No coroner has asked for a postmortem examination of the global financial crisis to be performed by a truly independent pathologist.

Sir, Nouriel Roubini writes:“As we mark the 10th anniversary of the global financial crisis, there have been plenty of postmortems examining its causes, its consequences and whether the necessary lessons have been learnt” “Policy shifts, trade frictions and frothy prices cloud outlook for 2020” September 12.

Yes, many postmortems but none performed by a truly independent pathologist. 

Had that occurred he would have established that absolutely all assets that caused the crisis were those banks were allowed by their regulator to leverage immensely, because these were perceived, decreed or concocted as safe.

And from that he would have reported, not a lack of regulation but missregulation; and not excessive risk taking but excessive exposures to AAA rated securities, residential mortgages and 0% risk weighted sovereigns, like Greece.

And after such a report it is clear there would have been a total shake up of that group-thinking mutual admiration club known as the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision.

But since that report would have contained so many of truths that shall not be named, it never saw light, and consequentially the lessons have not been learned. 

Therefore the distortions in the allocation of credit have remained; something which has caused all the mindboggling large stimuli, like Tarp, QEs, fiscal deficits, growing personal debts that anticipate demand, and ultralow interests, to only result in kicking the crisis can forward and higher.

Sir, I have never been a bank regulator but from very early on I disliked much of what little I was seeing; and as an Executive Director of the World Bank I formally warned in 2003 against “entities such as the Basel Committee, accounting standard boards and credit rating agencies introducing serious and fatal systemic risks”

When later I discovered aspects like the runaway statism that was reflected into risk weights of 0% the sovereign and 100% the citizen; and the Basel II naiveté of allowing banks to leverage 62.5 times assets only because these had been rated AAA to AA by human fallible credit rating agencies, I could just not believe we had fallen so low.

Now, 10 years after the crisis, sadly, I am still waiting for any important authority to ask the regulators: 

“Why do you want banks to hold more capital against what by being perceived as risky has been made more innocous than against what by being perceived as safe poses so much more dangers to our bank system. Have you not heard about conditional probabilities?”

PS. Here is a somewhat more extensive aide memoire on the mistakes in the risk weighted capital requirements for banks.

@PerKurowski

Where would America be today had not bank regulators distorted credit and central bankers kicked the crisis can forward?

Martin Wolf, expressing concerns we all deeply share asks, “Who lost “our” America?” and he answers: “The American elite, especially the Republican elite… They sowed the wind; the world is reaping the whirlwind. “How we lost America to greed and envy” July 16.

I respectfully (nowadays not too much so) absolutely disagree. That because supposedly independent technocrats generated the two following events:

First, in 1988 regulators with their so sweet sounding risk weighted capital requirements, promised the world a safer bank system, but then proceeded to design these around the loony notion that what was perceived as risky was more dangerous than what was perceived as safe. That distorted the allocation of bank credits in favor of the "safer" present and against the "riskier" future. That must have stopped much of any ordinary social and economic mobility.

Then in 2007/08, instead of allowing the crisis to do its natural clean up, central bankers, starting with the Fed but soon to be eagerly followed by ECB and other central banks, just kicked the can forward, favoring sovereigns and existing assets. Just as an example, with their repurchase of the failed securities backed with mortgages to the subprime sector, they saved the asses of many investors and banks (many European) while very little of that sacrifice flowed back to those who, in the process, had been saddled with hard to serve mortgages.

Martin Wolf, and you too Sir, would benefit immensely in trying to imagine how the world would be looking now, without that unelected and inept technocratic interference! What had specifically Republicans, or Democrats, to do with that interference?

As I see it if that had not have happened Trump would not even have been thinking of running as a candidate.

PS. An aide memoire on some of the mistakes with the risk weighted capital requirements.

@PerKurowski

Now, ten years after, have not all quantitative easing and low interest rates just kicked the crisis can down the road?

Sir, Martin Wolf writes: “A… criticism is that easy money policies have worsened inequality, especially of wealth. But keeping the post-crisis economy in recession in order to reduce wealth inequality would have been insane. In any case, wealth inequality matters less than inequality of incomes, where the effect of raising asset prices is to lower returns for prospective owners, so improving inequality in the longer term. Above all, the worst form of inequality is to leave millions of people stuck unnecessarily in prolonged unemployment.” "Unusual times call for unusual strategies from central banks" November 13.

