Martin Wolf, as part of the elite, should read the “Explanatory Note on the Basel II IRB Risk Weight Functions”, and then tell us ordinary people what he opines of it.

Sir, even if qualifying for degrees of sophistication, when Martin Wolf places a human rights violating dictator Nicolas Maduro in the same list of strongmen as Donald Trump, he certainly seems to have lost it. Nicolas Maduro has now 90% of Venezuela against him and is staying there by brute force, and the elections he won in the past, were fraudulent. Or could it be Wolf still wants to believe that Trump won also because of Putin’s help? “Elected despots feed off our fear and rage”, April 23, 2019.

Wolf argues that the reason president Trump was elected and why is he still trusted by so many, is “partly due to longstanding economic failures, partly to the financial crisis and partly to cultural changes”; and also the willingness of parts of the elite to exploit such emotions, to achieve huge tax cuts and eliminate regulation, something Wolf defines as “pluto-populism”.

Pluto-populism? There’s now more than 30 years since the Basel Accord introduced risk weighted capital requirements for banks that assigned a risk weight of 0% to the sovereign and 100% to the citizen. If that’s not statism that feeds a crony statism what is?

And those regulations based on that what’s perceived as risky is more dangerous to our bank systems than what’s perceived as safe, is utter lunacy, that is unless its purpose is to realize bankers’ wet dreams of being allowed to leverage especially much with what is perceived as especially safe. 

The financial crisis resulted 99% from excessive exposures to what Basel II in 2004 backed by an AAA rated entity, like AIG, which meant banks could leverage a mindboggling 62.5 times their capital with these assets.

And much of the weak response to the immense post crisis stimuli, is the result of “risky” entrepreneurs and SMEs not having competitive access to bank credit, because of having to make up for the fact that banks can leverage much less their capital with loans to them. 

But yet, the monstrous missregulation by the Basel Committee is still not really discussed, and so it is still not really corrected.

I assume Martin Wolf, as the chief economics commentator of the Financial Times must qualify as part of the elite. So Sir, if you think he should live up to the responsibilities that entails, I suggest you dare him to read the Basel Committee’s “An Explanatory Note on the Basel II IRB Risk Weight Functions” of July 2005 and then inform you, and us ordinary people, whether that mumbo jumbo makes sense or not.

But back to Venezuela. Obama agreed to negotiate with Cuba leaving its de facto invasion of Venezuela out of it. President Trump does not want anything of that sort. Sir, I wonder, if Martin Wolf was one of the so much suffering Venezuelans, what do you think he would prefer, an American “strongman” or an American “weakman”?

PS. Here is what I opine of that Explanatory Note

@PerKurowski

Martin Wolf, if we are to save our pied-a-terre, that will not happen by pitting clean Obama against dirty Trump

Sir, I refer to Martin Wolf’s “Trump’s bad judgment on Paris” June 7. 

Wolf writes: “Above all, the earth is not just an arena. It is our shared home. It does not belong to one nation, even such a powerful one. Looking after the planet is the moral responsibility of all”. Precisely! I agree 100%!

But when Wolf suggests, “the remaining participants in the accord must… commission an analysis of how to deal with free riders. Everything must be considered, even sanctions.”, then I disagree, 100%.

That has clearly little to do with how to help our planet and all to do with furthering the ongoing polarization in the world, all to do with fighting it out in an “arena”.

Really, what does “free riders”, in a “non-binding” agreement, in which “no coercion was involved” mean? So if US had remained in the “framework” (because a framework is all the Paris Climate Agreement is), and not done anything, would that have been better?

I was like most against Trump (the US) pulling out of the accord, but, after it happened, I take it as the best thing that could have happened. At least now we will no longer be lulled into feeling more secure about our planet by something that might just be a dangerous illusion of a solution. Something that might just have been a huge political photo-op; and a congenial gathering of green subsidies distributors and customers. Now at least we all know better how little punch that Paris Accord really carried.

So, let’s take it from here. Let us inform the Americans that a revenue neutral carbon tax, like the one recently proposed by some republicans, might carry ten times as much environmental saving punch than the Paris Accord. Let’s inform Trump that if he helps to support a successful implementation of such plan he could become even a greater hero to the Greens than Al Gore… that he would have been touched by Abraham Lincolns’ “the better angels”.

