throughout the world.

Since then we have developed oil and gas as energy sources, and yet again, and contrary to the view of the doomsayers, there are still substantial reserves of both. Experts in the USA are now stating that fracking for oil and gas in the USA will make the USA self-sufficient for at least another 100 years, and energy prices in the USA are already reduced by some 20%. It would appear that fracking will realise substantial supplies of oil & gas in the United Kingdom and many other countries.

So what are the issues that will determine the energy requirements of the future?

  • The impact of the continued use of fossil fuels
  • The development of renewable/clean energy generation
  • The (increasing) demand for energy
  • The Malthusian controversy (population increase)
  • New technologies

We are told that carbon emissions resulting from the use of fossil fuels are causing global warming and/or adverse climate change. As a nuclear physicist by training at the Atomic Energy Authority at Harwell, and working on such projects as fission control in fuel element tubes in nuclear reactors, flow dynamics of oil and gas throw pipelines in different climatic conditions, and nuclear geophysics techniques for the in-field analysis of boreholes in the search for minerals, oil and gas I am used to public outcry at new technologies – my first University degree course had to be renamed Physical Electronics to avoid the onslaught from Michael Foot and his ‘Ban the Bomb’ movement.

One project that I was aware of in those days, and still persists in the shadows, is the attempts by scientists to alter our weather. We are all aware of the use of cloud seeding by the Russians in the Communist era to prevent rain on their May Day parades, and even by the Chinese during the 2008 Olympics. The story is far bigger. The first such experiments were an attempt to change the fierce weather patterns in the Bay of Biscay because of the continued loss of shipping – indeed I vaguely remember that Lloyds of London may have been a sponsor. Later the computer simulations moved to a reliable irrigation of sub-Sahara – the common view of recent heavy snowfall in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia is that it is not the result of climate change from greenhouse gasses. Then we have the urgent desire in Australia to irrigate the mineral rich outback of Australia so that these massive reserves can be exploited – could this explain the recent severe flooding in regions of Australia.

The earth’s climate has been significantly affected by the planet’s magnetic field that could challenge the notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming. “Our results show a strong correlation between the strength of the earth’s magnetic field and the amount of precipitation in the tropics,” claim the two Danish geophysicists behind the study, Mads Faurschou Knudsen and his colleague Peter Riisager of the geology department at Aarhus University in western Denmark.

Actually changing weather conditions is well within the power of man as this involves disturbing the earth’s magnetic field in the depths of the oceans where weather patterns are determined. However the vast array of variables in the equations have to be reduced to a manageable level of primary, secondary and tertiary impact, discounting the lesser impact variables, as decided by man, to facilitate ‘solutions’ that should work – or maybe not. All of this experimentation is undertaken with good intention, but……………..

Then we have the problem of the ‘eminent’ climate change scientific community, and one particular group who I refuse to give them editorial credit because of their celebrity over fact status, who wrote a critically acclaimed book in 1999 stating that the earth’s contribution (volcanic activity, etc.) was only around 1% of current greenhouse gas emissions, and have since had to revise this significant upwards over 3 subsequent revisions, and I now hear that there has been a gross miscalculation of deep sea geothermal activity contribution plus the release of once frozen methane gases from the ocean bed (as was witnessed during the recent BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico). I often wonder if the climate change scientific community are aware of the experiments described above, or even alive to the reality of the impacts due to the natural progression of ‘mother earth’.

Whilst I am prepared to accept that man is playing a part in so-called global warming I consider it disingenuous to ‘mother earth’ to think that mankind has control of their destiny on this planet. For example lurking beneath Yellowstone National Park in the USA is a massive underground reservoir of magma, capped by the park’s famous caldera, a huge reservoir of superhot liquid rock and poison which could blow at any time. USGS geologist Jake Lowenstern, scientist-in-charge of the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory, suggests that most damage would come from “cold ash” and pumice borne on the wind, and considers it “disasterous” when enough ash rains down that it creates a layer of 10cm or more on the ground poisoning land and waterways – and this would happen in a radius of 500 miles or so. The gasses released would have a global effect on temperatures. “Any big eruption causes a cooling of the atmosphere, especially with that much ash” claims Lowenstern. In 1812 the Mount Tambora super volcano eruption in Indonesia lowered global temperatures, and a caldera-forming eruption in Yellowstone Park would be bigger, so climate change would almost certainly follow, albeit would possibly only last for a few years.

