In search of answers on search engines

Sir, the discussion around Google issues as in Denise Kingsmill’s “Google’s market power warrants an inquiry” June 13 and Maija Palmer’s FT front page report that same date with respect to the “European fight over storage of personal data” naturally befuddles many of us.

Clearly a search engine should mostly be valued in terms of the services it offers to the searchers but in this case it is actually the searchers that become the searched and this leads to some very strange signalling effects. In fact I would not mind if Google was allotted, by the system, to perform a maximum of free searches, let us say 20 per cent of all the searches on the web during the last 24 hours, and thereafter, in order for a Google search to be allowed, a searcher would have to demonstrate Google’s search worth, by being willing to pay a substantial amount to Google for their service.

Also, with respect to privacy issues, we suddenly read about a possible compromise that would have Google cookies expire after only 18 months instead of 30 years, as if privacy had anything to do with time. On the contrary, if privacy was indeed the case, then one would perhaps be able argue that it is only after 30 years that Google could be allowed to use any personal data.

PS. We might need a Global Web Constitution

Why do you not sit down and talk instead?

Sir, Mr Vito Stagliano argues that “Opec’s threats prove sense of promoting alternatives to oil” June 12. There might be a thousand reasons for developing alternatives to oil but the only thing that the Opec threats really prove, is the need to sit down with them and talk about the whole issue. For instance if in 1998, when the price of a barrel of oil was $11 and according to some pundits like the Economist heading for $5, someone would have offered to buy the barrel of oil in a long term take up contract centred around $30 with some flexibility on the up and downside, then perhaps we would not be going through the current circumstances. Someone must have a vested interest in the oil issues not being solved by talking.

Immigration policies should not be a Noah’s Ark.

Sir, you are absolutely right when in “Small steps needed on US immigration”, June 12, you insist on the need to build credibility, which is exactly what some of us are trying to do by for instance developing a private insurance programs destined to guarantee that workers with visas issued under temporary programs will return in a timely way, or else paying some very substantial indemnities. What is not that clear though is why you think that creating bureaucratic biases in favour of high skilled workers is a naturally good thing to do instead of allowing the market to signal its own and very dynamic relative worker shortages. One thing is a Noah’s Ark in times of flooding and quite a different thing when it remains in the same spot, on dry land.

The explanation lies also in the absence of the normal “shavings”

Sir, I would absolutely side with Martin Wolf when he favours the “saving glut” (the US as a helpful consumer bumper) over the “money glut” (the US as an abusive imperial money printer) in “Who are the villains and the victims of global capital flows” June 12, as the main explaining factor for the compression of risk spreads and financing of the robust growth of US consumption. 

Having said that I would like to remind that there are many more characters to this story. Over the last decade, much the result of the Basel regulators’ efforts to drive out banking risks from banking, many of the financial risks have gone into hiding, frequently with the help of derivatives and credit rating agencies, and the world has therefore not suffered as many of the financial shavings that crisis and bankruptcies traditionally produce. 

You might mention Enron and the likes but the fact is they add up to almost nothing when compared to the tsunami dimensions of the flows. At the end of the day we will perhaps find much of the global capital flows evaporate into hot air when risks begin to show their face again and as perhaps has already started with the subprime mortgages in the US.

PS. Martin Wolf's http://blogs.ft.com/wolfforum/2007/06/villains_and_vi.html#comments does not any longer appear. I wonder why.

Spanish sayings and subprime woes

Sir, there is a Spanish saying that goes “we were many and then granny gave birth”. It came to my mind when reading Michael Waldorf’s letter “What Paulson and others are concerned about is manipulation of the market” June 11, in reply to some articles in FT that put forward the unkind possibility that some hedge funds could be against “loan modifications” that help mortgage payers, since they have a vested interest in the defaults (a short position). I say this because the market manipulation here denounced by Waldorf, namely that some credit coverage sellers (a long position) are buying up defaulted mortgages at par in order to keep up the value of their portfolio, only indicates another factor to be added to the current messy confusion that surrounds the subprime-affair. Seems that while some do not mind increasing the number of homeless, others are more concerned that we would notice it. The much rumbling and mumbling we hear also reminds of another Spanish saying that says “when the river sounds it is because it brings stones”.

Odious debt revisited

Sir, I must confess I was blown away when reading your editorial “Young, gifted, poor”, June 9, in which Junior, with reference “to the old saying that rather than inheriting the planet from our ancestors, each generation borrows it from the children” now wants to see “some collateral on the loan”. I mean, it sort of puts the whole issue of “odious debt” in a totally new and frightful light.

Honestly, the more I see what we are up to, the more certain I become that sooner or later our whole generation of baby-boomers could be kindly invited to take a field trip to an “ättestupa”, meaning those steep cliffs where supposedly elderly Scandinavians ages ago threw themselves from when they became useless to society.

I repeat again my argument for an urgent revision of our governmental system so as to align them with the true shareholder’s interest. If the average life is eighty years a new born should have 80 votes (exercised by his mother or older brother) someone like me would have 23 votes left, and someone over eighty should count his blessings and be glad if he is allowed to keep one as a memento. I do not want to owe the world too my children, I want to assure their rights as stakeholders and make it all a joint venture.

Sir Samuel Brittan’s blackout

Sir, Sir Samuel Brittan in “Towards a true price for energy” June 8, speaks up for the UK climate change levy and ends by saying “And if Opec made disapproving noises we would know that we were really on to something”.

He must be suffering from memory loss. In late 1998 early 1999 when oil was around $11 per barrel and according to some pundits (The Economist) heading for $5, then the distribution at the pump was 85 per cent for the UK taxman, 5 per cent for distribution and only 10 per cent for the producer who gave up for ever the non renewable resource that we should remember oil is. And sure did Opec produce noise, among others oil at $70 and Chavez.

If only at that time, Sir Brittan would have suggested fair long term take up contracts at $30 dollars per barrel, I can almost swear we would not be living the current extreme market tightness, and so reading him now suggest that the “proper reply to threats from Opec against the development of biofuels is to tell them to take a running jump” is just sad.

By the way, on biofuels, for the sake of our children, please let us not take a running jump, just to run our cars a couple of miles more.

Let us keep it as much as possible above the board

Sir, years ago, when the Venezuelan state owned oil company PDVSA was a thousand fold more transparent about its activities than it is now under the Chavez regime, I still had to go to their official filings in the US, produced as their debt were publicly listed there, in order to get the best possible information. I must confess that ever since, I am totally biased for public listings. I needed to alert to that fact before commenting on the letter of Javier Echarri the Secretary General of the European Private Equity and Venture Capital Association and where based on their own compilation of research reports he categorically states that “Private equity is fully regulated and benefits the pension funds of millions of ordinary people” June 7.

It might very well be that Echarri is right, but since the reason for taking companies private sometimes sound so similar to why some big chunks of our economies in many countries go underground into informality, should we not at least mention that it surely reflects badly on our society as a whole if we make darkness more valuable than sunlight.

By the way, one thing confuses me with respect to all those investments by pension funds in private equity funds that Echarri mention. As I have understood it pension funds are frequently restricted to the use of investment graded instruments, and so in this case that would signify that private equity companies can be investment grade, for public purposes. Is that not something of an oxymoron? Or do the credit rating agencies have access to some internal information we don’t?

A hidden tax is neither acceptable nor efficient

Kyoto with its system of selling indulgences for undefined carbon-sins and invest the proceeds in equally undefined carbon-good-deeds, while capping carbon emissions at a globally unsustainable level, is something like building a labyrinth in order to make the search for the exit door for our environmental emergency more interesting.

Sir, Clive Crook in his “Bush may be on to something…” June 7, presents the alternative of another labyrinth, in this case a national one, that would make it possible to “simulate a carbon tax . . . avoiding the word tax”. Forget it! If we are to find our way out of the very difficult environmental hardships transparency is a must and we have to be able to call a spade a spade. If what we need is a direct carbon tax let us work on that and shame governments into action.

Crook also mentions that the sale of “perpetual permits” would create a constituency with a vested interest in enforcement of carbon caps as that would make the value of the permissions go up. Forget it! If we are to find our way out of our global and public predicaments we cannot afford having the income to ex ante deviate into private rents when so much investment is needed, just as we also must be extremely wary of any signalling risk. Place these “perpetual permits” investors in front of a forest and ask yourselves whether their profit motives would induce them to reach for water to put out a fire… or for the matches.

Why not deregulate the banks instead?

Ian Morley from the Alternative Investment Management Association in “Hedge funds and regulators can work together” May 6, tells us that hedge funds are a positive force in markets by providing liquidity while at the same time on the opposite page Roger Merrit, from Fitch Ratings, in “Hedge fund behaviour in credit markets is untested” poses some serious questions about just that, and of course they are both right, for good and for bad.

Having said that when reading Morley’s spirited defence of voluntary regulations and of the fact that regulators should instead help to enforce these instead of coming up with their own I just want to ask where was he when the banking regulators decided for instance to force down the throat of the market, the opinions of a couple of few credit rating agencies. As one could argue that it is the excessive regulation of the banks that has been the main driving force for the hedge fund industry and that banks should in fact be more important than hedge-funds, perhaps what Morley should ask for is some deregulation of banks, but of course that is not what the alternative association is paying him to do.

