A Neo-Inquisition is at work protecting mutual admiration clubs, like the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision

Sir, Ian Goldin writes “Today, the increasing depth of knowledge in any field means that greater specialisation is needed to master ideas. Yet this stifles creativity and the ability to grapple with real-world problems, whose messy complexity has less and less in common with the increasingly fragmented disciplines and professional specialisation” “Da Vinci code: what the tech age can learn from Leonardo” April 29.

Indeed, and that is most clearly evidenced by expert specialized regulators coming up, within the walls of a mutual admiration club, with risk weighted capital requirements for banks, which are based, not on the dangers bank assets could pose to the banking system, but simply on their ex ante perceived credit risk… as if bankers did not perceive these… as if bankers loved taking risks… as if not all major bank crisis had resulted from something ex ante perceived as safe turning up ex post as something very risky. 

Goldin rightly opines: “For progress to prevail, evidence-based, innovative and reasoned thinking must triumph. Genius thrived in the Renaissance because of the supportive ecosystem that aided the creation and dissemination of knowledge — which then was crushed by the fearful inquisitions. Today, tolerance and evidence-based argument are again under threat.”

Indeed those bank regulations, which blatantly failed in 1988, when AAA rating turned out wrong, and which are building up dangerous exposures to 0% risk weighted sovereigns and to 15%-35% residential mortgages, are still not discussed.

In response to a public request of comments on SMS financing, I sent a letter to the Financial Stability Board. It began this way:

“I have not found sufficient strength to sit down and formally write up my comments, because I feel I would just be like a heliocentric Galileo writing to a geocentric Inquisition.

The Basel Committee’s standardized risk weights are based on the presumption that what is ex ante perceived as risky is more dangerous to our bank system.

And I hold a totally contrarian opinion. I believe that what is perceived a safe when placed on banks balance sheets to be much more dangerous to our bank system ex post than what is perceived ex ante as risky; and this especially so if those “safe” assets go hand in hand with lower capital requirements, meaning higher leverages, meaning higher risk adjusted returns on equity for what is perceived safe than for what is perceived as risky.”

Sir, that letter managed to get nailed on FSB’s web-doors and I’m waiting to see what will be its destiny.

PS. In these days when the filthy rich are so much abhorred, there’s room to ask whether Leonardo da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi and Mona Lisa would ever have been painted if not commissioned by some filthy rich.

PS. In FT November 2004: “Basel is just mutual admiration club of firefighters seeking to avoid crisis”

@PerKurowski

The “having just enough” opens the door for a discussion on relevant and irrelevant inequalities

Sir, I refer to Janan Ganesh’s “The holy grail of having just enough” April 6.

It is a great article, though because of its honest shadings, those who want to see all in black or white will criticize it. But its real importance could be in helping to put the finger on the need to redefine all discussions and measuring of inequality, by allowing these to focus much more on the relevant existing inequalities, and much less on the irrelevant inequalities.

That some “filthy rich” has decided to use his purchase power to buy a yacht, something which makes yacht builders happy, or to contract a yacht crew, something that gives those crew members a job, or freeze $450m of it in a painting, such as Leonardo da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi, which should make the one who sold him that painting very happy, does not make me feel one iota unequal to him. But, I can perfectly understand that the fact I own a house, a car and a reasonable amount of money, can make many owning much less feel unequal to me, and many who have nothing feel unequal to all.

And clearly those without a job must feel unequal to those with a job… and in that case unequal to the yacht crew, not unequal to the yacht owner.

In these days when redistribution and polarization profiteers seeding so much hate and envy, at zero marginal costs, create so much odious societal divisions, it behooves us to, as a minimum minimorum, make sure those divisions are in reference to something real and relevant, and not just fake divisions that can lead to absolutely nothing good.

PS. My generous feelings towards what the “filthy rich” own, are of course based on that they have obtained all that wealth in legal and decent ways.

When the “filthy rich” buy assets, they might do it good or bad, but they are de facto voluntarily redistributing money.

Sir, Tim Harford writes “Researchers concerned about the concentration of money in the hands of a small number of people tend to focus on the income or wealth share of high earners”, “All things are not equal in measuring inequality” August 18.

Indeed, all things are not equal, the income or wealth shares of high earners, c'est pas la même chose.

The debates on inequality, promoted mostly by redistribution profiteers, conveniently ignore that the moment money, meaning Main-street purchasing power, is exchanged for an asset, it has effectively been redistributed, to the vendors of those assets.

So yes, governments can redistribute money, but that does not mean it can redistribute wealth as easy, and without possibly serious unexpected consequences.

Not long ago, someone really wealthy, by means of a sort of voluntary tax, froze US$ 450 million of his real purchasing power on a wall, by acquiring Leonardo da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi. How do you redistribute that painting? One way is to get another filthy rich to redistribute his money buying it, most probably for less. Another way might be cutting it in thousands of small-certified pieces and thereby allow many much less wealthy to buy these, and thereby perhaps redistribute much more than US$ 450 million. Should we proceed to hack up Salvator Mundi?