The so-called Thera eruption of Santorini in the Aegean Sea, circa 1630 BC, left a large caldera surrounded by volcanic ash deposits tens of metres deep (compare depth of ash with the above view of Lowerstern) and may have led indirectly to the collapse of the Minoan civilization on the island of Crete, 110 km (68 mi) to the south, as a result of a gigantic tsunami. A popular theory holds that the Thera eruption was such a devastating event felt thousands of miles away that is the source of the legend of the demise of Atlantis. Plato quotes Critias’ account of the legend, as told to Solon by one of the Egyptian priests:

 “Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent . . . But, there occurred violent earthquakes and floods, and in a single day and night of misfortune. . . the island of Atlantis . . .disappeared in the depths of the sea.”

The effect on the climate of the Northern hemisphere of the Thera eruption is being detected in tree rings as far north as the UK. Although the eruption of Santorini is recognized as one of the most explosive volcanic eruptions in historic times, the event is only a single eruption in a continuum of eruptive activity associated with subduction. The island group exhibits on-going seismic activity, and both fumaroles and hydrothermal springs are common features around these islands. It seems clear that we can expect another eruption, and we cannot rule out the possibility of another catastrophic eruption reminiscent of ~1630 BC.

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Probably not, but when a large eruption occurs the results are instant and devastating. The ecologists are speaking of a 2oC rise in temperature by 2100 from man-made global warming, but a major eruption can reduce the earth’s temperature by this much in a few weeks.

Another aspect of greenhouse gas emissions I feel worthy of note is the current debate about all automotive vehicles being compelled to use headlights during the day. If we take an average light wattage of 180 watts per car, with an average population of 4 million cars on the road throughout the day the consumption is equivalent to 720MW – a fairly large power station. Where does this energy come from – the car’s engine (burning fossil fuels). I have occasion to make trips to Switzerland and Italy by car. My preferred travel time is through the night, but returns are typically through the day. My fuel consumption increase through the night versus the day has been measured on a number of occasions and ranges between 5% – 8% of additional fuel to travel through the night. This is the additional energy requirement to power my lights. So this proposed policy not only will increase consumed fuel costs by between 5% – 8%, it also creates additional CO2 emissions equivalent to a large power station burning fossil fuels. Truly a contradictory policy.

Thus I have a cynical view of the man-made greenhouse gas/climate change argument. Indeed had I written this essay some 10,500 years ago I would have been sitting on some 30m of ice which has been melting ever since, mainly as a result of natural climate change.

Of course we must not forget the Malthusian controversy, especially if we reach the estimated planet population of some 10 billion people by 2050. Ironically I do not see this as an energy problem as far greater impacts will be the need for potable water, and the devastation to the animal kingdom.

What of future demands for energy? Propaganda suggests that energy demand will triple by 2050. I have attempted to rationalise where this multiple comes from. 20 years ago we had 100w incandescent lamps to provide lighting. This was replaced by 50w halogen lamps. Today the equivalent is an 8w LED. Think of the old cathode ray tube TV sets consuming around 400w now replaced with 60w LED TVs. When computers were first used in commercial applications in the 1970’s they required many kiloWatts to run them. Today you can have the same computer power using milliwatts of power. Thus the trend is far more function for significantly less power.

Of course there are people whose consumption of energy can only be described as blatant excess, but behaviour change is not possible with these people so ‘save energy’ propaganda or taxation will not achieve anything with such people. I know people from the most ignorant to very intelligent, but all having the common denominator of financially comfortable, and to whom there is no price/elasticity for energy. If you tripled the cost they may moan for 10 minutes, and then continue as before. But their consumption is a microcosm against total energy requirement.

What annoys me is that, in pursuit of political favour from noisy eco-voters, our politicians have allowed energy companies to extract essentially a duty from all people for so-called ‘new energy’ development. The payment of this duty includes the people struggling to pay for the energy they actually need to support their families. Instead of the Government using a more reasonable proportional taxation process they cause unnecessary hardship to many to win votes by satisfying the eco-lobby and claiming that they are not raising taxes.