We are now into ten years of post-crisis. How can Mr. Wolf be so sure that if painkillers like Tarp and quantitative easing had not been prescribed, that we would now be in a worse position in terms of unemployment and in terms of inequality? Perhaps that all just kicked the can down the road, a can that could begin to violently roll back on us.

Sir, in August 2006 you published a letter of mine titled “Long-term benefits of a hard landing”. In it I wrote: 

“Why not try to go for a big immediate adjustment and get it over with? Yes, a collapse would ensue and we have to help the sufferer, but the morning after perhaps we could all breathe more easily and perhaps all those who, in the current housing boom could not afford to jump on the bandwagon, would then be able to do so, and take us on a new ride, towards a new housing boom in a couple of decades.

This is what the circle of life is all about and all the recent dabbling in topics such as debt sustainability just ignores the value of pruning or even, when urgently needed, of a timely amputation.”

I agree with that “wealth inequality matters less than inequality of incomes” but when Wolf then holds that “the effect of raising asset prices is to lower returns for prospective owners, so improving inequality in the longer term”, it would seem he would also agree with the benefits of a hard landing… that is as long as it is not on his watch.

In my Venezuela we have seen how millions of citizens who had reasonable expectations for the future, are now in desperate conditions. They have learned the hard way that no matter how much they might hold in assets, this means little if at the time you want to convert your assets into actual street purchasing capacity, there is no one there to buy these. And, as we sure have learned, to move from very good to very bad can be lightning fast. 

And I will keep on arguing… if government and regulators prioritize the financing of the sovereigns and of houses so much more than the financing of SMEs and entrepreneurs, we will be heading to a future of much poverty, lived out in an abundance of less and less maintained houses.

Wolf ends with: “given the instability of finance, today’s low neutral interest rates and the unwillingness of governments to use fiscal policy, the willingness of central banks to adopt unconventional policies may be all we have to manage the next big downturn.

Yes we might be in dire need of “unconventional policies”, but not necessarily from the central banks.

For instance we should urgently think of creating decent and worthy unemployments, to face the possibility of a structural lack of jobs. For that I would begin studying how to tax robots and artificial intelligence, and or how to reduce the margins of the redistribution profiteers, in such a way that it permits us to design and fund a universal basic income.

The UBI could initially be small, perhaps just US$ 100 per month, something to help you get out of bed, not so large as to help you stay in the bed, but the system has to be in place before social fabric breaks down, or before populists make hay of our problems.

PS. Today’s low neutral interest rates are artificially set low neutral interest rates

@PerKurowski

Europe, if you do not remove current risk weighted capital requirements for banks, no stimulus will really help.

Sir, Reza Moghadam from Morgan Stanley writes: ECB should switch from buying sovereign bonds to funding the removal of troubled assets from European banks…[that] would do more to alleviate the constraints on economic recovery than sovereign bond purchases ever could. “How to redirect easy money and encourage banks to lend”, December 6.

Of course that would help, but only for a while. If you do not remove the risk weighted capital requirements for banks, those which distort the allocation of bank credit to the real economy, and which therefore impede any stimulus like QE or a European type Tarp to reach were it can do the most good, you’ll soon be back on the cliff, albeit higher up.

Sir, the lower the capital requirement, the higher the leverage of equity, the higher the expected risk adjusted return on bank equity be. Therefore you cannot be so naïve as to expect a banker like Moghadam to say one world that would imply higher capital requirements for anything. In fact, by allowing banks to earn the highest risk adjusted returns on what is perceived as safe, the Basel Committee has made the bankers’ wet dreams come true.

When will you invite someone, like me, who speaks out for the access to bank credit of the “risky” SMEs and entrepreneurs? Or are these beggars for opportunities, those who could help open new gateways to the future, just not glamorous enough for you?

@PerKurowski

Though capable Giants could be great at smoothing over a crisis, the not so capable could help more getting over it.

“How lucky could you be that you have a guy who spent his life studying the Great Depression [Bernanke], combined with a guy who’d spent almost his whole life working on every global financial crisis for the previous 20 years and was a genuine markets guy [Geithner], combined with somebody who had been chief executive and chairman of one of the top investment banks in the world [Paulson, in the leadership positions they were in during the biggest financial crisis of the century”

Sir, that is what James Gorman, “the Morgan Stanley boss”, tells Tom Braithwaite during his “Lunch with the FT”, “Banking is sexy, creative and dynamic” May 23. I first wince a little bit about the “genuine markets guy” since we really did not see a lot of genuine market solutions but, what really comes to my mind, is the following.