Sir, at the end of the day, the one question that always lingers is, who redistributes money the best? The usual answer “Me!” or “Us!”

@PerKurowski

How much of billionaires’ wealth might have de facto already been redistributed?

Sir, John Gapper writes interestingly, from the perspective of how these are designed, about “public art museums funded by billionaires”. He concludes in that, as so many follow the same principles; it is beginning to have similitudes to a franchise. “Billionaires are franchising the art museum” August 9.

Currently in the political market, way too often we hear offers phrased in the simplistic terms of: “Let’s take it from the filthy-rich and give it to the poor and, Puff! all odious inequality will have disappeared.”

In order to stop the creation of those false expectations, which at the end only leads to frustrations and the enrichment of the of the redistribution and/or polarization profiteers, by increasing the value of their franchises, there is a real societal need for much more information. 

Like, what wealth to be redistributed are we talking about? How much might billionaires have already de facto redistributed their Main-street purchasing capacity wealth, by demanding and buying assets that no one else but them would be demanding, at least not at those ridiculously high prices?

Not long ago, someone really wealthy, by means of a sort of voluntary tax, froze US$ 450 million of real purchasing power on a wall, by acquiring Leonardo da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi. Sir, I ask, how do you redistribute that painting without perhaps serious unexpected consequences? Cutting it in thousands of small-certified pieces, and selling these in the market for much more than US$ 450 million? 

@PerKurowski

What does “stored wealth” mean? Is it really redistributable, just like that, without any consequences?

Sir, Edward Luce writes: “America’s elites have stored more wealth than they can consume. This creates three problems for everyone else” “The discreet terror of the American bourgeoisie”. February 8.

What does “stored wealth” really mean? You do not hide your main-street purchase capacity in cash under a mattress; you hand it over to someone else in exchange for an asset or a service.

When some very wealthy recently bought Leonardo da Vinci’s “Salvator Mundi”, he froze, with a sort of voluntary tax, US$450 million on a wall or in a storage room. Those US$450 millions were received and used by some other wealthy or not that wealthy. Should that not have happened? Should he have used his money better? What if those who now have his money know how to put it to much better use?

The war against wealth is raging. Whenever wealth has been obtain by criminal, or by unjustified means, like monopolies or excessive intellectual property rights exploitation, that war makes sense. But, those who preach that all will be well and dandy, if only wealth is redistributed, like from the 1% to the 99%, never explain how one now converts a Salvator Mundi, into fresh main-street purchase power, and the consequences of doing so.

We could assume that much of that lack of explanation is because many of the wealth redistribution fighters are in fact redistribution profiteers interested in increasing the value of their franchise.

PS. Not long ago, visiting the Museum of Louvre, it dawned on me that most of what was exhibited there would not have come into being, were it not for the existence of the filthy rich. Can we really afford, do we really want, to live without them?

@PerKurowski

Many children incapable of helping their parents during their old days will one day rightly blame our bank regulators’ insane risk aversion for that

Sir, Bronwen Maddox writes about the possible need to “force more people to use the equity in their houses to pay for care” and that “In these discussions, how to tax inheritance has attracted more political attention, not least because the prescriptions are simpler and chime with the debate about inequality”, “An ageing population and the end of inheritance” December 23.

Are the prescriptions for taxing inheritance really simpler than using your assets to pay for some of your own services? I don’t think so. To pay for your own social care services with assets of your own, fits perfectly with the standard norms and realities of our economy and our society. But, eroding the right to bequeath wealth to your children constitutes a direct attack on one of the most important drivers of the economy that could have dangerous consequences for all.

One of the least studied, or clearer yet conveniently ignored topics, is what could happen if you redistribute wealth, be it by wealth or inheritance taxes; not only in terms of what I consider is its very limited potential to provide temporal relief to poverty or inequality, but also in terms of how it could negatively affect the future economy. The lack of such discussions on this has possibly to do with not fitting the agenda of those creating envy and hate in order to achieve their own particular small and temporary goals.

Let me briefly hint at the following:

If a $450 million Leonardo Da Vinci “Salvator Mundi” had to be sold at the death of his owner to pay for all inheritance taxes it will not fetch $450 million. This because who would feel stimulated to pay a sort of voluntary tax, freezing that amount of purchase power on a wall or in a storage room, if that painting cannot be bequeathed to heirs, and just be taken away upon death?

And what would happen to all private owned houses and apartments, if upon the death of their owners who made sacrifices paying for these, they would just fall into a government pool of houses, with their users to be nominated by some few house redistributionists? What would happen to the incentives to save in order to buy, maintain and make homes beautiful?

And, if all shares and bonds were taxed to be placed in a mutual government pot… would that not signify heaven for statism fanatics and redistribution profiteers, and hell for all the rest of our children and grandchildren?