So what of the future? We see a major political push in the development of so-called renewables such as wind power and solar with people seriously believing that these can be anything more than secondary or more likely tertiary energy sources. In 2012 I was asked to analyse 4 such projects for financing purposes; in the USA a 100MW solar thermal, a 60MW vertical axis wind, and a biomass still in development, and in Italy a 18MW biomass plant that had already been built, but was now for sale.

In the case of the 100MW solar thermal proposal operating cost was $56 per MWh including State ‘green’ grants, with then base load off-takes around $72 per MWh (they expected to achieve a PPA at $98 per MWh). Fracking results bought base load off-takes below $50 so no possibility of finance.

The vertical axis turbine project was interesting because it offered substantial advantages over conventional propeller-style wind turbines.  Functionality, ease of maintenance and operation, lack of electronic interference, no ground resonance, a more acceptable profile, capable of tolerating a wider range of wind speeds, quieter in operation than propeller-style turbines, and no bird or bat kills in over 12 years of turbine operations. But again this project relied on State ‘green’ grants to make it commercially viable (I am reliably informed that there are no Federal grants for ‘green’ energy in the USA). Again fracking results caused cessation of the State grants.

The biomass plant relied on an energy conversion process that had only been proven on a small scale in a university laboratory thus needed technology transfer finance. However it was clear that this technique relied on so many cost variables that no-one was interested to engage. It is also worth mentioning that I came across a number of bankrupt ethanol plants during this process.

I was invited to analyse the biomass plant in Italy as due diligence just as the investor was about to purchase it. It was already working having received grants from both the EU and the local Municipality. However the operator had taken all of the capital value out of the project, including the carbon credits, and was trying to unload the project on some unsuspecting pension fund at around an 8% yield – but only achievable if the energy subsidies on the feed-in tariffs from the Government were maintained – very unlikely. The owner realised that there was no commercial future for this plant, especially if energy prices stagnated, or reduced. The investor walked away as a result of my analysis.

I have yet to examine any such projects that are commercially viable without subsidies. The exception is waste to energy plants which, if the dioxins and heavy metal issues are properly addressed, can be a very effective use of waste.

Obviously there are a number of other fuels and technologies in the process of research and development, and I am aware of at least one energy source that has been suppressed because it provided direct competition to the majors in that it would be a cheaper fuel than petrol or diesel. This is a fuel developed by the Germans during the war, but they could not stabilise it. A group of scientists found the notes relating to this fuel in a bunker and developed a way to stabilise it such that they could use it in a conventional car engine. The waste product is water, so completely clean, and can be produced in most countries. Unfortunately all 3 of the scientist mysteriously died within 3 months of each other.

If the ecologists can win the argument then nuclear, (and hydro where possible), are the only existing sources of reliable base load clean energy. But why have we not built the reactors that we so desperately need? The anti-nuclear lobby have jumped on the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster as an argument to delay the development of new generation reactors. This argument is invalid because the Japanese Government was informed by the IAEA over 10 years ago that these reactors should be de-commissioned. The Japanese economy was in dire straits so the various politicians, since the warning, criminally gambled with the lives of many through wanton negligence. Even when the tsunami triggered the incident they failed to raise the alarm in the international community to seek help that could have avoided many of the problems that subsequently occurred. Don’t blame the reactors, look to the politicians who abused the technology constraints. Those reactors worked well for years fuelling the Japanese economy. Until we have new reactors fossil fuels will reign, regardless of the environmental lobby.

The real future is in fusion. The international nuclear fusion project – known as ‘Iter’, meaning “the way” in Latin – is designed to demonstrate a new kind of nuclear reactor capable of producing unlimited supplies of cheap, clean, safe and sustainable electricity from atomic fusion. The claims are that if Iter demonstrates that it is possible to build commercially-viable fusion reactors then it could become the experiment that saves the world in a century threatened by climate change and an estimated three-fold increase in global energy demand. Of course this statement assumes much in terms of global warming and demand, but there is no doubt that this technology, once perfected, will open completely new horizons in wholesale clean energy generation.