For a starter defend the right to be unhappy

Sir, Martin Wolf did not seem to be too happy, and rightfully so, when trying in “Why progressive taxation is not the route to happiness” June 6 to review a “new doctrine” on happiness proposed by Richard Layard of the London School of Economics. 

Perhaps this was because in his response he might have focused too much on the outliers of a normal distributed happiness curve, instead of going for that huge middle area where tranquil conformity plays a much bigger role, as there is nothing that attempts so much against happiness than being forced to be happy. 

Wolf is absolutely right saying that happiness is something that should be pursued individually and that governments cannot make us happy but, having said that, I suspect that I am more convinced that he is about that a society where the use of some progressive taxation is deemed as natural, must be a more fertile environment for the individual pursuit of happiness, than an everyone for themselves society. 

Next time you complain about having to pay progressive taxes think of those who have not reached your marginal rate and count your blessings... and think of it as a status symbol. Finally let us not forget that if you never have cried you have never really laughed either and so the first stone on our road to true happiness might in fact be to guarantee the possibility for the broken hearts in our life.

Where is everyone?

Sir, Roger Merritt the Managing Director of Credit Policy of Fitch Ratings, one of the three and only credit rating agencies, now tells us that “Hedge fund behaviour in credit markets is untested” June 6, even though he knows that when you for instance rate the adequacy and safety of a boat you must do that in reference to the waters where it is suppose to navigate. Merritt, in response to a report in FT, now mumbles about some new paradigms in the global credit markets and then goes on to explain some century old facts that we all know and that he should have known. Where are the regulators willing to regulate when we need them?

What is new though, perhaps only because it is so shocking we did not even want to think about it, is that this diversify-your-risk driven market and that I prefer to call the hide-the-risk market has now developed some financial products, formally traded among formal participants, that create a vested interest (which means they profit) in the default of mortgages. What is this? A financial coliseum? Although I do no profess to understand it all (who can) I am no stranger to the fact that this type of derivatives could help people to get easier access to mortgages but now try to explain to someone being evicted that you cannot help him because someone has a legitimate profit motive that stops you from doing so. Where are our leaders when we need them?

The Venezuelan TV station’s closure is an infringement on your human rights too

Sir, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its Article 19 states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to . . . seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. This makes it clear that the arbitrary closure of a TV station in Venezuela although it affects directly the Venezuelan peoples right to expression, it also impairs any other citizen of the world’s equal human right to access information. This is made especially clear by the fact that the most reasonable proxy for true information that the world knows, is the free and diversified creation of opinions.

In this respect I need to ask whether you could ever be satisfied with a rainforest with only eucalyptuses and red parrots. Of course not! Therefore we need your help to conserve the info-diversity in Venezuela. As the indigenous to this small planet earth that you all are, this is your problem too. You do not need Venezuela to join the list of countries with absence of information, such as North Korea.

Investing in people losing their homes?

Sir, June 1 Saskia Scholtes reported of hedge funds' "Fear over a helping hand for home loan defaulters¨ and June 5 Richard Beales says that Fitch ratings could downgrade bonds backed by subprime mortgages if the loan's terms are changed to help borrowers keep their homes. It takes some time for the implications of such news to set in but when it does it really knocks you down. Do they mean that in all the risk diversification (or risk hiding) that has been occurring through derivatives we have now actually created a group of investors with a vested interest in people losing their homes? Sorry, something sounds wrong and this surely must be something more than your regular moral hazard. Can I go long on a nuclear missile index?

The sale of healthcare should follow stricter standards than the sale of timeshares

Sir, Brad DeLong in “Obama can remedy an ailing healthcare system” (why only Obama?), June 4, says that “the US spends twice as much as Western Europe for little benefit” but then continues writing only about the need of increasing the health-insurance coverage and which presumably could only increase health-spending.

I am a foreigner and no expert in the area of health assistance in the US (probably thankfully) but, from the little I have seen the number of uninsured is large, but so are also the costs they are charged.

Whatever you do there should be no place for timeshare selling procedures in healthcare and there should be a rule that clearly states that you are not allowed to charge someone without coverage, more for medicine or any health service than what you would charge a covered patient.

By the way, and before you lose all sense of social solidarity, please develop an insurance that covers any additional costs because of what could be discovered in your DNA when gene tested.

De-regulation Italian style

Sir, Wolfgang Münchau, who I do not take for an Italian begs “Italian politics needs to get over the rainbow” June 4, because, if not “over a period of 10, perhaps 15 years, Italy’s economic decline will become unbearable”. Unbearable to whom? Since I cannot under any circumstances profess to being an expert on Italy and I must instead confess always having the need of seeing what Italy could offer the world in terms of tips for better living, I would be more inclined to find in the observation that “many public sector employees never turn up for work” a description of effective de-regulation Italian style, and in the “yet are fully protected against dismissal” a slightly too Germanic observance of the taking care of the losers rule so admonished by the World Bank and others. Capicci?

Forget the biofuels and go for a real oil price floor instead

Sir, what do you really mean with your editorial “Biofuels need not leave us hungry”, June 2. You start by mentioning that the US corn based is ethanol grown in Iowa is “eye-watering wasteful”, and there is no one to discuss you on that, but then, though you spell out the arguments of ethanol being only marginal less polluting than oil and that the marginal new production areas of sugar-cane based ethanol lies in the rainforests, you still conclude that EU should drop its tariffs on ethanol…with a dramatic “now before it is too late”

Days ago, May 23, you suggested (for the US) “A price floor for oil” but, since you proposed achieving that by imposing green taxes on gasoline, you were there actually suggesting a price floor for anything but oil. May I instead take you on the word and suggest you try a real price floor for oil, whereby Europe guarantees a take up of oil based on a minimum negotiated price? That would help to bring some real new oil production to the market and, if you then would want to impose some other green taxes on gasoline to finance the cost of that real price floor guarantee or just to further reduce its consumption, well be my guest.

Sir, why does Europe willingly to enter into long term take-up agreements for gas but not for oil?

Send China’s surplus to Africa!

Sir, somehow I felt that a question mark was missing in the title of Martin Wolf’s “The Right way to respond to China’s exploding surpluses” May 30, since after reading it I must confess I did not feel much wiser. Yes, agreed, China is accumulating much capital now, but that perhaps this is only so because we are using very short yardsticks to measure, like years instead of decades or even centuries. Yes, it seems that China should be able to spend more on such praiseworthy items as health and education, but we also know that it is not possible to spend in a contained way without having it slip over into other demands, like for instance more cars for teachers and doctors which then will require more oil. The real answer to China’s surpluses must be helping them to come up with a long term investment plan that makes sense. For instance, in a world where the energy/carbon-emission factor is clearly going to impose constraints on growth, there might be many preparatory investments that China could do. But if we start looking at it from that angle let us not forget that the US could also be better of doing some of these investments instead of using Chinas savings in dollars for consumption, or for postponing fundamental health and education reforms.

In a global world there will come a moment when we need to start analyzing the global marginal return of projects (GMR), and, from this perspective, perhaps Glenn Denning and Jeffrey Sachs’ article “How the rich world can help Africa help itself” and that coincidentally appears next to Wolf’s might be faulty titled too and should read “How China should reallocate their savings and help Africa help itself.”

The World Bank needs a president credible to the world (and to the USA

My friend and as an Executive Director of the World Bank former colleague Otaviano Canuto is quoted in FT May 22 saying with respect to the appointment of the next president to substitute for Wolfowitz that the selection should be “based on the merits of a plurality of candidates regardless of nationality” and who could argue with that, though of course the problem of defining what are these “merits” remains.

The first and foremost merit that I believe a World Bank president must have besides the basics is to be able to generate enough credibility outside the small world of the World Bank. This is so since no matter how this multilateral twists and bends, the chances for most of the poor of this world to come out of their misery in a sustainable form lies in being able to connect with the real world. Also the World Bank itself is dependent on this connection if it is to strengthen its role as a global public-goods producer.

And so, unfortunately, we might be back to square one where the best we can hope for now, is for the United States to nominate a person that fully and truly represents the United States, and counts with the favourable opinion of Europe. By the way I would never view such a candidate as a foe but, if I did, I much more prefer to work with an impressive foe than with a diddling friend.

Let us not despair though; the time will come when the world will be ripe for Otaviano Canuto’s proposal, and much faster than what we can imagine.

No, it is the courtesy of the regulatory agencies

Sir, John Plender in “A stretched credit cycle, a more savage downturn” May 22, gives a very clear explanation of the blissful-ignorance-bubble when he mentions the fact that many of the positions “are not marked to market” but instead “marked to model”. Where he is wrong though is when he says that “Credit is being mispriced courtesy of credit rating agencies that are insensitive to market risk.” For that we should thank our financial regulators who by ordering the market to listen to the credit rating agencies created a totally new form of non-market market risk.