Sir, I sincerely believe that the price signals of a carbon tax; with all its revenues distributed among citizens, instead of being redistributed by some few, is the best way to live up to our moral responsibility towards what I often lovingly refer to as our pied-a-terre. If Donald Trump helps that to come thru, I at least am more than willing to forgive most of his very much salon inappropriate behaviors.

PS. And really, what is a Paris Climate Agreement that was signed by a president but not put up for ratification by the US Congress? In 1920, it was the US Senate that said no to the League of Nations with a 49 to 35 vote.

@PerKurowski

http://ourpiedaterre.blogspot.com

Risk weighted capital requirements for banks caused the animal spirits of hyenas to substitute for those of lions.

Sir. We had a crisis, which resulted directly from the distorted incentives for the allocation of credit to the real economy that the risk weighted capital requirements for banks caused. If anyone doubts that, just consider that Basel II, of 2004, allowed banks to leverage equity a mindboggling 62.5 to 1 with private sector assets, as long as these assets had an AAA to AA rating. If they did not posses a credit rating then a 12.5 to 1 leverage was the max.

True, FDIC and the Fed did not allow USA’s commercial banks to follow these Basel II rules initially, but the SEC did allow the investment banks to do so, as were European banks allowed to do. That set off the most voracious appetite ever for AAA rated assets, and the markets, understandably, set out to satisfy that demand, in any which way it could, even if by means of fraudulent behavior. Because that is what markets do!

To top it up, with Basel I of 1988, the regulators had risk-weighted Sovereigns with zero percent, and consequentially banks were allowed to build up huge exposures against little capital for sovereigns such like Greece.

And then we had Central Banks, Fed, by means of QEs, injecting the mother of all liquidity in the markets, and again, by foremost buying up sovereign debt, mostly benefitting governments, and indirectly those who already owned assets like stocks.

Sir, the can of the crisis was simply kicked down the road; and the regulations that make banks earn higher risk adjusted returns on equity when financing the “safer” past and present than when financing the “riskier” future kept in place. Our grandchildren will hold us accountable for this.

Martin Wolf nonetheless gives a very positive review of Obama’s eight years of economic policy, “How Obama rebuilt the economy” January 11. How come?

The truth is that Wolf does not get it yet! Here he writes of “a broader post-crisis loss of animal spirits” without being able to understand that those risk weighted capital requirements for banks that I referred to, pre and post crisis, what they have done is to substitute the spirits of hyenas for the spirits of lions.

@PerKurowski

The dangers posed by hackers are much too dangerous and merit much more serious responses than expelling diplomats

Sir, when you consider the potentially so much more dangerous threats hackers can pose than hacking some Democratic National Committee files, like for instance hitting nuclear energy facilities, how can you argue “expelling 35 Russian “spies”, closing two properties and imposing sanctions on Russian agencies” represents a smart and “A sharp US riposte to Moscow’s cyber breach” December 31.

Why does this type of hacking get so much front road attention? Could it be because I fact it has little to do with hacking and more with other issues?

Daily I get about 30 emails from all over the US political spectrum asking for contributions. Since I am not a US citizen, I have ignored them all. But perhaps the possibilities that behind any of these solicitations could be a Russian hacker might be even a stronger reason for me to not contribute to anyone. 

I trust, or at least I pray, that beneath the surface of this public discourse, much more important measures are taken to defend us from malevolent hackers, here, there and everywhere.

@PerKurowski

Do you think Trump wants to lose big? To risk hearing “You’re fired!”? What if he first negotiates with GOP and then quits?

Sir, I refer to Philip Delves Broughton’s article on the candidature of Donald Trump, “The nominee whose tactics make history irrelevant” August 13.

It is incomplete because, there more than 80 days until November 8, a very long time in these times when things can turn around in seconds, and it does presuppose that Trump would be willing to accept a very significant loss, having to hear “You’re fired!”, without considering the possibility he negotiates with the GOP, and quits, and thereby quite possibly allow an alternative republican candidate to win the elections. He is a businessman after all... or not?

And what of the Democrat party if Clinton loses? Would not Obama for instance then hold on to much more influence in it? Will Michelle run someday? Sir, you see there are plenty of questions in the air. 

@PerKurowski ©

Could EU survive if it wanted to decide on an official common language different to English?