What if instead of these Giants, there would instead have been some perfectly inept in their government positions? It would clearly have been a much harder and harsher landing… but could it no be that in such case we would have gotten over the crisis faster and more completely? As is the experts might be experts smoothing things out during a crisis but perhaps not in solving it. As is we still live with much overhang in terms of huge government borrowings, QEs to reverse, the permanence of some actors the world could have been better off getting rid of, and the same source of distortion that caused the crisis, the credit risk weighted capital requirements for banks.

In August 2006 FT published a letter I sent it titled “Long-term benefits of a hard landing”, and year after year I find more reasons to argue for that. Sir, had there been a harder landing don’t you think that the system would for instance have cleansed itself more of “$22.5m” CEOs annual pay packages?

The smoothing of a crisis, though nice for some, creates its own victims… Our young, with lousy employment perspectives, could well be the victims of the capable Giant's guiding and smoothing hands. 

http://teawithft.blogspot.com/2006/08/long-term-benefits-of-hard-landing.html

@PerKurowski

Is Thomas Piketty, with his “Capital” unwittingly working for the big time Oligarchs and Plutocrats?

Sir, I refer to Gillian Tett’s “The lessons from a rock-star economist”, April 26.

Anyone wanting to tax more wealth and income, in order to make up for an inequitable distribution, without first identifying and remedying the causes of such inequities is, de facto, working to increase the wealth and power of the big time Oligarchs and Plutocrats, because if no other changes, to them is where all those new taxes paid by the other wealthy is going to go, before the end of the day.

And I have not really understood the reason for the great hullaballoo around Thomas Piketty´s 685 pages long Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Of course it contains many interesting arguments but… what is really its new news? Gillian Tett might be quite right when she says “it has forced Americans to confront a growing sense of cognitive dissonance”… though perhaps one could equally describe that as having created the opportunity for some to exploit a growing sense of cognitive dissonance.

The book is based on a gross simplification that forces reaching the wrong conclusions. Already in the flap cover we read: “The main driver of inequality-the tendency of returns on capital to exceed the rate of economic growth-today threatens to generate extreme inequalities…But economic trends are not acts of God. Political action has curbed dangerous inequalities in the past, Piketty says, and may do so again”.

Much more accurate, and meaningful, would have been to start the analysis by asking … why is there a tendency of returns on capital to (in between crises) to exceed the rate of economic growth”. Most, if perhaps not all of those causes, are to be found directly linked to one sort of rent seeking or crony capitalism, something which clearly involves the hand of politics and governments, and something which has little to do with real capitalism. But that might not have been a welcomed conclusion to those who want to work at both ends… where the inequalities and the headaches are created and where the aspirins are handed out.

And of course to me, when Piketty writes “there is absolutely no doubt that the increase of inequality in the United States contributed to the nation’s financial instability” he is totally wrong. It was bad bank regulations which basically permitted banks to work with less and less capital, and the exaggerated importance given to the financing of home ownership, which caused the nation’s instability.

And when Piketty writes: “one consequence of increasing equality was virtual stagnation of purchasing power… which inevitably made it more likely that modest households would take on debt, especially since unscrupulous banks… freed from regulation and eager to earn good yields on the enormous savings injected into the system by the well-to-do, offered credit on increasingly generous terms”, it frankly reads like a simple provocateur pamphlet. By the way “increasing generous terms”? What a laugh! He clearly never saw the terms of the bad mortgages awarded to the subprime sector. 

And when Piketty writes “the financial crisis as such seems not to have had an impact on the structural increase of inequality”, we are left with the question of … why do you think that is so Professor?, since he seems to wish to ignore the role of Tarp and QEs in saving the wealth, at the price of even increasing the inequalities.

What can I say? I just hope for the sake of its many fans, that by next year they will not see in bookstores a bestseller titled “How we masterfully launched Piketty’s Capital”.

PS. I have read about one third of the book jumping from here to there. If I find something that will make me change my opinion while reading the rest, I will let you know.

In the absence of QEs and TARP, would Piketty have written the same “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”?

Sir, I refer to Martin Wolf’s review of Thomas Piketty’s, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” April 15.

First, I need to make two disclaimers. I have not read the book and, as suddenly references to it exploded on the web, I must confess I first thought of it as a too pushy publisher campaign, and I have not been able to free myself from that impression. From the little I have read of it, that in significance it is going to be up there with Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom”?… no way Jose. 