Sir, of course “the dream of bequeathing assets to the next generation is fading in the face of social care costs” that results from having more elder and fewer younger. But the lesser earnings of the young also cause that fading. Those regulators who with their insane capital requirements had banks abandoning financing the “risky” future, in favor of refinancing the “safer” past and present, will not be kindly remembered by the too many children incapable to take care of their parents’ old days.

PS. What is a reverse mortgage but a way to squeeze the most out of the present for the present? Whether it is done to satisfy an urgent need or only in order to anticipate some unnecessary consumption is not something irrelevant.

@PerKurowski

Here are some actions we should take in order to reduce the threat inequality poses to our democracies.

Sir, the discussions about growing inequality, that tend too often to concentrate on either income or wealth inequality expressed solely as a linear function of monetary terms, are dangerously simplified. Once some basic and non-basic wants have been met, loading up some extra millions does not produce the same amount of marginal benefits per dollar.

But of course for those who do not have the income to satisfy their needs and basic wants inequality matters, a lot. And so more important than worrying about inequality, is to worry about how increase the incomes of those earning less. 

Sometimes the lower incomes for some can have to do with some few other earning unjustifiably or even incorrectly too much, but most often it has little to do with that.

But the redistribution profiteers want to hear nothing of that sort. They prefer to feed envy, with for instance their so frequent mentions of how few wealthy posses more wealth than a billion or so of the poor. That of course can only increase the threat inequality signifies to our democracies that Martin Wolf lays out well in his “Inequality is a threat to our democracies” December 20.

Going from “a stable plutocracy, which manages to keep the mass of the people divided and docile” to the “emergence of a dictator, who rides to power on the back of a faux opposition to just such elites” is what sadly happened in my Venezuela.

What can we do?

When Wolf writes “The market value of the work of relatively unskilled people in high-income countries seems very unlikely to rise” we could for instance see what role risk weighted capital requirements for banks play:

In terms of equality what’s the difference between someone owning a home and someone renting a similar one?

Not much, that is unless the value of the house owned increased a lot and, as a consequence, rents also increase, sometimes more than what the renter can compensate with increased salaries.

That’s what happens when banks are allowed to hold residential mortgages against much less capital than when for instance lending to entrepreneurs; and as a consequence earn higher risk adjusted returns on equity with mortgages than when financing entrepreneurs; which mean banks will make the financing of house purchase abnormally available; which means house prices will go up… until

That is also what happens when central banks inject liquidity that benefits mainly the owner of assets; “now your house is worth more so take out a new loan against it” is not an offer that one renting will hear. 

When Wolf refers to “a desire to enjoy some degree of social harmony and the material abundance of modern economies, [being a] reasons to believe the wealthy might be prepared to share their abundance.” We should be careful of promising more than what could be obtained, because much of that abundance is not easily converted into effective purchase power or transferable income to others; for instance when some wealthy, by means of what could classify as a voluntary tax, decides to freeze on a wall, or in a storage room $450m of his purchase power, in a Leonardo Da Vinci “Salvator Mundi” how do you efficiently reverse that? Of course what’s important here is not the buyer’s paid $450 million but to where the $450million received are going.

Sir, I believe the following actions would go a long way to “ensure the survival of liberal democracy”

1. Getting rid of the distortions produced by bank regulations

2. A monthly Universal Basic Income (UBI) that is sufficient to help you get out of bed but not so large as to permit you to stay in bed. 

3. A Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax that helps fund the UBI and aligns the incentives for saving the environment and reducing inequality. 

4. A special tax on profits obtained under the cover of intellectual property rights to help fund the UBI.

5. Have Facebook, Google and alike pay a minimum fee into the UBI fund for any advertising that they send to us on the web. That would also help us to make sure they do not waste so much of our very scarce attention span.

@PerKurowski

Leonardo da Vinci, smiling, must be harboring great gratitude to the Fed and ECB for helping his Salvator Mundi to become so highly valued.

Sir, I refer to Josh Spero’s and Lauren Leatherby’s “Record price sparks hunt for Da Vinci painting buyer” November 17.

Surely Leonardo da Vinci wherever he find himself must be smiling and extending his deepest gratitude to Fed’s Janet Yellen and ECB’s Mario Draghi for their QEs and ultra low interest rates. That has allowed him see his Salvator Mundi valued at US$ 450 million much earlier than he could have expected.

And Janet Yellen and Mario Draghi and their colleagues must surely be smiling too. Since Dmitry Rybolovlev bought that painting in 2011 for $127.5m, its current price hints at being successful at reaching an inflation rate target they never dared dream of.

The art curious still do not know who the buyer is, but be sure the redistribution profiteers are also looking after these US$ 450 million to find out how that money escaped their franchise.

Since the latter will surely soon again be talking about inequality I take the opportunity to advance my usual question of: How do you morph such a valuable piece of art into street purchasing power again; that can be used for food and medicines, without the assistance of another extremely wealthy?

@PerKurowski