Sir, Gideon Rachman writes: “any Brits who feel nostalgic for the Anglosphere, and a little resentful about Mr Obama’s ‘back of the queue’ comments, might reflect how much they still benefit from the cultural power of the US. The traditional Anglo-sphere may be in disrepair. But a different sort of Anglosphere has emerged in Brussels, with English now the common language of the EU institutions”, “Obama and the end of the Anglosphere” April 26. Here some varied comments.

It is surprising to hear an Englishman hold that the importance of English is a result of “the cultural power of the US”. Will Rachman get clobbered or is this a generally held view?

With respect to English let me ask, when does a language become so important that it does not belong to anyone more? Scary eh?

So, if Brexit happens, should EU have the right to keep English? And if the answer to that is no, or EU having been rejected does not want it, what language would win? A German-French War? Could EU survive that?

And in regard to Obama’s “back of the queue’, and though I am not a Brit, I was surprised no one asked him: “Are you telling us it is easier for the US to negotiate with Germans and French than with Englishmen?”

Finally Sir, let me repeat two related questions that I made in a recent letter

America is home for Americans. Is not Brexit just a symptom of Europe not aspiring to be home of Europeans?

How many at FT wish one day for Englishmen to call Europe home, as Americans call America home?

PS. Or could one of you even be dreaming of calling Asia home? L

​PS. A New English Language Empire

@PerKurowski ©

How many small bank loans to SMEs and entrepreneurs has Basel Committee’s regulations hindered? Millions?

Sir, Shawn Donnan reports that in his annual economic report to Congress president Obama portrayed an American economy in relatively rude health after weathering one of the most brutal crises in its history. But Obama also acknowledged rising inequality, and that “a lot of Americans feel anxious”, blaming that on an economy that thanks to technological advances had been “changing in profound ways, starting long before the Great Recession”. “Obama rejects allegations economy is on the slide” February 23.

I would suggest to Mr. Obama he poses the following question to some economist at universities and at the Federal Reserve: 

How many bank loans to SMEs and entrepreneurs have not been awarded in America and Europe the last decade because of the risk weighted capital requirements for banks, ten thousands, hundred thousands, millions? I expect their answer to be frightening.

One way to obtain that number would be to look at how many of these loans were on the balance sheets of banks pre Basel II and how many are to be found today.

There is no way in hell America and Europe can regain sturdy and sustainable economic growth with bank regulators who distort the allocation of bank credit to the real economy with a silly and dangerous credit risk aversion.

Ben McLannahan in “US lenders blast proposed capital buffer rules”, reports on the ongoing discussions about rules on banks’ “total loss absorbing capacity” (TLAC). There he writes: “The top lobby groups for banks in the US have blasted proposals to make them build bigger capital buffers against losses, saying the “excessive” requirements could restrict the flow of credit to the world’s biggest economy.”

But, no matter at what percentage they are set, the required total loss absorbing capacity is still based on risk weighted assets (RWAs). And that means banks must hold more TLAC for assets considered as risky than for assets considered as safe.

And so that means those capital requirements especially restrict the flow of credit to those perceived as “risky”, the SMEs and entrepreneurs.

In this world were lobbying has sadly become a part of the government process, how sad it is that “The Risky” have no powerful lobbyist on their side.

The first arguments such a lobbyist could produce is to inform regulators about the fact that SMEs and entrepreneurs, precisely because they are perceived as risky, already count with less and more expensive access to bank credit, and so they never ever set of major bank crises.

And to address the inequality issue they could cite J.K. Galbraith’s “Money: Whence it came where it went” 1975 with: “The function of credit in a simple society is, in fact, remarkably egalitarian. It allows the man with energy and no money to participate in the economy more or less on a par with the man who has capital of his own.”

“A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for.” (John Augustus Shedd, 1850-1926) America, Europe, the World, what goes for ships goes for banks too!

America, Europe, the World, for the sake of next generations, allow your banks to finance the risky future and not only be refinancing the safer past!

@PerKurowski ©

No President Obama. No country with bank regulations based on credit risk aversion can speak of having a bold voice

Sir, Barack Obama writes “the US is ready to lead a global effort on behalf of new jobs, stronger growth, and lasting prosperity for all our people well into the 21st century. “America’s bold voice cannot be the only one” November 13.

He mentions: 1. “fiscal policy that supports short-term demand and invests in our future”; 2. “boost demand by putting more money into the pockets of middle-class consumers who drive growth”; 3. “more inclusive growth by lowering barriers to entering the labour force.” 4. “high-standard trade agreements that actually benefit the middle class” 5. “greater public investment… through new private investment in clean energy.”