And please, why does Plender have to say that “high finance has never been more sophisticated”? when in fact many of us suspect we might be living the period where never have high finance people understood so little of what they really were up to.

But ignoring labour rights and standards altogether will not get us anywhere either.

Sir, Jagdish Bhagwati in “Free trade’s foes get a foot in the door” May 22, lashes out against labour standards as a tool of protectionism. Be that as it may, and I tend to agree with him on the risks of an improper use of the standards, we must still know that in order for the world to become a better place we cannot really think of splitting it up into highly-regulated-consumer-societies and free-to-do-whatever-they-want -producers. So, if you don’t want to mix trade and labour standards in the World Trade Organization, then as Bhagwati mentions you can always go to the International Labour Organization… but do it!

Bhagwati also points out as a special circumstance “that the pursuit of labour standards today reflects not altruism and empathy but fear and self interest”. I am not that sure it ever was about anything else but fear and self interest, but if we really want it to be about altruism and empathy let us then make certain we discuss the labour standards from that point of view, as ignoring them completely do not seem that compatible with altruism and empathy either.

About ageing in today’s financial world.

Sir, Nigel Andrews end his review of “No Country for Old Men” May 22 describing the bewilderment of an ageing sheriff that far from having “seen everything before” scarcely understands anything as “a murderous materialism is taking over his part of the world, sweeping up even semi-innocents in its dust-devil vortices”. Keeping the distance that review rang a bell when, just at a three pages distance, we read how John Dizard “Gold tells a sad story of asset deflation in the future” seems really to be pulling at greying and diminishing hair in pure bewilderment over what is happening in the financial world, so much that he ends with a “So sell gold now, but wait for it to begin a dramatic rally next year”. Just to make it clear, perhaps even though “much” younger than the Sheriff and Dizard, I also include myself in the list of the ageing and lost.

Is a guide to facial hair part of the World Bank’s “Doing Business” report?

Sir, when reading John Kay’s “A safety compliance officer’s guide to facial hair” May 22, you sort of start asking yourself whether these kind of questions are covered by that great Doing Business report issued by the World Bank and where the US appears in third place as to the ease of doing business.

We should be able to do a lot of good with temporary worker programs

Sir, when you comment what you find as the better flawed than nothing US immigration deal, May 21, you mention in it that “the temporary worker program offers no paths to citizenship” and that it “will merely create a huge new pool of permanently illegal aliens”. You are mistakenly looking at it from a very negative (might I dare say almost “supremacy”) perspective.

There is a real urgent need for a substantial temporary worker program that really is temporary, that has nothing to do with earning citizenship, and that if adequately executed could bring a lot of economic growth and social satisfaction for both sending and receiving countries. The program now announced might possibly be our last opportunity in a long time to have a chance of creating a good example to follow and we need everyone’s help and support for that, including yours. Many of us are already working on organizing our Central American workers so that they, while fully complying with the laws of the program, can best utilize their few legal working years in the US to earn and learn the most, so as to be able to do their best for their beloved homelands upon their return.

And, by the way, these workers, they are no aliens; they are all just earthlings like me and you.

Please assure Mr. Merton that no one is holding him personally responsible

Gillian Tett does a splendid work interviewing Mr Robert Merton “The appliance of financial science” May 21 and let us hope that on the behalf of all of us she has really been able to convey that we really will not hold him personally responsible for whatever could happen with all of his and his friend’s inventions and creations such as derivatives, option pricings and what have you, just as no one does holds Einstein and his friends responsible for what more bad the nuclear bomb might bring. Of course it will all come down to how these great and useful inventions are used.

Having said that I would like to comment on that when Merton says “Just think of all the crises that haven’t happened, say with the downgrade of General Motors and Ford” it really does not mean the negative effects have disappeared, just that they have been so diluted that we do not notice it. Spreading ink in a lake instead of a bathtub will get less noticed but keep on doing it and then suddenly you will have a whole lake go ink-blue and that could suddenly turn to be even catastrophic.

Question. Are derivatives a way of pushing things forward to future generations so as to better being able to enjoy the blissful ignorance bubble?

Stop right there! Who is the real complacent here?

Sir, does the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) really think they will now have done their part by warning the hedge funds?, May 21. BIS mentions problems such as “some erosion of counter party discipline” and “other signs of complacency” on behalf of the investment banks. Well if the regulators in BIS do not know that those risks are a fundamental part of any human behaviour then they are either totally incapable of supervising the banks they have themselves over the last few years fallen into the mother of all the complacency behaviours.

Give me someone without a conflict of interest and by definition he is a no one.

Sir, William Cohan surprisingly seems to express some surprise about that “Bankers must act to avoid conflict of interest” May 21. Hey, in my country, whichever, everyone knows that everyone with the exception of some shoe-shiners have one conflict of interest or another, and for that matter even shoe-shiners have been seen overhearing an investment tip or two.

What I really find surprising is how the financial sector regulators have been able to convince themselves to believe that their delegated authorities, the credit rating agencies, are in fact able to act free of conflict of interests. Might it be the regulators are so full of it they do not even notice?

I have conflicts of interest at all times (hum, even while sleeping) and what I found is important is to learn to keep them in check… reasonably.

Sir, keep your eyes on the ball!

Sir, I agree with every word you say in your editorial “The Word Bank after Wolfowitz” May 19, except perhaps for what could be implied by the title, that of drawing a historical line around one person. The same way that we frequently hear that countries get the president they deserve, perhaps the world has the World Bank it deserves.

What could be done? In my world, if we want good government results that have a chance of doing what is humanly good for humanity, in a shrinking world, that could only happen through more credible and better governed multinational institutions. But in this case, while rolling up or shirtsleeves to get going, we must also learn about how to prioritize our efforts. Instead of beating the good guy on the head, just because he is more amenable to being beaten on the head, and start with a World Bank that no matter Wolfowitz in relative terms still stands out as a shining example of good governance in the world, we should all concentrate more on where good governance is much more lacking and much more needed, namely the United Nations. Sir, may I humbly suggest, you help us keep our eyes on the ball!

A certified independent's view on World Bank reforms

Sir, Inder Sud in his letter “The prime World Bank issue is reforming board’s procedures” May 19, ends by saying that “What is important is to ensure that the board is truly independent and is specifically empowered to provide oversight.” Sounds nice, but that’s about it. Being arguably among the most independent Executive Director the World Bank has ever seen, having been nominated through a procedure initiate on the web by a government going through chaotic times and that when later regretting such appointment found out it was then too late to do something about it, I should perhaps know a bit or two about that issue. What on earth is independent and free of conflict of interests? In my country and yours too, perhaps some shoe-shiners could meet these criteria. And as to being empowered, the board is so more than enough, and what is missing is to make that empowerment more effective.

And in this I am in total agreement with Mr Sud, the procedures of the board need to be revised. The Executive Directors are so drowned in paper and asked to opine on so many issues, that in fact they almost mean nothing. Who is to blame and whether this could just be a Machiavellian device of management to render the board ineffective in its controls is something we could discuss another day but for me, the most important reform the World Bank board of Executives could do, is to demand from management a list of the ten best and ten worst programs or the Bank in order to dedicate themselves to scaling up the good and weeding out the irremediable bad, instead of losing so much time on the middle grey which in fact should be almost exclusively management territory.

As for a good mix at the Board I am all for it, and having a couple of independent lose cannon minds there to really question and plenty of dependant minds to anchor them back into realities, sound like the best alternative. Civil society? Why not, whatever that now means, but in an increasing global world I have also been suggesting that the global migrant working community and the multinational corporations needs to be represented.

As for the Presidency? Why not have donors bid for it and raise some money! Jest aside, though he clearly should be an independent, he should not be so much that he distances the World Bank from the real world. That no one can afford!

Per Kurowski
Former Executive Director of the World Bank
Chairman of the Voice and Noise Foundation for International Development and Global Strategic Studies.

Let us pray it stays with a headache

Sir, after reading Gillian Tett’s “A headache is in store when the credit party fizzles out” May 19, it is clear we should all go down on our knees and pray for that she is right, in that it is only a headache that is in store for us.

As for myself I have serious doubts that the consequence of this blissful-ignorance-bubble resulting from our hide-and-not-seek the risks with derivatives, is unfortunately going to be much more painful than that. When that day comes though, before putting the sole blame on the poor bankers earning their luxurious daily keep, I suggest we look much closer at the responsibility of our financial regulators.

And now it is for the World Bank to convince the world that it was more than about politics

Sir, now when after so much procrastination, by all, Wolfowitz has finally resigned it is now the World Bank’s turn to convince the world that all this was indeed an institutional fight over what is right or wrong, and not some political bickering against an unpopular president.

Having had the privilege to act as an Executive Director of the World Bank (2002-2004), I am truly convinced of the high human quality of all its people but, given that out there, for instance in the world of blogs, there exist so many 100% professional haters who don’t care a iota for the World Bank as long as they get their sweet revenge on Bush or Wolfowitz, now the World Bank’s directors, staff and managers must act decisively on the fundamental governance issues, so as to distance themselves as much as possible from these loonies.