On a final note I consider it an insult to the intelligence of our successors that people of today think that future generations will not find solutions to the problems that we face, or think we face. I appreciate that the loud retort will be ‘sustainability’ but the progress of mankind over the past 100 years has seen incredible exponential advances, and this will continue. Who is to say that some brilliant chemist will not find a digester to extract the CO2 out of the atmosphere if this proves to be a real problem. But let us first check that it is mankind who are causing the real problems, or is ‘mother nature’ relentlessly progressing through her life, and we just have to adapt.

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On? – Conclusions

Image

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On?

Conclusions

During a speech in Zurich on 19th September 1946 probably the greatest statesman of the 20th century, Winston Churchill, called for the creation of a United States of Europe modelled on the United States of America singling out the essential need for Franco-German co-operation. Churchill did not envisage the UK’s role as anything other than promoter (broker). In May 1950 Robert Schuman, the then French Foreign Minister, took up the idea of Churchill and put forward a plan.  We are now in 2013, some 67 years later, and what do we have that remotely resembles this vision?

On July 2nd 1776, the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, voted unanimously to declare the independence ‘of the thirteen United States of America’. Two days later, on July 4, Congress adopted the ‘Declaration of Independence’. The drafting of the Declaration was the responsibility of a Committee of Five, which included, among others, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin; it was drafted by Thomas Jefferson and revised by the others, and then by Congress as a whole. It contended that ‘all men are created equal’ with ‘certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’, and that ‘to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed’.

In spite of a ravaging war to overturn the Declaration of Independence, (the Revolution War involving both the British and the French), a new Constitution was adopted in 1789. It remains the basis of the United States federal government, and later included a Bill of Rights. With George Washington as the nation’s first president and Alexander Hamilton his chief financial advisor, a strong national government was created. In the First Party System, two national political parties grew up to support, or oppose presidential policies. This was achieved in just 15 years during a ravaging war, and this was all managed without telephones, internet, air travel, motorised transport systems, etc.

Peace and prosperity cannot be achieved merely by the creation of a political and economic framework if the people themselves play no active part in shaping society or in living together in harmony, i.e. without the consent of the governed. In the current EU system little or nothing of significance has been determined by the people and thus they rightly feel disillusioned and disenfranchised. It is a certainty that if the UK were to vote today on staying in the EU the vote would be a resounding ‘NO’. I am informed by my connections in Germany that the vote of the German people is fractured, and could go either way. The Mediterranean states would almost all vote ‘NO’ in spite of reliance on Germany for finance. So when do the politicians stop playing their fiddles whilst Rome is burning, and start to address the real issues, not least that the current framework does not, and will not work. Then sit back and ask the people what they need from a united Europe for themselves, their children and grandchildren. If the people elect for a United States of Europe, something similar as outlined in this series of essays, or as envisaged by Churchill, then fix a date and do it. If the people know and agree the plan, and the target date, they will respond.

And when the politicians start to address this plan they need to look at it from an outward perspective, i.e. how the world will see it, in order to guide thinking to maximise the value drivers available. For example who in the world knows where Brussels, Strasbourg, Frankfurt or even Berlin are, or that they even exist? The most known cities in Europe are Paris, Rome, London, Madrid and even Vienna. How many people do you know that, having visited Washington, the capital city of the USA, came back very disappointed with that city – even the White House is actually much smaller than pictures would have you believe. But Europe has stature with its historic cities so any plan must consider how these cities can be used as value-added drivers to the outside world. For example most people in the world know where London is, and that it is one of the most influential capital cities of the world. This is the strength of the UK, a maritime nation having built longstanding reputation and networks throughout the world, and thus a major value driver. Of course this assumes that we expand Churchill’s vision to include the UK – not a given in my thinking.

One important aspect of the plan for a united Europe was to prevent conflict in the form of another major war. With the ever growing disparity of European nation states, especially within the Eurozone crises, it is not inconceivable that conflict can occur in the form of civil insurrection, or even civil war, (history shows that civil insurrection starts with the disadvantaged versus the rich, and I do not sense that ‘love thy neighbour’ is much in evidence at this time). Was this caused by the banking crisis or, as more likely the case, the shambolic mismanagement of entry into the Euro. At the end of 1996 the European member states supposedly faced a tough test to determine which of them fulfilled the strict convergence criteria laid down for participation in the Euro. Very few passed the test as defined by the strict rules, so the rules were thrown out of the window to allow all who wanted involvement to adopt the Euro – and now we know the reality of allowing totally disparate economies to attempt to converge. What makes any European politician think that they can adopt a single currency without central control of fiscal policy and management of all states involved, and the safety nets in place such as described in my essays ‘EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On’ – ‘A Social State’ and ‘Taxation’.

