Let’s make sure that environmental, social and governance investing does not just signify ESG profiteering, or access to indulgences for paying worse sins.

Sir, John Authers writes: “On the side of the devil, ESG offers a rebranding for an unpopular industry, an excuse for data providers to crunch a lot of data and then charge for it” “Pressure for ESG presents fund management chiefs with a moral dilemma” May 31.

That is right on the dot. In all these political correct issues, what is by far the most present is the profit motive for those preaching it... morality is much absent

In terms of defending the environment, I would much rather prefer a huge revenue neutral carbon tax, meaning all its revenues paid out in equal shares to all its citizens, than having the climate change fight profiteers gaming the fight and taking their cut. It is sufficiently difficult and expensive as is.

And in terms of “social” it is much better to use all potential profits to help fund a Universal Basic Income than to help fund the social fighters.

But what really upsets me is that good governance is on the list of good socially conscious investments. Much better, much clearer, would be to make sure bad governance is never ever financed.

Let me be absolutely clear. I would much rather prefer a Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd Blankfein being socially sanctioned, never ever more invited to a party in New York, for helping to finance a human rights violating regime like Venezuela’s Maduro’s, than allowing him to be able to purchase indulgencies to pay for his sins, by (profitably) financing some other “good” guys.

http://ourpiedaterre.blogspot.com/2017/04/solutions-that-share-out-all-benefits.html

http://myubi.blogspot.com/2017/01/my-universal-basic-income.html

https://unsustainabledebtsustainability.blogspot.com/2017/06/goldman-sachs-financing-of-venezuelas.html

@PerKurowski

Is there no moral issue in Venezuela bondholders being paid as a result of people being denied food or medicines?

Sir, Jonathan Wheatley writes: “In a broad sense, Caracas is already a serial defaulter. It has defaulted on its people by denying them access to the dollars they need for essential imports…” “Only one of Venezuela’s creditors is being paid without fail, on the button, every time: its international bondholders” “Venezuela clutches at straws in desperation to avoid bond default” September 28.

Let me ask: What would be a correct description of he who collects from a debtor knowing that he is being paid by a government because it denies food and medicines to its people? Or is that a moral irrelevance?

And what if the international bondholder’s would all just turn up to be close affiliates to the current government? I mean “A PDVSA bond maturing in 2017, on which a $2.3bn payment is due on November 2, is trading at about 80 per cent of par — hardly a sign of panic” could be indicative of it. Would it then just be another case of corruption? Insider trading?

The world needs a Sovereign Debt Restructuring Mechanism (SDRM) but, for that to be of any service or at least not a disservice to We the People, it needs to start with clearly defining what should be considered as odious credits or odious borrowings. As a minimum all bonds should not be bearer bonds, as we citizens should always have the right to clearly be able to identify who are financing our governments, and in what conditions, so that if we are not able to hold our governments accountable, like in Venezuela, we are at least able to hold its (our) creditors accountable.

@PerKurowski ©

In sovereign debt should not moral and ethical issues be more important than collective and pari passu clauses?

Sir, Robin Wigglesworth discusses bond legalese, like collective and pari passu clauses, and rightly concludes “paying attention to the legal differences is [especially] important when a borrower runs into a brick wall.” “Venezuelan bond small print piques investors’ interest” June 18.

But we citizens would also appreciate that lenders gave some minimum minimorum considerations to what the funds they loaned out were going to be used for, whether the loans were being correctly and transparently contracted, and of the quality of the managers of the proceeds, the governments.

In many cases, like that of Venezuela, if creditors had done so they could easily have concluded they were giving odious credits, and that the government was contracting odious borrowings; and that they better refrain from giving the loans, no matter how juicy the risk premiums.

In a world were legislation against acts of corruption exists it is surprising how little consideration “connoisseurs” give to the moral and ethical aspects of sovereign debt. Very high interest rate risk premiums, is the currency in which the corrupter and the corrupted too often conclude their dirty dealings.

For instance, in Venezuela, though there are serious scarcities of food and medicines, the government sells petrol domestically for basically nothing; and blocks humanitarian international arguing that to allow it would infringe their sovereign right to have exclusive responsibility for the welfare of citizens. And besides the market is well aware of that there are Venezuelans imprisoned for political reasons.

In such circumstances should not lending to Venezuela qualify as odious credit? Should that not also be qualified as part of odious government borrowings?

Should not citizens have a collective clause rights with which they can authorize or not the payment of odious credits and borrowings?

What should a due diligence process for bond issues which proceeds might help finance human rights violations include?

If a corporation suspect of drug trafficking made a bond issue, who would begin by revising the clauses of its legal documentation?