One of the first tasks has to be to review the whole concept of external assignments or secondments, since it beats me how it could have reached that point where someone could even have thought of this as a useful instrument for removing to a distant place a conflict of interest of the President, at the expense of the World Bank. Can you even think of a listed corporation trying to argue with the IRS about the deductibility of salaries paid in such a way?

As with this it should be clear that there was a serious problem even before Wolfowitz intervened pushing promotions and salary increases, something that the Executive Board also valiantly recognized, it is obvious that the institutional integrity teams, and all other, have some solid homework to do before they can re-launch the good governance and anti corruption initiative the world needs so much, and that unfortunately seems to have hit an iceberg, while still in port. I am certain that they will succeed.

Why we should beware of the use of credit rating agencies even if they are superb

Sir, by now you must know that I am one of those who have been most sceptical about the growing role that has been assigned to the credit rating agencies in channelling the financial flows of the world, which is why I commend the financial team of FT for their Failing Grades?, May 17. But, having said that let me briefly give you an example why I think we are on the wrong track even if these agencies were superbly and almost inhuman efficient in their work.

As my MBA, though not that rusty, is from 1974, pre Black-Scholes-Merton model days, I am currently trying to update it by taking the exams for a Certified Financial Advisor (CFA) in the USA, surrounded by thousands of much younger candidates. It is not easy and so that you can better understand how hard it really is, just look at the following question that appears in a CFA mock exam:

Explain whether you agree or disagree with the following statement: “The credit risk of a bond is the risk that the issuer will fail to meet its obligation to make timely payments of interest and principle”

If I had answered the above with a YES, as anyone would have intuitively done, had they not peeked in on the updates, I would have distanced myself further from my CFA certification since the right answer indicated is a “NO”, among others because the (modern) credit risk now includes a “Downgrade risk, which is the risk that an issue will be downgraded by a rating agency”

And so now, instead of having to focus on the true object of the credit risk, we must also focus on the side issue of the opinions of the credit rating agencies, and that Sir, though we might feel all cosily comforted by more knowledge, does not really seem to put the world on a wiser financial track.

I do not mind credit rating agencies but, if we are forced by financial regulators to go by their criteria, then they should be forced to be equally responsible for them. Alternatively, let them hang around, giving their First Amendment protected opinions, but do not force anyone to have to follow them.

About financial trust and integrity

Sir, Henry Paulson is absolutely right when he says that “The key test of accurate financial reporting is trust” May 17, but he totally ignores the most fundamental origin of trust, which is being able to look someone in his eyes.

If something is needed now in terms of trust in the financial sector that would be to de-corporatize the auditing process, so as to allow us to find next to each auditing statement the name and photo of the responsible auditor, or the names of the jointly responsible auditor team, and who are all willing to be held accountable and responsible for what they say, and will not run and hide behind any anonymous corporate veil. When Paulson mentions that “our markets must retain the integrity” he seems to have forgotten that integrity is inherently an issue of personal responsibility, impossible to delegate.

Inefficiencies are often very precious.

Sir, Martin Flash in response to your editorial “Corporate France comes into focus” raises the question of “Is inefficiency a cost worth bearing?” May 17. I would dare to go much further, even stating that inefficiencies are in fact extremely valuable societal factors, that should be nourished and protected, of course in an efficient way. Think of it, if the world was really as efficient as it could be, what would there be left to do for the likes of me and you. And this by the way reminds me of another issue close to my heart and that I have not written to you previously about, I think.

We often see tables where they discriminate between occupations, like agriculture, manufacturing, services and so on, but when it comes to the unemployed they are usually bunched up into one and the same group. This is tragic, we urgently need to create new categories of unemployed so that we for instance can start recording those millions that more and more belong in special categories such as the “employed unemployed” (see Scandinavia) and also the gainfully unemployed. In a global world order disrupted by more efficient job allocation it is important for Universities and others to start giving courses on how to be and make a living being structurally unemployed, (Unemployed BA)and perhaps this is something that the French, with an intuitive efficiency, have been able to pick up.

On the other hand the French, with their savoir faire, might have just decided that the markets should not be trusted in its efficiency, and personally I think they have a point, especially when some few credit rating agencies have been ordered to substitute for so much of the market.

About the underground smoking movement

Sir, Jonathan Guthrie, “A small personal liberty takes its last gasp” May 17, is definitely picking up that time honoured banner of defending the weak. I can already see him in his own l’allow smoking resistance setting up a clandestine smokers club in his basement. That’s the spirit, and if he keeps it up, who knows, he might become a legend.

Having said that, and without wanting to take away from Guthrie’s efforts and initiatives, I must comment though that this is another of those times when society with its zealotry is driving economic activities underground (in this case Guthrie’s basement) and thereby increasing, to its own peril, the many growth opportunities for the many illicit investor groups that thrive outside the reach of Sarbanes Oxley.

As for me, a non-smoker for over fifteen years now, my quitting had little or nothing to do with decrees from manageable authorities, like a government, but more with obstacles where not even resistance fighters can be of any help, namely wife and three daughters.

We better make hot fashionable before it gets too hot

Sir, Victor Mallet touches upon a very touchy subject in his “How to curb Asia’s towering energy demand” May 17, namely the extremely vicious circle of the increased use of much energy consuming air-conditioning in times of global warming. Not only do we have to construct better buildings, like those in the old days where you could open the window, but we must also fight determinately fight the status and glamour of the cold. I know what I am talking about. Anytime I had to go in Venezuela from Caracas to the much warmer city of Maracaibo I had to pack an extra sweater to survive the cold of their offices where number of BTUs per employed carry an even bigger social significance that what the number of horse powers under the bonnet of his Thunderbird could have for an American. In Maracaibo they will not rest in their hospitality efforts, trying to make you feel comfortable, until they see frost in your eyebrows. The world urgently needs some cultural icons, perhaps Bono, to be seen showing up in offices sweating a bit, and liking it, and making hot fashionable, before it gets too hot.

We only wish the first oil news from Iraq were different

Sir, FT’s front page on May 16 spells out “First crude oil pumped by a foreign group for 35 years to flow from Iraq” which reminds us of how much better it could have been with news like “First oil revenues to flow directly to the Iraqi citizens in their history”, since that could really have meant the possibility of turning Iraq into something so much better that their current only best options of ending as a third rate democracy in the hands of an democratically oil elected mogul. How sad it is seeing so many sacrifices made by so many and missing such an opportunity to make a real difference.

It should not be about compensating losers but about distributing better the dividends of globalization.

Sir, Danny Leipziger and Michael Spence the vice chairman and chairman of the Commission of Growth and Development in their “Globalization’s losers need support” May 15, by talking about the need for protecting losers are, whether they know it or not, sending a quite wrong and negative message about globalization. A more constructive way to phrase the issue would be along the lines of “We have to make sure that the immense dividends from globalization are adequately distributed” Let us be honest, it must be clear by now that some beneficiaries are just getting more than their fair share.

If for instance a Mr Carlos Slim of Mexico is able according to Forbes to turn himself into the worlds second richest persons with a wealth of $53bn by controlling the Mexican telecommunication industry, it should be perfectly clear that this has nothing to do with globalization and all to do with bad regulators.

In this respect we only wish that Mr Leipziger and Mr Spence would give more attention to the obvious needs of scaling up global antitrust legislations and of finding ways of how to assure that the many monopolies that are created through assigning and defending the intellectual property right are reasonably exploited, instead of thinking about compensating handouts. That Bill Gates gives back is commendable, but that cannot be the basis for a government policy, when every citizen should have the right to earn his own keep, even if only employed as an unemployed.

The World Bank is needed more and more

The World Bank is less and less relevant writes Armeane M. Choksi, May 14, while the truth is that a true World Bank is more and more needed in times where there are not only billions of poor that seem more left behind than ever and everything gets, or at least is discovered to be, more and more intertwined. Of course there is a lot of intellectual capacity in the individual countries but they all need a forum where they can come together and discuss economic development from a global perspective and not only from their own local needs and the World Bank is the ideal venue for that.

Clearly the World Bank needs to undergo some deep reforms in order to face up to all the new challenges, and not only with respect to its governance. Just as example they need to reduce the research that is based only on the availability of data and scale up the research that gives us better current data, like they are managing to do with their “Doing Business” reports. I have also frequently begged the World Bank to become that really carbon-solutions neutral agency we all need so as to make sense between all the green magical solutions to global warming that are currently peddled, as well as to provide the world with some good temporary-migration-program blue prints, that make sense to all parties.

That Choksi, who presents himself as a former Vice President of Human Capital Development & Operations Policy at the World Bank can even start to think that selling their prized real estate and distributing the capital gains to their shareholders has anything to do with what the word needs, is such a shame and only comes to show that even people who have been in the Bank, never understood what it was all about. The World Bank’s current loan portfolio after 40 years stands at approximately $103 bn. The USA’s total share (16.38%) of the World Bank’s total reported net worth comes only to about $5.5bn, or less than a tenth of what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have received in endowments.