Nowhere does he make a reference to the need of getting rid of bank regulations that are blocking the risk-taking needed to achieve sustainable economic growth.

The pillar of current bank regulations is the credit-risk weighted capital requirements for banks; more risk, more capital -less risk, less capital. Since banks, when deciding on risk premiums and amounts of exposure, already clears for credit risk, this results in an excessive consideration of credit risk. Any risk, even though perfectly perceived leads to the wrong results if excessively considered.

And therefore, in words attributed to Mark Twain, we now have banks that lend you the umbrella, much faster than usual if the sun is out, and take it away, much faster than usual if it seems like it could rain. In other words our bank’s, by having been given permissions to leverage much more with what is perceived as safe, earn much higher risk-adjusted returns on equity when lending to the safe are, consequentially, behaving more risk-averse than ever.

If one wants banks to be constructively bold, then one should set the capital requirements based, not on pitiful credit risk weights, but on daring purpose weights, like for instance based on “clean energy” and job-creation ratings, and SDGs in general.

And this will not cause the banking sector to become unstable, just the opposite. Never ever are major bank crisis the result of excessive exposures to something perceived as risky when placed on the balance sheets of banks… only of something ex ante perceived as safe that ex post turns out risky.

PS. This is also a civil rights issue. These regulations that double down on credit risk, discriminate against the rights of the risky, like SMEs and entrepreneurs, to have fair access to bank credit.

@PerKurowski ©

FT, here is an “innocent” question to Obama and his White House advisors.

Sir, Sam Fleming reports: “During the past 65 years, middle-class incomes have gone from doubling once a generation to showing almost no growth by some measures”, and quotes Obama with “we need to do more to restore the link between hard work and opportunities”, “White House warns on risk to growth” February 20.

And, as you know, I would innocently ask White House advisors the following: Don’t you think that it might have something to do with those recent bank regulations by which we allow banks to earn much higher risk-adjusted returns on equity when financing the extraction of value from the "safer" past, than when financing the "riskier" construction of the future?... In the Home of the Brave?

Is a 3 dollar per ticket tombola, to meet president Obama, really a comme il faut political fund-driving mechanism?

Sir I refer to the issue of fundraising raised by Edward Luce in “A farewell to trust: Obama´s Germany syndrome” July 14

Even though I am not a US citizen and have therefore no right to vote, I have recently gotten some emails where Michelle Obama addresses me very kindly with a “Per”, and then asks me to chip in 3 dollars for the cause, and that if I do, I will have a chance to meet Barack personally… all expenses covered.

It has a sort of delightful country fair tombola ring to it, but I also must confess it makes me a bit uneasy.

Is this really an adequate behavior for the president and the first lady of the most powerful country in the world, and upon which so much of my and my family future depends on?

First, I understand that Michelle Obama might have nothing to do with this, and also that I might be just a bit too old fashioned to understand the marketing of our times… but still, I can´t help having some serious reservations about it all.

Wolf, when spinning the US debt ceiling in favor of the spender, do not forget there is also a roof to get off.

Sir, Martin Wolf might be entirely correct when describing some of the possible horrible consequences of the US debt ceiling not being increased, but he is sure spinning the issue entirely in favor of the spender, “The debt-ceiling doomsday device” October 16.

I find the US Congress having to approve a debt ceiling, which is the same as a debt-roof from which the US has to get off from, sooner or later, to be something perfectly valid. When spending bills are presented, these are not “whatever it takes” spending bills, but spending which assumes some type of income. And, for the case those income assumptions are not met then any congress, as any corporate board, should have all the right to say… “Great! But as long as you do not take on more debt than x”.

And what would the markets be saying if all been smooth sailing for the US executive branch to take on any debt it wanted… would that not spook these even more?

PS. As for me, as Martin Wolf knows well, I am much more concerned with the shutdown of access to bank credit for the "risky" real economy, which regulators ordered with their dumb capital requirements for banks based on perceived risk.

Sorry but “audacity” is not longer a concept that defines the US, or Europe.

Sir, you title your editorial about Obama’s second inauguration as “The audacity of experience” January 22. Sorry but I do not think that “audacity” is a concept that could currently be used in the context of describing the US (or Europe for that matter) 

Look at the following three quotes from Obama’s speech: 

“Together we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.” 

“Our celebration of initiative and enterprise, our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, these are constants in our character.” 