@PerKurowski ©

If we want debt to earn the credit it merits, we need to get rid of current bank regulators.

Sir, I refer to Nigel Dodd’s, a professor at LSE, “Cast aside the moral judgment and give debt the credit it deserves”, November 1.

Unfortunately it seems that professor Dodd has not heard about the arguments against odious and stupid bank regulatory discrimination based on perceived credit risks. Had he done so, I believe his article would have taken a different form.

I say this, especially when reading his conclusion: “Credit is morally neutral. As an institution, it is neither good nor bad; and it is a grievous error to confuse creditworthiness with moral probity. Credit should be available to those who need it most. The price should be reasonable, and it should entail neither stigma nor penury.”

Indeed, professor Dodd, but one of the most important reasons for why this is not so, is the bank regulations that have been in place for about three decades; most especially since Basel II was approved in June 2004.

Those regulations order the banks to hold much more equity when lending to those perceived as “safe” than when lending to those perceived as “risky”; which of course allows banks to earn much higher risk-adjusted returns on equity when lending to the safe, than when lending to the risky.

And that means that regulators, on their own, without our approval, decided that bank credit should primarily be available to what from a credit risk point of view was perceived as “safe”, like financing house purchases, or lending to “the infallible sovereigns” or to the members of the AAAristocracy.

And which also means that anyone perceived as “risky”, would have to pay even more risk premiums, or have even less access to bank credit.

And that means denying fair access to bank credit to those we, who depend the most on the real economy, most need and want should have fair access to it, like the medium and small businesses, the entrepreneurs and the start-ups.

If we want debt to get the credit it deserves, we need to get rid of these regulators.

Are those who lend to a morally bankrupt government not just as morally bankrupt themselves

Sir, FastFT reports “Venezuela bonds yields are shooting higher” September 11.

It refers to a recent article by Ricardo Haussman’s and Miguel Angel Santos’ that said: “The fact that [the government] has chosen to default on 30 m Venezuelans, rather than on Wall Street, is not a sign of its moral rectitude. It is a signal of moral bankruptcy”.

And FastFT states “Investors are clearly little concerned”… something which is quite ok with me.

Most investors in Venezuelan debt, perhaps all, have for a very long time been perfectly aware that things in Venezuela were not as they should be, but they have decided to look away, because of the high risk premiums offered. And so as I see it, they are just as moral bankrupt.

And I repeat questions I have often made: Would it be right to buy bonds to finance the building of concentration camps... if the price, the risk premium, is right? Where do you draw the line on what is morally admissive lending? Where do you draw the line on what kind of intermediation fine reputable investment banks can do before they become morally repulsive?

The way I see it, the world, at least us citizens, need good governance ratings and ethic-ratings, much more than what it needs credit ratings

Debt restructuring will not suffice to save the euro. The immoral, useless and dangerous bank regulations must also be repelled.

Sir, William Buiter opines that “Only widespread debt restructuring can save the euro”, October 16. 

I agree that is indeed indispensable in order to take care of the past. But, to also offer a better future, the immoral, useless and outright dangerous bank regulations coming out of Basel must also be repelled. And I specifically refer to capital requirements with risk-weights based on ex-ante perceived risk. 

The way those regulations favor the access to bank credit of “The Infallible”, those already favored by markets and banks, and discriminate against that of “The Risky”, those already discriminated against by banks and markets… is immoral 

Those regulations are also useless, as never ever have those, ex-ante, perceived as risky caused a major bank crisis. 

Those regulations are also outright dangerous, as these completely hinder the banks from performing an efficient economic resource allocation. 

What more does the Eurozone, Europe, America and the rest need in order to repel these regulations completely?

There are indeed many financial issues that are up for long overdue reviews

Sir Christopher Caldwell in “Time for some morality trades” December 20, discusses whether the whole financial system should be up for a moral review. If so may I suggest we start by looking into the whole concept of placing borrowers in special high-interest rates corrals, with the help of tools that are not overly transparent, and then pushing the corralled into an impoverishing anticipation of consumption, all in order to make a profit from financial intermediation. From a societal point of view, without even discussing morality, driving an unnecessary wedge between people does not seem the smartest thing to do.

By coincidence in the same issue Dr. Milford Bateman in “Microfinance’s ‘iron law’ – local economies reduced to poverty” suggest that those lending money for marginal and most often informal entrepreneurial activities are digging the poor deeper in the hole they’re in, since those resources could have been used to finance some much better development ladders. Indeed this possibility and that for the development community must sound as a real shocker, also qualifies the microfinance sector for an urgent moral and practical review.