There is life outside the consumer basket

Wolfgang Münchau writes about “The problem with inflation indices” May 14, and I agree with most he has to say, though it is somewhat incomplete, given that most of the real problem with them lies in the eyes of their beholders, when they feel beholden to use it for more than it should be used for. In other words, though economist, statisticians, Central Bankers and even normal people seem to ignore that there is still life outside a normal and standardized consumption basket, and that life is driven by house prices in mid London, Dow Jones indexes, US$1900 original handbags and their US$20 counterfeits.

Any investor who now thinks that by beating the inflation he has made enough to keep him abreast, should be up for solid surprises, though admittedly of a quite different kind than those problems that could face the investors who have beaten inflation by a lot when the liquidity pools dry up and all the risk that have gone into their derivative hidings start to show up.

Could the world’s financial nannies get away with anything?

Sir, the bank regulators of the world decided over the last decades to give some few credit rating agencies an immense role channelling the financial flows of the world. No matter what their reasons, I have always suspected it had mostly to do with some laid-off Soviet central planners migrating to Basel; they surely must have expected the credit rating agencies to behave in a responsible and accountable way. Now, when we hear these same agencies argue that all they do is opine and that their opinions are protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, those two basic premises do not necessarily seem so valid. Since any responsible parent, no matter how much they might trust their nanny would never want to leave their children in the custody of someone who thinks she could get away with anything, we now eagerly await what the regulators have to say about all this. Or do they just don’t care?

A scary Fantasy Island

Sir, Samuel Brittan as “An economist on Fantasy Island” May 10 scratches his head and just wonders. In a world where the IMF, in their Global Financial Stability Report, April 2007, could say something as surrealistic as “The persistence of global imbalances brings with it an important financial stability issue—the problem of sustaining the financial flows needed to support the imbalances” and get aways with it, he is certainly not alone. Sir Samuel Brittan then makes what in a financial world could be called a straddle by on the one hand preaching the advice of a-when-in-doubt-be-careful, coming out in favor of tighter money, while simultaneously reminding us of the “paradox of thrift” where an “excess of savings can promote a slump”. Let me feed the conundrum.

The world has been painting itself into a corner where if it wants to solve disequilibrium while keeping up growth, China is now its consumer of last resort. There is nothing wrong with that, except for: first we are not really certain about what could happen when China tries to cash in on their international chips to pay for their consumption, and second, given that the consumption demands of China could differ a lot from the current, whether we have sufficient environmental space so as not to burn up in a global oven, or the sufficient commodities so as not have all fizzle away in another bubble. Some Fantasy Islands are indeed great; others are just a little bit too scary.

We need an insurance for what could be discovered mapping our genes.

Sir, Patti Waldmeir in “The Dangerous new age of the genome”, May 9, writes about some legislative initiatives in the US that look to combat the “genetic discrimination” that might result from mapping the genes. This might be a good start but as I wrote in an article titled “Human genetics made inhuman” that I published in 2000, I submit that a better, or at least a more practical approach, might be to ask the insurance companies to come up with an insurance that covers any increased health insurance costs that can result from such a mapping when compared to an average citizen, and then require evidence that such an insurance has been contracted for before allowing at least any young person to have his or her genes mapped.

Sometimes the original and the pirated copies are just each other's parasites

Sir, Hugh Williamson reported May 8 that “Counterfeiting losses are less than claimed, says OECD” and mentioned that the upcoming results of some studies could prove embarrassing to some international business lobbies which have used high estimates to further their causes. I looked further into the details of such studies and found worrisome that OECD seems to put counterfeiting and piracy in the same sack of problems, where they do not belong.

A counterfeit is an imitation made with the intent to deceptively represent its content or origins. This is not only clear criminal behaviour but besides the direct costs, implies often great dangers, as for instance in the case of falsified medicine.

Piracy, the copying of a trademark or patent covered product to be sold at so much lower prices that no one could think of deceit, is comparatively speaking more of a venial sin, and about which we need more debate before declaring it so illegal that it should be hounded down, at any cost, and as a consequence increase the growth potential for those in the society that are dedicated to criminal and illicit activities.

Just as an example let me ask you the following: What is worth more, an original Vuitton handbag in a ladies lunch where all the ladies carry Vuitton, Gucci, Prada or Hermes Birkin (my daughter’s favourite, she is now looking at a pre-owned simple hand bag going for $9750) or that same handbag in a ladies lunch where all other ladies use pirated Vuitton bags. Exactly! The worth of the original is increased by the willingness of people to use cheaper copies of it. And in this respect the $900 dollar bags has nothing to do with the $20 dollar copy except as mutual parasites. You would never ever be able to sell the true bag at $900 were it not for the $20 dollar fakes, and also less of the $20 dollar fakes without the $900 original.

I have written a great book, Voice and Noise, and that is slowly turning itself into a collector’s item on account of so few reading it. I would love to have it pirated, if that would help me to reach thousands of readers. Any willing pirates out there? Then I could easily have my original retail for $190.

In immigration policy the perfect is also the enemy of the good

Sir, you write about “the mess over US immigration policy” May 9, and, as usually happens, most of the mess is created by those who want to court their followers by showing off that they want it all and perfect for them, when perfect, as always, is the enemy of the good.

Instead of what you imply I say for instance that if the price for getting some order back into immigration policies, before dirt hits the fan, is to have the migrants pay some punitive fees for their permits, so be it, that is still much better than having them paying the much more expensive punitive costs of not having permits. Let them put the price on the table and, after we haggle a bit, we will find the ways and means to help the migrants pay those fees.

That they must go home for extended intervals? Well we could argue about the length and the timings of such home-goings but it is not really a preposterous thing to ask of temporary work programs to include clauses that could keep their hearts warm to their homelands and lessening the risks of that heart-drain that could make their return much more difficult.

Sir, we sincerely appreciate your good intentions but please, don’t embrace us too much, and help us instead to get as many workable pieces of a solution formalized as fast as possible, before the problems get out of hand. Already having 12 million flesh and blood earthlings called illegal aliens is no minor problem.

If it was an entrapment that is almost irrelevant.

Sir, there are now some arguing that Mr Wolfowitz fell into an entrapment created by the World Bank's Ethics Committee and let me make it clear that whether this is true or not, it has nothing little to do with the real issue. Mr Wolfowitz, as the President of the World Bank should be able to know that just because an ethic committee says something might be ethical, that does not necessarily make it so. He should know that having the poverty fighting World Bank seconding someone at a foreseeable cost of US$ 2.700.000 (180.000 plus 50 % benefits times ten years) just to manage his conflict of interest is plainly wrong no matter who might say it is right.

The overwhelmingly good staff, management, board members and presidents, present or past of the World Bank, as well as a world that needs a respected multilateral institution where global challenges can be discussed, they all deserve that this issue should exclusively be about right or wrong and not just a banal pro or against Wolfowitz political row.

Mr Mander should apologize

Sir, Benedict Mander reports, May 9, that “a parade of rowdy and at times hysterical protesters yelled and whistled their way through central Caracas recently in a desperate attempt to be heard before Venezuela’s oldest and most popular television is silenced forever” and I just ask who is he to come and characterize the protesters as “hysterical”. Has he any idea of what it is to live in a country where all the judiciary and the military respond and obey blindly one who loves to be called “The Commander” and the Congress has 167 members that support him and none, zero, zilch against even though the whole world knows it is a highly polarized country, and where now they are going after the free media?

I truly think Mr Mander owes these protesters an apology.

What we need is some good carbon-solution neutral advice

Sir Jonathan Guthrie's "How I was deluded by my own carbon footprint", May 3, illustrates in a funny way the tragedy of what many of us have been saying for years, namely that to counter the serious climate change challenges, the marketing of medieval indulgences, for some fairly undefined carbon sins, in order to use the proceeds (after commissions) for some not that very clear good deeds, will just not cut it. The fact that the market seems mostly to be made up by a mix of innocent and well intentioned believers and state of the art speculators, and supervised all by an often much hypocritical environmental clergy does not make it easier. By the way it must be history's irony at work that has the current carbon indulgences system receiving its strongest support in protestant countries.

As for myself, having had some intentions to vacation in such a way that would leave a truly horrible carbon footprint, I am currently looking for someone to convince me that I am morally much better of if I allow them to finance me a more responsible alternative. Any offers? Seriously, if climate change is serious we should act seriously, and in order to do that what the world most needs is some good carbon-solution neutral advice.

Please, pick the cherries!

Sir, Andrew Jack reports that “World Bank agency seeks to create African health funds” April 30, and that one concern about one of its agencies, the International Finance Corporation, launching an equity fund is to “ensure that for-profit healthcare services supported by the debt and equity funds in Africa do not simply back businesses that “cherry pick” richer patients but instead reach the poorest in rural areas in the lower income countries that suffer the most.”