“America’s possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive, diversity and openness, of endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention” 

And then explain to me how on earth “free market”, “ensure competition and fair play”, “celebration of initiative and enterprises” and “endless capacity for risk”, can exist in a country where its banks are ordered to hold more capital when lending to “The Risky” than when lending to “The Infallible”? 

No way Jose! Our nations, or at least our banks, are currently ruled by risk-adverse baby boomers that really do not care one iota for promoting “The Infallible” of tomorrow by taking the necessary chances on “The Risky” of today. 

Our governments, or at least our bank regulators, are loudly shouting out “aprės nous le deluge”, and unfortunately our young are too busy to take notice. They will pay dearly for it.

We need reasoned audacity, not unreasonable risk-aversion. “God make us daring!”

.

A “can-do spirit” is not based on dumb risk-avoidance but on a smart, even audacious, embracement of risk

Sir, Lionel Barber, from Washington writes “Wanted: a president to put can-do spirit back in the US” November 7. Absolutely, and that I believe is something the whole Europe also needs. 

Again, for the umpteenth time, few things can be so anathema to a “can-do spirit” than bank regulations which discriminates in favor of what the nation has got, the past, “The Infallible”, and against what the nation can get, the future, “The Risky” 

Currently banks are allowed to obtain much higher risk adjusted returns on equity when engaging with was is officially perceived as “not risky”, because that requires from them to hold much less capital than when lending to what is officially ex ante perceived as risky. That, basically instructs the banks, to stay away from what is risky, no matter what the risky, like small businesses and entrepreneurs can do. And if that is a spirit it can only be the “let’s enjoy what we did” 

America, Europe, a “can-do spirit” is not based on dumb risk-avoidance, but on a smart, even audacious, embracement of risk.

First step… Get rid of Fraulein Basel!

Martin Wolf, but what about the cumulative disadvantage for those officially perceived as “risky”?

Sir, Martin Wolf, in “Romney would be a backward step”, October 31, writes: “[A] challenge is inequality… to the extent that a child’s opportunity depends on the resources of its parents, the result will be more cumulative disadvantage”. 

Though I fail to see what that has to do specifically with Romney, Wolf is absolutely correct, but, then why on earth does he refuse to protest the cumulative disadvantage those perceived as “The Risky” are equally submitted to when trying to access bank credit? 

Not only do “The Risky” have to pay higher interests rates, get smaller loans and have to accept harsher contract terms, but on top of it all, in a cumulative way, the regulators also require the banks to hold more capital when lending to them than when lending to The infallible”. 

If a child’s education was placed under the supervision of a Basel Committee, those regulators, if applying consistently their current paradigms, would perhaps require the children of the poor to contract a special insurance to cover the risks of them not completing the education, because clearly their parents do not have the same resources as the children of the rich. Could Martin Wolf possibly agree with something like that? 

Or is it that Martin Wolf just cannot understand that when you impose a cumulative disadvantage on “The Risky” you are de-facto awarding a dangerous cumulative advantage to "The Infallible”?

Might Martin Wolf have too many “not risky” friends and too few “risky”?

Sir I completely share Martin Wolf’s concerns about “1930s…economic catastrophe with long lasting political results” “Bernanke makes an historic choice” September 19. And to that effect let me just reference the letter I wrote titled “The monsters that thrive on hardship haunt my dreams”, and that you so kindly published on the last day of 2009. 

But it is precisely because of it that I do not agree with any injections of any sort of stimulus, before we have eliminated the regulatory taxes on access to bank credit for those perceived as “risky”, and which result from the regulatory subsidies given to the access to bank credit to those perceived as “not risky”. That discrimination waters down any long lasting effect of QEs and fiscal stimulus, and is therefore basically setting us up for a monstrous inflation. 

I just cannot understand how Martin Wolf can keep silent, year after year, about the distortions produced by petit bank regulators, when setting their risk-adverse risk-weights which determine the capital requirements for banks. Or, is it that Wolf has too many friends among the “not-risky” and too few among the “risky”? If so, perhaps he should divulge his conflict of interest. 

Frankly, who authorized bank regulators to do to our banks what they did?

Mr. Obama. Does no one inform you about what is happening?

Sir, I read President Barack Obama’s “Now for a firewall to stop Europe’s crisis spreading” October 28, and it makes me wonder about who is supposed to inform the US President about what is happening, as obviously he is not. 