A major crisis would create a good framework to focus minds on an integrated approach. When Churchill gave his speech in Zurich the conditions in Europe would have been ideal to create the United States of Europe – an opportunity lost. Perhaps if the Eurozone implodes the situation will present the opportunity for a ‘clean sheet’ approach, and a rapid implementation.

Should the UK join a United States of Europe? There are two ways of looking at this. Integrating Europe without the UK would probably be a much easier task, not least because of its unique position in the world. It has protectorates, protected states, mandated territories, the British Commonwealth, etc. to consider involving some 1.6 billion people. What would happen to them in our United States of Europe? In this case the UK could act as independent broker (as envisaged by Churchill) to the creation of the United States of Europe ensuring that its Constitution and political systems are not unduly influenced by national interests of stronger nation states, and is outward looking to ensure that there are no difficulties integrating further countries in the future. The initial United States of America was just 13 states, but the Constitution was structured to be inviting for other states to participate – 50 states plus a federal district to date, and counting.

The alternative is that, as so many of the pillars of a United States of Europe exist, at least in part, within the UK system, finding solutions at the outset for the peripheral issue of integrating the UK will create a comprehensive framework that would accommodate any future entry of additional members, including Russia. I see the inclusion of Russia, at some point in the future, to be the completion of a United States of Europe that can compete with any other nation in the world. However, and unfortunately, the UK has too many of the value drivers needed in a United States of Europe – difficult for the other nation states of Europe to swallow. Looking at it from the rest of the world’s viewpoint London would be the logical capital. London is the largest financial centre in the world by far thus it would also be the home of the European Central Bank and the banking regulators. We could, but not necessarily, add the Supreme Court, and even the European Parliament, – and what about a monarchy head of state?

Another solution that would have a significantly better chance of success would be the integration of just a few fully committed nation states capable of convergence in order to create and refine the structure – and then invite other members as per the USA. However I cannot emphasise how important it would be to have an outward looking, and simple Constitution friendly to all. If it looks like, e.g. an expanded Germany and/or France then I see further membership as limited.

On balance, and in spite of the fact it would leave the UK disadvantaged in some respects, especially if Europe became a fully-fledged 27 member United States of Europe, instinct suggests that the UK should not participate, and certainly not in the EU as it stands today as it is a very expensive club with little or no return on investment. I do not see a massive migration of companies from the UK into Europe for a number of practical and economic reasons. Businesses always find a way to deal with other nations, in spite of politicians.

If we discount the nation states who benefit substantially from membership what proportion of the people (not the politicians) of the other member states would today think that the EU was anything other than a faceless, expensive enterprise causing unrest throughout Europe and continually imposing unnecessary and expensive interference in their lives? What about countries like Switzerland, who traditionally have been very much aligned with Germany, but sitting on the sidelines, and not now considering entry at any time in the near future.

The UK is ideally and uniquely positioned to act as nation broker, as was the case in the removal of the Berlin Wall and reunification of the Eastern states of Europe with the West. The UK would be a natural broker to act between the USA and Europe, and between Europe and Russia and the Black Sea and Caspian states.

Any European integration plan needs a people’s champion who will stay with the plan until achieved. As the natural process is for politicians to come and go, and they are certainly not neutral in their approach, this people’s champion is unlikely to be a politician. This champion could be an individual, a small group (the Group of Five structured the USA system), or even the UK as an independent broker. This champion must have an integration plan endorsed with the full consent of the people of the countries being integrated, not just their representative politicians – the people need to be directly engaged with the process.

The failure of politicians to agree a sound plan for Europe devoid of national and personal self-interests, and to engage with the people, is an affront to democracy for such an important project, and has led to the hotchpotch of a European disintegration that we see today. Now nation states want to revisit treaties, and the people of the UK might have the chance, at last, to make their voice heard. The German government states ‘no’ to revisiting treaties and, by the way, has put everything on hold for 2 months because of German elections – what about the people out there who are hungry and need medicine?