Clearly we should try to find the ways to bridge the horrible needs of the poor in Africa, but while doing so let us not ignore that “cherry picking” is exactly one or perhaps the most important tool for achieving sustainable economic development. If the world had used more its development funds to help Africa to persistently service the health needs of their sweetest cherries, instead of having these go to Paris or London for their health treatments, then perhaps we would have allowed many more sherry seeds germinate into cherry trees and there would be more cherries in Africa.

It is amazing how sometimes development agencies are hindered from using what has proven to be good development tools in developed countries.

How much does blissful ignorance has to do with our current financial bliss?

Sir in your editorial comment “Securitised stability”, April 27 you mention that “there are benefits from dispersing credit risks across the economy: it makes banks less vulnerable for a start, and makes borrowing cheaper for millions of companies and households.” You are in general terms right but let us not forget that, on a world aggregate, diluting the risks does not really mean eliminating them and perhaps even the contrary if the dilution allows for the acceptance of more risks, as seems to have happened with the subprime mortgages in the US… and soon with the highly leveraged buyouts.

Let me advance the idea that what we have lately perceived as benefits from the shifting of credit risks could in fact also have much to do with the creation of a larger world reserve of “blissful ignorance” resulting from having designed so much sophisticated risk camouflage. A millionaire is a millionaire not only as long as he factually is one but also as long as he believes himself to be one, and it is only when the final cash-flow realities hits him that he might wake up to the fact that his portfolio has harboured some very new and peculiar risks.

Thanks, that was much needed!

Sir, our problems on planet earth are just too serious to allow us from not spelling out some uncomfortable truths. In this respect, with your ‘Carbon markets create a muddle”, April 26, and the investigations that preceded it, and hopefully those that will follow, you are performing a tremendous service to all of us who believe that the climate change threat is for real and therefore require that the actions to combat it should also be for real.

The current carbon market where we sell indulgences for some fairly undefined sins, and use the proceeds for even less defined good deeds, after paying some intermediaries a commission, will just not cut it; much less so if we leave it in the hands of blind believers or of a hypocritical environmental clergy.

PS. Fast forward a decade: What if the indulgences revenues are democraticaly shared by all? Carbon dividends?

One little raffle would do it

Sir, Barney Jopson in “Unknown auditor? Not in my back yard, thank you” describes how though everyone knows it is not good for the markets to be so much in the hand of just four big auditing firms no one really gets around to do something about it, and so it seems that your regulator could be lacking some testosterones. Honestly, how difficult can it be to pick, through a raffle, 150 of the 300 largest companies that should be able to use a mid-tier auditor, and just ordering them to do so within a year if the want to avoid a huge fine. It is high time for the world to start thinking about taxing the largest before they become the-only-one and so from auditor firms we might then have to move to the banks.

We need some new derivatives!

Sir, Paul J Davies reports that Moody’s warns on change of control clause”, April 26, with respect to a clause that is supposed to protect the investor from the risk that a company suddenly gets swallowed up in a highly leveraged takeover and leaves him with a much riskier investment that he had originally intended. As it seems some of these clauses when the credit rating agencies downgrade the company but, if the credit rating agency did, as it should, downgrade the company before the formalization of the takeover event then, as no further downgrading should be necessary, the investors could be left out in the cold. As I read it, this seems to be just another example of a derivative market that needs to be developed in order to cover the changes in credit rating methodology and timing of announcements applied by the credit rating agencies. And, after that, perhaps the only remaining risk we need to cover before we can sleep calm under our blissful protective cover, is the regulator risk but, come to think of it, there might not be pockets deep enough to guarantee the counterpart risk on that.

Do not tax the migrants, make them save instead.

Sir, I could not agree more with Philippe Legrain on that Europe (and the US) need urgently to develop some large scale temporary immigration programs if they want to have a fighting chance of keeping what is happening under reasonable control. If the political price to pay for such programs is along the lines that he suggests in “A migrant tax would slash illegal entry into Europe”, April 25, namely an “extra payroll tax on foreign workers” so be it, and only because something is better than nothing. Nevertheless, let us be clear that what he is suggesting is a form of bribery offering all the “true” citizens to share into the earnings produced by the migrants, the secondary citizens. It is also equivalent to a handicap system where you place a special tax on the shoulders of foreigners, so that your homeboys can easier compete, which could have of course some long term debilitating effects for your own.

Much better is a system that looks to really guarantee the temporary aspects of it all. Not only do you have to make certain that the migrants keep up their contacts with their homelands, so as to avoid the risk of any heart-drain but also, that those same homelands manage to get better homes to return to. That you take a percentage of the migrants earnings and place it into a savings account that he will get back when he returns home, sounds much more reasonable than taxing him so that he might remain poor and impeded from returning home.

Brands are brands and that’s the way it is!

Sir, of course brands are useful when they motivate you to keep the name of the Financial Times in good standing, and me to do the same with my name. Having said that I feel you might have gone a bit overboard when in “Red Hot Brands” you defend so strongly the utilitarian value of brands, and I suspect it has to do with you feeling a bit uncomfortable with some of the questions those anti-capitalists that you refer to make, some of which are indeed quite difficult to answer. Forget it, there is no reason to be ashamed, brands are brands and just another fact-of-life that results from our human desire to identify and be identified. The next time some anti-capitalist nags you about brands just ask him about his Che.

And so, having hopefully cleared the ideological hurdle, let us now discuss objectively one of the main consequences of brands, which is that they frequently create quasi-monopolies that among other allows for wider profit margins. For instance one of the (mostly ignored) reasons for the declining shares of labour income in gross domestic products is most probably the growing importance of brands, plus of course all other type of intellectual property rights. And, so what can we do about it? I haven’t the faintest. I guess you could speculate on some progressive tax on brands depending on their market penetration but most probably, when in so much doubt, the best we could do, is to do nothing at all, letting the market to take care of that, as it sometimes seems to be doing through the pirating of brands... offering generic Louis Vuittons.

The World Bank, though in a hole, needs to dig deeper

Sir, as a former Executive Director of the World Bank (2002-2004) it is with much sadness that I have followed the Wolfowitz affair. It is clear that he should not have played a role in deciding the terms on which his girlfriend was seconded to the US state department” and that he should leave the Bank but, having said that, we need also to question the general idea of the World Bank seconding anyone, even on reasonable and non interfered terms, just to solve a conflict of interest… permitting someone to have the cake and eat it too.

In contrast I remember while an Executive Director how we spent millions of dollars of the Board’s time just in order to debate a “measly” forty thousand dollar a year increase for the then World Bank president James Wolfensohn, so that he would be able to earn as much as his counterpart in the IMF.

Now, after so much procrastination, by all parties, the only real solution for the World Bank, with or without Wolfowitz, lies in appointing a committee of true outsiders to dig deep and review all the World Bank’s current work related policies. The World Bank, when compared to other similar institutions, is very clean but of course, after 64 years of accumulating problem solving compromises, it should be time for a good scrubbing.

The world needs the World Bank to come out of all this smelling like roses and frankly its good staff deserves it.

The pastor risk is the risk that investors just share into blissful ignorance.

Sir, Wolfgang Münchau is correct when saying “A risk shared may be more risky, not less”, April 23. As arguments he presents, first the deceased US economist Hyman Minsky’s general pessimism (or may we dare say realism) that instability is an inherent part of the system, and then Raghuram Rajan’s, former director of research at IMF, who argues along the line that the investor’s increased willingness to invest in “tail risk” and their “herd” mentality could lead to a catastrophic meltdown.

I myself have been writing and warning on these specific issues for a long time, though mostly on the risk present in assigning too much market decision power to very few credit rating agencies and which introduces not a herd but a “systemic pastor” risk.

For instance in the ongoing subprime mortgages debacle, the distance between the borrower and the final lender increased too much, just because everyone counted on others to be able to provide sufficient oversight. When we now start seeing how credit rating agencies rated without even sending a team to walk the streets in order to sample how those subprime mortgages originated, we should be able to conclude that the investors besides sharing risks, were also sharing blissful ignorance.

How to get someone else’s grandson to take care of you when you are old?

Sir, Michiyo Nakamoto reports “Japan requires age-old wisdom on problems of productivity” April 23, on how a country of saver “who have long been happy to keep the bulk of their wealth in bank deposits” now have to start looking for improved returns on their money in order to make ends meet in an ageing society with declining workforce.

This is just the beginning of some truly important intra-generational transfer challenges that have been surprisingly little studied, and planned for, and simply accepting more risks in order to get better returns does not really cut it as a sustainable solution to this problem. For instance the Japanese society might need to take an urgent look at issues such as the saving propensity of the coming generations in Japan and the rest of the world, since if those generations do not want to save as much as theirs, then with whom are they in the future to barter with their investments and savings against the cash they need. Could it even be that they could be better off by simply cashing in their investments today and holding the cash?

Needless to say this is a question that affects many countries and I can already see a young generation of nurses in developed countries asking and getting six figure incomes… or even much more if they restrict the competition with foreign nurses.