Now if I could only make two questions on Piketty’s book these would be:

Would Piketty have written the same Capital in the Twenty-First Century in the absence of QEs and TARP which obviously helped to keep the wealth… or if profits derived from protected intellectual rights had been taxed at a higher rate that profits derived from competing naked in the market?

Where does Piketty think all inherited but dissipated wealth has gone? Is he unaware of the real difficulties of keeping the value of an inheritance?

Professor Thomas Piketty: “Don't be so defeatist, it is so middle class.”

Sir, Robin Harding holds that “Inheritance should not be an alternative to hard work” January 6.

The setting is: “The lower the rate of growth, the smaller the percentage of society’s wealth created by those who are alive today, and thus, by definition, the larger the percentage that is passed on from previous generations… higher inheritances certainly exacerbate inequality.”

And that is derived from Thomas Piketty’s “eagerly awaited” “Capital in the Twenty First Century”. The book includes: “if the after tax return on capital is higher than the rate of growth in the economy, then all the heir and heiress need to do is save enough of the income from their inheritance… and their share of society’s wealth will rise”… ergo we must redistribute, and so we need “wealth taxes on a global scale”.

I do not agree with its general premise. An after tax rate of return on capital which is higher than the rate of growth in the economy, is something not really sustainable… unless other factors are in play. And, in this respect, I would just ask Mr. Piketty about what he believes would have happened to after tax returns on capital, without Tarps, QEs and all Fiscal Stimulus since 2007?

And also, what a horrendous vision it implies! That we should now only adapt to a shrinking economy, and give up all illusions about making it stronger and better, and just concern ourselves with that the last tree on our Easter Island we cut down is equitably shared? I can hear Downton Abbey’s Violet Crawley admonishing “Don't be so defeatist, it is so middle class.”

But of course I agree with Robin Harding in that developed (and developing) societies should “opt for the free-flowing meritocracy of the last century, not a return to the dynastic wealth of the one that preceded it.

But that, as I see it, has less to do with inheritance taxes and, at least currently, much more to do with bank regulations. You see the Basel regulators, with their risk-weighted capital requirements, do not want banks to take the risks which come with any “free-flowing meritocracy”, and instead to concentrate their exposures to the illusions of safeness of the “dynastic wealth”.

And by the way, anyone who thinks that the presence of after tax returns on capital higher than the rate of growth in the economy, would be sufficient to keep the value of an individual inheritance… has little knowledge about real life and about capitalism. Oh no! To waste an inheritance is very easy, but to keep the real value of an inheritance is, and should always be, hard work, no matter what the average interest rates are.

I wish more would concentrate more on the causes of inequality, than on the resulting inequalities. If not, and if we tax more all of the wealthy, all we will get is few oligarchs getting even more wealthy, not because of capitalism but because of crony capitalism.

More than market forces government intervention forces need to be tempered

Sir, Ian Buruma writes "If the new elites in the global economy want to stave off the storm of destructive hatred, they had better to come up with some ideas of their own on how to temper the market forces", "Global forces are uniting populists against the elites", December 14.

I do not presume forming part of any elite but yet I need to question that our current problems are derived from allowing too much market forces to reign. I suggest there is plenty of evidence which points in the opposite direction.

For instance, our banks are now subject to risk weighted capital requirements, which translates directly into allowing these to earn much higher risk adjusted returns on equity on assets deemed as “safe”, than on assets deemed as risky. It beats me to know what this has to do with markets.

And then we have the whole TARP and Quantitative Easing affairs, and which in all truth might point to an urgent need to temper the intervention by governments in the markets.

Limit and subsidize credit card rates

I heard Geithner in the Congress and I read Martin Wolf’s “Why Obama’s new Tarp will fail to rescue the banks” February 11 and it is clear that they and most of us have entered into a quite unproductive phase of the debate, where we are all threading muddy waters not getting anywhere.

We should all take a break, from discussing solely about banks, and discuss those other participants of the economy we know as the consumers.

The US consumers face incredibly and unexplainably high rates on their credit cards, like 17% if in current status and 26% if in default.

Why does not the US government not limit those rates to 4 and 6% respectively and as an incentive offer to pay the creditor a 3% compensation on any balance financed over the next year? That would only cost a meagre 30 billion dollars per trillion of credit card debt.

Doing that would put real money in the pockets of the real consumers and simultaneous work at solving the next wave of toxic assets soon to hit the markets.

After such fresh air we might take up our current discussion with new energies.