Politicians come and go, but the process of European integration cannot change every time there is a change of political guard. Europe needs a plan, ambitious and exciting, for full implementation within 2 years, fully endorsed by the people’s vote, and it needs a people’s champion to oversee the implementation. In the hour of need cometh the ‘man’, but where is he/she for this project?

I am unexpectedly fortunate to be able to conclude this series of essays in much the way they started; with an episode of Top Gear, the UK motoring programme. Last week Jeremy Clarkson, a presenter of Top Gear had the notion to determine how much automotive manufacture took place in the UK, and asked each manufacturer to contribute a selection of what they produce to a parade in The Mall in London one Sunday morning. The TV pictures of the quantity, quality, and variety of automotive products made in the UK was truly staggering and presented a message to the people of the UK more about the state of UK manufacturing in those picture than any politician could ever explain. To these pictures Clarkson added that:

  • A new car rolls off UK production lines every 20 seconds
  • Honda produces 5 of their car models in Swindon
  • The Toyota plant in Derbyshire exports cars to Japan
  • Nissan make more cars per year in just one plant than the total car production of Italy
  • Of the 11 F1 racing teams 8 are based in the UK
  • Cars such as Rolls Royce, Bentley, Aston Martin, Range Rover are the cars of choice by the rich throughout the world
  • Aston Martin has been voted the coolest brand in the world for 5 of the last 7 years

This was such a powerful 15 minutes of inspired broadcasting that the BBC repeated it again, and again as the message spread and the people connected with this better than any political message, and the resulting well-being of the people was noticeable. Contrast this with the political diatribe that comes out of the EU and it is not unreasonable to expect that the people of the UK will vote ‘NO’ to membership of the current EU disintegration.

Links

George Papandreou: Imagine a European Democracy without Borders http://www.ted.com/talks/george_papandreou_imagine_a_european_democracy_without_borders.html

Epilogue

Thank you for participating in this series of essays, and I hope that you found the debate interesting. It is very difficult within the reasonable scope of a blog to include or expand all of the arguments and debate, and thus what to include, and what to leave out. For example, with my understanding of market economies, I could have written more than the accumulated word count of all 11 essays. The key for me was to find some of the fundamental triggers of a reasonable United States of Europe that at least cause people to question what is happening in their name, and at the expense of the people. Having managed a number of very difficult, multi-faceted problems during my career, not least with disenfranchised people, and time being of the essence to find workable and accepted solutions, I have developed methods to include even the most pessimistic of people, and in timeframes considered unachievable.

The most important part of any solution was the need to explain to all of the people involved (globally in some cases) where we were, and where we needed to be. These people needed to be persuaded to engage in the process knowing some would not understand and/or believe, especially when, for two such problems, the technology we needed did not exist when we started, but we had a fixed and unmoveable delivery date. In such cases it was important that they knew that I would take full responsibility for the outcome – all I wanted from them was commitment and belief. I had one IT manager, very capable but a staunch Trekkie (as in Star Trek) who, when attending a strategy presentation, would write and speak the words ‘Star Date: (whatever the date)’ and then ‘About to go where no man has been before’ as per the start of an episode of Star Trek. This action enabled him to move beyond his anxiety, and he always delivered, albeit sometimes not quite knowing how. All I did was to instil confidence and commitment into people – what I term ‘removing constraint’ – shared my vision, and took responsibility for the result, but vesting the success in them. Such people never failed to deliver, and the sense of well-being of all at delivery was uplifting. People can be mobilised to achieve great things so long as they are properly engaged, motivated, and committed.

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On? – Market Economy

Image

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On?

Market Economy

Is the so-called European Union worthy of all the time, trouble and cost, all fully funded by the people of Europe? Firstly let me clarify the value-added components of a market economy worthy of the time trouble and cost of our United States of Europe. I refer to a secure, self-sufficient, free market economy consisting of a secure and sustainable supply of raw materials and energy, a relatively cheap labour force, innovative skills (excellent education), technology transfer skills, manufacturing, marketing, and with stable and effective financing (banking).