The public private matrix

Sir, strange how terms could seem to evolve! I say this because when reading the title of Gillian Tett’s article “Multi-layered finance a defence against private equity”, April 20, the first thing that comes to mind is who would have thought it possible that FT would imply that some defence against private equity could be needed? Of course, Gillian Tett’s excellent article is perfectly clear what is meant, but then again perhaps using the term “private-private equity” would lessen the chances for confusion, and perhaps even of having it quoted by those who like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela favour the public sector to take control of some private companies. That said, in the matrix of private-private; public-private; public-public; I believe we all agree that the worst, by far, is the fourth quadrangle, that of private-public.

On the article itself, and after we have seen how fairly simple facts such that mortgages should be issued on reasonably sustainable terms were mostly not caught by the rating agencies, perhaps covering it all in some sophisticated multi-layering-finance, contrary to what is said, could in fact make it easier to obtain a credit rating agency’s letters of approval. You see, the worse the tangle, the easier to talk yourself out of it when caught wrong; it is when things are really simple, that the going gets really rough.

A rescue plan for the subprime mortgage blow-up

Sir, Desmond Lachman in “Housing bubble burst into American elections”, April 18, paints a very sombre picture that is just made much worse by the possibility that the first order of action, in this fire, will be to apportion the blame. We all must know that any plan that wants to have a chance to contain this disaster, needs to accept that its goals have just as much to do with improving borrowing, lending, packaging, rating, investing and regulating histories. No party is without blame.

1. If companies can have a Chapter 11 time-out, there should be no reason why the subprime mortgage sector should be forced to panic.

2. There is but one way to minimize the overall costs to borrowers, lenders, investors and society, which is to find the mechanisms to turn these uncollectible subprime loans into collectible prime loans and then have the costs of doing so shared by the parties, with a final settlement postponed in time, way down the road. For instance, if the borrower can only service a normal low fixed rate loan at a level equivalent to seventy cents per dollar on the actual dollar owed, then the loan has to be written write down to 70% plus a reasonable loss recovery clause applicable much later, when the real value of the houses support it.

3. In order to implement the program there will be a need for a fund that would repurchase mortgages through an auction system at the lowest cents per present value of dollar tended.

4. Those lenders, or packagers, or investors who would wish to implement a similar program on their own, or proceed directly with their foreclosures after the time-out, are free to do so, but need then to accept direct responsibility for any wrongful behaviour that could have been present during the original signing of the mortgages.

Easy stuff!

Sir, the sequencing of economics often creates confusion. For a normal person, if the US core inflations slows down, April 18, that sounds good, so the dollar should be worth more, while if the UK core inflation goes up, April 18, that sounds bad, so the pound should weaken, but then in reality, like seems to be the case, April 18, the opposite happens. Why? Because as inflation goes down you can afford making money more available while when it is shooting up you have to make it more scarce, and investors do naturally prefer to be where their money is scarce and therefore, hopefully, counts for more in relative terms.

Now, this is only the first round since if the pounds are then not as scarce or the dollars made as available as the investors expect, then the foreign exchange movements could reverse themselves. All this ceteris-paribus which in Latin means all-things-kept-equal but that in normal slang means ignore-the-complications, and , of course, within comparable realities, as we all know there are places where money will always be utterly scarce without the investors being tempted to go there.

Now, in these circumstances, the only thing that is expected from an intelligent investor is to know where he finds himself; where the rest of the market is; what the gatekeepers the Fed and the Bank will be up to; and what other surprises, normally busts and other ugly affairs, could interfere with the way you infer things should be heading. Easy stuff!

Should we then go after the intellectual perpetrators?

Sir, John Dizard in “A reform unlikely to dent rating agencies’ armour”, April 17, mentions that the credit rating agencies believe they are immune from legal liability from their work because now matter how careless they are, for instance when rating mortgage backed securities without even doing a representative survey on how those mortgage loans were awarded, their “opinions are protected speech under the Constitution.” I am no expert on constitutional issues to opine on this but, whether that is true or false, I do not believe any constitution would allow for forcing people to obey the ramblings of the opinionated, and so perhaps then we would need to go after the intellectual perpetrators, namely those financial sector regulators who have found it convenient to delegate so much power into so very few hands.

The world needs the cleansing and energizing forces of volatility

Sir, Tim Young in his letter on “How Japan’s investment was paralyzed”, April 16, asks the very relevant question “whether the cumulative loss of output [of following a conventional low interest rate policy] is less than might have been suffered if macroeconomic policy had allowed the asset price bubble to pop rather than deflate slowly.”

I certainly believe the losses of letting a problem fizzle out are in the long run, in average, always larger than having the bang and getting on with it, and so do you, for instance when in employment policies you commend the American styled labour flexibility that allows for easier firing so that resources can be better and faster reallocated. Sir, if you can lose your job, on the dot, because it is good for the economy, what would make losing 30% of the value of your house any different? What is better, keeping the high value of your houses or allowing your kids to afford a house?

It is time the world starts to think again about the cleansing and energizing forces of volatility and remembers that the absence of tremors could just mean a bigger earthquake in the making.

It is more of a wondrous world!

Sir, “when on April 12 you wrote that “The IMF reports on a wonderful world” the adjective wondrous could have been more appropriate. IMF, in their Global Financial Stability Report, April 2007, has the following to say on page 15. “The persistence of global imbalances brings with it an important financial stability issue—the problem of sustaining the financial flows needed to support the imbalances.” I rest my case!

Distraction from destruction?

Sir, in the Global Financial Stability Report prepared by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for their meetings in April in Washington we can read (Box1.1, page 8) that “$220 billion of the outstanding stock of subprime mortgages and second-lien loans packaged into asset-backed securities (ABS) in 2006 was comprised of noninvestment-grade tranches, most of which were repackaged into collateralized debt obligations, CDOs . . . [with] about $175 billion of senior tranches, $40 billion of mezzanine tranches, and only $5 billion of equity tranches”. Since the previous quote reads so eerily close to a technical description of what could be a financial weapon of mass destruction, it is really hard to fathom how little attention it received, even recognizing the distractions.

From my perspective, although some will look to camouflage these problems and their roles in creating them with arguments such as a weakening conditions in the housing market, there can be no doubt that the market for these investments were in fact exposed to too generous credit ratings. I have no clue about the quality of the $ 40 billion in mezzanines, but to think that only $5 billion in equity tranches could serve as a reasonable shock absorber for the risks in the remaining $215 billion of paper is almost laughable, since we all know that the protective worth of those $5 billion has probably all been readily consumed by all the expenses and success fees generated in order to put in place the deals and market the paper. In an almost humorous note, the IMF worries about the worth of these $5 billion of equity tranches, while of course what they need to worry about is the remaining $215 billion, wherever they can be.

Therefore, one of the main problems that should have been analyzed more in depth during the spring meetings was the possibility that having awarded so much power to some few credit rating agencies in determining the capital flows in the world, might have set it up to some very dangerous financial systemic risks, and then of course on what to do about it.

The problem with the sub-prime mortgages is just the tip of an iceberg.

Sir, Gillian Tett when saying that “Subprime proposals could broaden litigation risk all around”, April 13, she mentions at risk those who originate the lousy mortgages that have not considered sufficiently the debtors financial realities, the Wall Street banks that later repackage these in order to resell them to the public, even New York that might lose out in its standing as a financial center, but she does not yet mention the credit rating agencies who have been assigned most of the responsibility for certifying the quality of the final products. The fact that we live in a world were some credit analyst can rate a portfolio of mortgages without even thinking about leaving their desk and go for a field trip to check up on some of the actual individual real loans, points at one of the principal problems of the current bank regulation framework that has been coming out from Basel over the last decade, namely that of wanting to install a system that allows for monitoring from a distance, based on historical risks assessments, without having to get your feet dirty.

Sir, here and there, the financial world is being exposed to some extreme systemic risks, and it behooves us to be aware that this problem with the mortgages is just the tip of one of many icebergs.

Are there triple standards too?

Sir, I have just sat through a two day seminar in Washington organized by the World Bank Institute on the “Effects of mass media on public policy”, listening to conclusions of research papers that, among other, track media bias using tools such as counting how many times some word appears or do not appear in the context of the discussion of some specific theme.

Richard Beales, in “A whiff of double standards”, April 13, assigns the responsibility for the sub-prime mortgage mess in the following way “Some borrowers have no doubt misled by brokers. Some brokers have surely misled borrowers. Some lenders have been lax and some investment banks may have been blasé and glossed over a few risks in selling securities.” That “borrowers and brokers mislead” while investment bankers are merely blasé might raise some eyebrows, but, what the word counters of tomorrows would most notice, is that the credit rating agencies and those that gave the agencies so much power, are not even mentioned. Are there triple standards too?

What an opportunity we seem to have missed!