The financial fire started with the AAA rated securities backed with lousily awarded mortgages to the subprime sector, which had become too popular with the banks because, as these were officially perceived as not-risky, they could be purchased against only 1.6 percent in capital, which allowed therefore the banks to leverage their equity 60 times and more, something which of course must sound pure music for the ears of bonuses recipients. 

When that “not-risky” AAA was discovered to be very-risky, the banks had to immediately look for other officially “not-risky” and where they for instance found Greece, and swamped it with credits until Greece also drowned. 

And so now they are looking for new officially “not-risky” borrowers, who they can lend to without much scarce bank capital being required. Therefore, in the current fire, the flames are jumping from one officially-“not-risky” tree to another officially-“not-risky” tree and the last standing officially-“not-risky” tree will presumably be the US dollar and US public debt, but once the flames reaches there, it will also burn. 

The only way to start building a firewall, or to rebuild what has been burned already, is to allow banks to lend to the officially-“risky”, like those small businesses and entrepreneur s and which, as a class, have never ever been the cause of a systemic bank. Mr. President may I humbly remind you of that when the going gets risky, we need so urgently the risky risk-takers to get going.

There are businessmen in what is rated AAA and then there are all the others

Sir, Mort Zuckerman writes about the need for Obama to bring in more senior business people in order to bridge the current gulf, “Only business can put Obama back on top”, December 16. He is right, but in this respect both Mr Zuckerman and Mr Obama need to remember that there are two quite different types of business people, there are those active in what is rated as AAA and then there are all those who work in the rest of the economy. It is the latter who need urgently to be more present, since listening even more to the former, might only dig Obama’s presidency even deeper into the hole were inept financial regulators have placed the US and much of the world.

Other financial reforms are much more needed than rebuilding of Glass-Steagall styled walls.

Sir “Obama’s bank plan is a start” by Viral Acharya and Matthew Richardson, January 22 though describing in much detail the “highly geared bet on credit, especially tied to securitised pools of residential non-prime mortgages” misses out so completely on putting forward the two main causes for the disaster that one almost become suspicious about the intentions.

First, the explosion of the “securitised pools of residential non-prime mortgages” happened because those securities achieved AAA ratings and what can be better than to sell long term high interest mortgages as AAA safe investments. A 30 year 11 percent mortgage of US$ 300.000 if sold to yield 6 percent is valued at US$ 510.000 providing a US$ 210.000 immediate profit.

Second, for the banks to hold these AAA rated securities on their books they had, courtesy of the regulators to put up only 1.6 percent in equity, compared with the 8 percent of equity required when lending to small businesses, entrepreneurs or ordinary citizens. No wonder that “When the market and liquidity risk materialised as a result of the collapse of housing prices, they had no capital cushion to bear it”

And what have those causes for the disaster have to do with “the lack of Glass-Steagall-style restrictions”? Almost nothing!

And now I can’t find the link to this article in FT!!!???

Here's another reference to that article, two days later.

Who puts obscenity limits on the taxman’s bonuses?

Sir in “Obama attacks ‘obscene bonuses’” January 15 it says that the President pledges “to recover every single dime the American people are owed” from the government support given to the banks.

Sounds fair, but unfortunately he will not be recovering those amounts from those who made the money on the crisis, that’s long gone now, but from the future depositors and borrowers who will have to pay for it all by means of receiving lower returns and paying higher interest rates.

Our banks should be efficient financial intermediaries, not fiscal cash-cows, and the government should collect its taxes only from the final economic growth that banks have helped to foster. It is indeed worrisome to see how, instead of correcting the regulatory actions which has helped the banks to generate monstrous margins the taxman seems more set upon participating in the feast.

When in doubt just announce a Nobel Peace Price Objective

Sir personally I am convinced that Obama got the Nobel Prize for Peace by default since the committee could not really find someone else. That said I would not suggest for Obama to return the prize as Clive Crook does in “It is too early to land Obama – or to be disappointed” October 12, as that would be an unnecessary slap in the face of the Norwegians who must find themselves going through much pains anyhow trying to come up with a worthy winner each year. May I suggest to them the following alternative?

Those years when they do not find thee natural candidate why do they not declare an objective and that if accomplished would automatically give right to a Nobel Peace Prize sort of placing the carrot more explicitly before any possible candidates. As is it is not really sufficiently clear whether Obama got it for past or future achievements.