An economic definition of a Free Market Economy is a system in which decisions regarding resource allocation, production, and consumption, and price levels and competition, are made by the collective actions of individuals or organizations seeking their own advantage, i.e. profit. In all market economies, however, freedom of the markets is limited and governments intervene occasionally to encourage or dampen demand or to promote competition to thwart the emergence of monopolies. Also called free economy, or free market (ref: BusinessDictionary definition). But this can occur at the nation state level, or as a collective of nation states such as NAFTA.

The free market viewpoint defines ‘economic freedom’ or ‘economic liberty’ or ‘right to economic liberty’ as the freedom to produce, trade and consume any goods and services acquired without the use of force, fraud or theft. This is already embodied in the rule of law, property rights and freedom of contract, and characterized by external and internal openness of the markets, the protection of property rights and freedom of economic initiative.

However in this world of globalisation recent history has shown that uncontrolled greed by the few can have devastating impacts on the many. The most obvious of these is the banking crisis where a few greedy investment bankers, interested only in their personal wealth, saw the opportunity to use their banks as casinos. When they were winning everyone was happy, ignorant of the fact that it could not last. The effects of this have caused widespread hardship, putting excessive stress on all of the welfare initiatives inherent in a democratic system.

We also see this excess in the boardrooms of major corporates who award themselves excessive bonuses, pensions, and salary increases whilst the workers, who actually create the wealth, have to suffer wage increases below inflation, i.e. they get poorer.

Clearly entrepreneurs and wealth creation are at the heart of any free market economy and must be encouraged and rewarded. Furthermore it is arrogant of politicians in general to think that they can outsmart the clever people whose sole intent is to make money regardless of consequence, and avoid or even evade taxes where possible. However united political systems throughout the global economy can take steps to close many of the gates to ensure that such excessive freedom is not available. For example investment banking is a global business so governments throughout the world need to legislate in tandem that banks cannot act as casinos, and must contain their activities to creating economic value and global liquidity. We need the creativity of investment banks, but we do not need their casino activities.

Likewise we now see moves by various governments to give stakeholders, the owners of the company, more powers to curb the excesses of the executives. However this is not the part of a market economy that I wish to address in this essay.

I want to refer to our template of the USA and examine the parameters that fuelled their economy, especially throughout the 20th century. If we refer back to the opening paragraph of this essay we will see a definition of a secure and self-sufficient, free market economy. If we examine the components of this definition there is one which can be considered as deficient within the EU as it is today, i.e. a secure and sustainable supply of raw materials and energy. My use of the word ‘sustainable’ in this context relates to volume rather than the Kyoto concept of ‘renewable’, especially for natural minerals. This component was fundamental to the industrial development of the USA and, indeed I am aware of expansionist plans of the USA to restock when they are close to exhausting their own supplies. For example we see how fast the USA has embraced fracking for both oil & gas exploration and development resulting in the material reduction in energy costs in the USA. This enables the USA to resume as a competitive manufacturer and supplier, thus reducing imports. This is a win-win-win for the US economy and its people. It is very refreshing to see that David Cameron has fully embraced this technology as a counter to the usual doomsayers who would have people starve rather than benefit from this technology.

So where does the EU find secure supplies of raw materials? The logical choice is to look east to our neighbours in the outposts of Eastern Europe. Russia has already demonstrated that it does not understand how to engage in secure supply, thus can only be considered a secondary source for the time being. It is possible to engage with countries such as Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan albeit with caution bearing in mind their continued alliance with Russia.

We cannot assume that the plundering the natural resources of third world countries as with Bougainville Island can continue. For those who do not know this story Bougainville is a small island state near to the Solomon Islands in the Pacific south of the Philippines. Before the war it was placed under administration of Australia under mandate of the League of Nations, but was invaded by the Japanese during the war. After the war Australia did not officially resume its role of administrator but, as soon as Rio Tinto found that Bougainville had enormous reserves of copper ore and gold in the 1990’s Australia went into business with Rio Tinto and passed statutes giving the mining rights to Australia who then gave Rio Tinto the exploration and development agreements without any regard to the people of Bougainville. The process of extraction polluted large tracts of the island until the people of Bougainville forcibly removed the Rio Tinto personnel (who were supported by Australian police and the Philippine army) from the island, with many dead. There is much on the internet about this tragedy for those interested. Rio Tinto and Australia are still looking at reparations of some USD 8 billion to the people of Bougainville.

