When frozen in other types of “cash”, it is hard to free up cash to spend on good causes without losing much value

Sir, I refer to “Debt Collectors” September 16, in which Eric Platt, Alexandra Scaggs and Nicole Bullock search to explain what could happen to the “portfolio of cash, securities and investments worth roughly $840bn, held outside the US by just 30 US companies, because of tax reform designed to … encourage American companies to bring back jobs and profits trapped overseas”.

The article, though it refers to difficulties such as the “repatriation process itself could involve selling bonds” and the impact of that on interest rates, fails to illustrate the whole truth.

The reality is that all that “cash”, as well as all that “cash” held by other wealthy (for instance in Panama) except for the less than 1% that could be in real cash, is in other assets like securities investments, perhaps even in art collections.

So, in order to convert all that “cash” into real cash, those other assets have to be sold to others who are then required to give up their real cash for these. And, in that process, clearly a lot of the value of the “cash” would just change hands or disappear.

Why are these difficulties of converting “cash” into cash not more discussed? Because doing so would be sort of inconvenient for those redistribution profiteers who try to sell their politically beneficial envy, for instance that present in the “one percenters being against all us 99 percenters” theme.

What is a £20 million flat in London or a US$200 million Picasso hanging on a wall but the voluntary freezing of millions in alternative purchase power that could be out there in the economy competing for consumer goods… and generating inflation? Is a lowering of the value of hard-assets the inflation driver central banks want?

PS. Of course the above does not take away one iota of the need to relentlessly pursue those who have accumulated “cash” assets illegally, and might hold these in places like in Panama.

https://teawithft.blogspot.com/2016/04/tett-get-it-whats-stashed-away-in.html

https://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2016/10/i-tweeted-how-do-you-morph-200-million.html

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-wealth-of-62-richest-equals-that-of.html

“Under distortion”

Sometimes I like to peek at sites with an “Under construction” sign to have a look at how things go. Nowadays one can also get a look of “Under distortion” market sites, like thanks to Tracy Alloway’s and Nicole Bullock’s “Banksoffer debt product to help skirt new liquidity rules” January 30.

An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur? Axel Oxenstierna, 1583 – 1654

All bank spreads are not alike

Sir, Michael Mackenzie, Ajay Makan and Nicole Bullock write that the spread on US consumer mortgages has widen over the last year when compared to that of Treasuries, “Mortgage rates fillip for banks”, June 4. 

Unfortunately, their analysis is flawed as it fails to take into account that all spreads are not alike, as to earn some require the bank to hold more capital than to earn others, and so in fact the complete opposite conclusion could be the valid one. 

In these days of scarce bank capital, had they run the figures on that which most generate capital requirements for the banks, namely the lending to the “risky” small businesses and entrepreneurs then they would have seen what borrowers are really hurting the most.

Is the Basel Committee´s mistake a taboo in FT?

Sir, Aline van Duyn and Nicole Bullock report “Banks braced for knock-on effect of credit ratings” April 29. There, and though they refer to issues such like that the ratings of the banks could suffer because of the close relation with the risks of their respective sovereign, and of outright losses if selling sovereign debt at a loss, amazingly they do not say one single word about the increase in capital requirements for the banks those downgrading in the credit cause, retroactively.

All bad that can happen when lenders have followed high credit ratings and these are suddenly downgraded, are currently compounded by the fact that the regulators use exactly the same credit ratings when establishing the capital requirements for banks. This was the biggest mistake of the Basel Committee, and of which I have written to you countless times. Has it now even become a taboo to discuss that in FT?

How long are regulators allowed to persist with their foolishness?

Sir I refer to so many news, about when a downgrading of credit ratings cause much havoc, like for instance Nicole Bullock´s report on April 19 “Muni bond risks grow after S&P’s DeKalb cut”.

It is high time to ask our regulators some basic questions like when they believe banks incur in the risk of lending, when they make a loan or when the borrower is down-rated. Of course, when they make the loan!

And so I ask how long should we allow the regulators to insist on a foolish system with retroactive corrections, based on credit ratings, and which makes the difficulties encountered with a client that turned out to be worse than he was originally rated even more difficult, and not a system of upfront capital requirements independent of ratings.

What U.S. risk is FT exactly referring to?

Yesterday, September 10 FT had on its first page a report signed by Krishna Guha Michael Mackenzie and Nicole Bullock that spoke about “the cost of insuring against a US default crept higher” and referencing a price for insuring that “implied that the US was more likely to default on its obligation than” several other countries.

Today, September 11, John Gapper in “Take this weekend off, Hank” apparently also finds a need to mention “that credit rating agencies had to declare to the investors that the Fannie and Freddie bail-out would not affect the country’s triple A sovereign rating.”

Given that US debt is issued in dollars, what exactly does this U.S credit risk insurance that you are talking of cover? The risk that they will run out of paper and ink at the US Bureau of Engraving and Printing?