Parts of Africa are also rich sources of minerals, but the Chinese have secured much of these for their own industrial requirements, as is the case with Brazil.

Thus the EU will primarily have to compete in the open market – not the strongest base on which to build a United States of Europe, especially with competing countries as large as China and India, both willing to secure as many resources as they can find to fuel their own needs.

It is worth returning to the situation in Brazil, one of the so-called BRICS, as an example of not understanding the economics of owning raw materials. Currently in Brazil they mine their raw materials and export them to countries such as China at Rial:USD exchange rates that do not optimise value to Brazil. They then have to import finished goods made with these raw materials thus consuming more than their receipts from the raw materials to satisfy their own internal market demand for goods. This is a sad reflection of a country with outdated fiscal and social policies, woeful internal transport systems, and that cannot attract large-scale manufacturing industry because cost of production could not be competitive at current exchange rates. Contrast this with the USA who would use their capitalist economy to convert these vast reserves of raw materials into goods for both internal consumption and export thus reducing the need to import, and receiving export income. Think of the employment difference between Brazil and the USA – Brazil only engages nominal labour in mining the materials, whereas the USA would also engage the manufacturing design and process people, distribution, etc. The market economy of the United States of Europe needs to resemble the USA model to satisfy the definition that I have proposed. Indeed if Brazil were a direct neighbour of the EU they would be a ‘must’ to be a member as the EU could provide all of the market support to Brazil that it lacks in exchange for its raw materials – this would be a fantastic outcome for our United States of Europe. It does not matter that Brazil is a developing economy as the capabilities within the other member states could rapidly transform Brazil into a vibrant economy having all of the infrastructure necessary for a 21st century country.

Therefore I would suggest that we consider the current 28 member states as phase I of European integration, or even phase I and phase II if we adopt a more pragmatic plan of integration. I see phase II (or III) as the inclusion of Ukraine: (coal, iron ore (5% of world reserves), manganese, nickel and uranium, mercury ore (2nd largest reserves in the world) and sulphur (largest reserves in the world)), Azerbaijan: (rich variety of minerals, oil & gas), and Turkey: (many types of minerals, and close links to the Kurds in northern Iraq and their large oil & gas reserves). Before anyone asks, Turkey would have to commit to continue as a fully secular democracy as part of membership, but having worked with Turkey since the late 1970’s I do not see this as a problem, and as is evidenced with the current unrest in Turkey. Just as we have seen in Egypt the majority of people in Turkey value a free secular society, and will fight to keep it.

Ultimately I see the integration of Russia with its vast mineral wealth (our local equivalent of Brazil) thus placing the United States of Europe as a significant self-sufficient market able to compete with any other economy in the world. As improbable as this seems today, if Europe can achieve a United States of Europe similar to what is proposed in these essays, then a more pragmatic regime in the Kremlin will see the advantages of being within, rather than the vast costs to create their own economic system – especially if Europe can substantially reduce its need of oil & gas supplies from Russia.

The value of a market economy, as per my definition in the opening paragraph, to our United States of Europe is the lack of dependency (and thus exposure) to any other country for the supply of materials strategic to the economy of the nation. This is also applicable to agriculture, but in this regard I do not anticipate any problems with capacity to feed the people of the United States of Europe today or in the foreseeable future. For example we have not yet begun to properly and fully exploit the vast black gold agricultural regions around the river Danube throughout the former Yugoslavia and Romania, and which could potentially produce a significant amount of the produce required. They call the soil in that region ‘black gold’ for a reason, and most of this region is organic soil.

Thank you for your continued interest in this European venture.

This blog is part of a series of blogs called ‘EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On?’ and which examine the framework for a truly United States of Europe, and what would be needed to achieve it. Look at the archive index to find other blogs in this series.

I hope that you found this blog interesting, and will give it the Like It ‘thumbs up’ below, and/or become a follower so that you receive notice of further essays in this series.

You can also use the share options below to share your interest in this blog with others you know.

These blogs are intended to provoke thought and ideas so I look forward to any comments about the content. Just move to the beginning of the blog, click on ‘Comments’ and you can record your views, or ask questions.

Related articles