Sir, Daniel Smith writes that “Politicians cannot control Nigeria’s corruption crusade”, April 12, and of course he is right, since absolutely no one could do that, at least not while oil prices are high. He writes about Nigeria saying “its politics remains a stark scramble for power in which elites compete for domination of the state apparatus to reap the benefits of control over enormous oil revenues” and as happens, the population then elects a government to whom hand over the oil revenues that in reality belongs to themselves, only to thereafter have to spend the next couple of years licking boots in order to get some of that same oil money back, while the elected government officials, arrogantly, not in need of other tax income, couldn’t care less about them. It is only when you get to understand this that you really get a feeling for what a wonderful opportunity the world seems to have lost in Iraq. Can you imagine what having helped to channel the oil revenues directly to the Iraqi citizens in a transparent way could have done? That could really have been called democracy building, and setting a great example for the citizens of Nigeria, Venezuela and all the other oil cursed nations to follow.

What about all the rents that go to the intellectual property rights?

Sir, Martin Wolf in “Employment policies can ensure a fair share of the feast”, April 11, when commenting on the declining shares of labour income in gross domestic products, in reference also to the latest World Economic Outlook of the International Monetary Fund, describes it as either being a consequence of globalization, in terms of the production being allocated where salaries are lower, or of technology changes. Neither IMF, or Wolf, consider the possibility that there could be other reasons (or “culprits”) involved, like for instance the much intensified award and defence of intellectual property rights around the world, and that has created so many new monopolies that are not really that much regulated, and that frequently manage to extract incredible rents. I mention this since having quite recently heard about the outlandish proposition that “tax saving strategies” should be awarded a patent, it should be clear that any patents like this, when thereafter sold to an investor, will of course then provide immediate and guaranteed returns to capital, and not to labour.

Withdrawal to where?

Sir, you are right about there being “No easy route to an Iraq withdrawal” April 11, but one of the main reasons for that is perhaps that the where-to-withdraw has not been very clearly defined. Withdrawing to a place close by, perhaps even to the borders of Iraq, to see how it goes means a world of difference from a withdrawal to Kansas, USA, from where no politician is going to be able to suggest to take any American troops out, for decades.

Let us not waste this opportunity to make a very significant reform at the World Bank

Sir, on the web of World Bank (WB) we find an interview with Suzanne Rich Folsom the Director of the World Bank's Department of Institutional Integrity (INT), on the theme of fraud and corruption. When questioned "What sanctions are imposed on those misusing WB's funds?, she answers "when we find that a supplier has engaged in corruption in a project, we take actions to debar them – which means to make sure they can't get any more contracts for a while. We also publicly debar – we list their names on our website. 'Naming and shaming' is a huge deterrent." This sounds of course reasonable, especially considering that INT is not a court that could send anyone to jail.

Unfortunately, immediately thereafter, Folsom also has to say the following: “We’re often asked why we don’t publicly name WB staffs that are terminated for fraud and corruption as well. The WB’s rules don’t allow such disclosures…”, and this, no matter how you look at it, is of course something completely unacceptable and represents a truly ugly wart on the public face of what in so many respects is the best managed of all our international organizations.

Perhaps these days, when the World Bank’s President’s and a former staff names are publicly mentioned everywhere as having done something not correct, FT April 5, this could be the best opportunity ever for getting rid of whatever crazy disclosure rule stops the World Bank from living as it preaches.

Our valuable reservoirs of gullibility

Sir, can you imagine if we were not able or allowed to be gullible? What an awfully boring world it would be, drowned in rationality without being able to let our fantasies run wild, like Jacob Weisberg does when after drinking several cups of some green tea that on the label sells “a wisdom beyond wisdom” he comes to the joyful conclusion of a “I do believe it works”, “Green tea, the elixir of false virtue”, April 5.

And that is nothing when compared to analyzing gullibility from an economic perspective. Without it, can you imagine how much we would have to wipe out of the world’s GDP? In a world where so many jobs are currently being lost in the name of efficiency there can be no doubt that our last hopes of respectful employment lie in the hands of our reservoirs of gullible behaviours, and which thankfully seems to be quite renewable, at least as long we keep gullibility destroyers like Ralph Nader very far away from them.

As my own humble contribution to job creation I am currently giving a lot of credence to that innovative urban rumour that says that for an elevator to be able to offer a smooth and really “lucky” ride, it needs to be manned by a lift attendant who plays a solitary game on his or her computer while working.

Does Le Pen want a patent?

Sir, once when reading an analysis of the cash flows derived from the sale of a music CD went, I was surprised to see how much went to the record company, how much to the taxman and how relatively little to the musicians and composer, being these last ones those you really think of in terms of being defended by the intellectual property rights. I mention this because when reading Krishna Guha’s “IMF says workers’ share of income pie is shrinking” April 5, we are presented with only two possible culprits, globalization (in terms of placing productions where salaries are lower) or technological change, while perhaps the intensified award and enforcement of intellectual property rights that has lead to the creation of so many non-regulated monopolies might have a lot to do with the salaries being less and less of the cake. Hearing about the possibility that patents could be awarded on such exotics as tax saving strategies and also reading, in the same FT, a headline that states “Rivals are stealing my ideas, says Le Pen”, I guess that we who live on salaries better have a much closer look on this issue than what the IMF has done.

Sir, excuse me! I just read your editorial of today “Capital versus labour” where you as the cause for the growing share of profits also mention “globalization and technological innovation” and where you with globalization limit yourself to "competition in labour markets” and so I guess my previous comments of intellectual property rights that might have gone berserk, applies to your editorial too.

How are the fines split?

Sir, Patti Waldmeir starts of very well with “Bribery is not just a cost of doing business”, April 5, but then it sort of fizzles out in some “we need to be as competitive as our competitor” language, and giving examples of the recent upping of some fines which on the contrary only reaffirms the whole issue as just an increased cost of doing business.

There are some things we should be very clear about and that is that bribery is a criminal and vulgar behavior and that, if allowed to continue, it will in this shrinking world haunt everyone, whether a developed nation or not. Many of your current problems with excessive illegal migration or even the wars you are, or will be fighting, might indeed be rooted in some acts of bribery performed by your own ancestors. If I was invited to your home and bribed your butler to serve your finest French while you had in mind only to offer me a decent Australian, what would you say? Exactly! It behooves everyone to get a global grip on this problem if we are ever going to have a chance to get a grip on other problems, such as the environmental. In this respect I guess that before we see the first couple of executives from big corporations sent to long jail term in their own countries, because they have bribed some bureaucrats in the poorest nations we won’t get that far.

Finally, on a more practical note, when Walmeir mentions that a UK company had to pay “$26m for the privilege of paying $2.1m in bribes to Nigerian officials” can you tell me how much of that fine has gone to Nigeria, the hurt party? Nothing? Golly does that not sound a bit like doing some innovative business! If I was a Nigerian citizen, could I sue the UK Company in the US?

A spaghetti bowl might give more jobs… to some

Sir, Martin Wolf makes a splendid case for how the free trade reforms could be handled better than when “A Korean-American strand enters trade’s spaghetti bowl”. April 3.

What he might turn his eyes blind to (quite appropriate for a columnist of his statute) is that many or perhaps even most of those working on free-trade-issues might be following their own expanded agenda of working-on-free-trade-issues and in that respect, to try to make sense out of a spaghetti bowl, seems to guarantee much more jobs than a straightforward single WTO.

I do concur with Wolf when he mentions that “a single trade agreement open up to any single country prepared to sign up” could be a much more useful template since indeed, if free trade is really as good as we say it is, then why should we negotiate about it. I mean, you do not go to a nudist camp to play strip-poker!

Bank needs products

eSir, your “Bank seeks customers”, April 4, in which you describe the headaches of someone who is losing a valuable market niche, in this case the Asian Development Bank (ADB) as its clients have grown richer and don’t need it anymore, reminds us about a not so well known flip side to that saying that a bank only lends you the umbrella when the sun shines and asks it back when it rains. Your title might not be entirely correct since the customers are still there and so what they really have to seek are new products. No interest income? Go for fees! In questions about the environment and energy there is much need for some really independent and neutral advice, as the world might be wasting its last chances of fixing its climate change problems by falling for some well marketed but inefficient hybrid solutions. And in terms of the increasing global migration, why does not ADB develop a temporary worker program that meets everyone’s expectations and needs, then patent it, and charge for its use.

Sorry I must have done something terribly wrong!

Sir, yesterday I suddenly received a pop-up in my computer informing me that since I had sent one same message on one same day to 500 recipients, Gmail had reasons to believe I was involved in some very dirty spam activity and so they had decided to sentence me to 24 hours suspension, which luckily did not include receiving emails. The sentence was carried out immediately, there was no court of appeal, and when I write this, I am already on my 36th hour and yet no release.

What did I do? I had just created a blogspot that contains some fresh questions that I think should be made to the candidates for the presidency of the US in 2008, so as to get to know them better, and I was communicating this to a list of professors and PhD students that I had found on the official web sites of the universities. To be able to send my other routine emails, as well as this one, I had to speedily open a competitor address ,yahoo, though I still shiver at the thought of what would have happened if they had suspended my incoming mail too leaving me totally incommunicado.

I am absolutely certain that in one of those small printed documents of understanding that I must have clicked I have accepted Gmail´s right to do as it pleases with me, but does this really mean they have the right to do so?, without any forewarning?, when they also make a living by transmitting their spam like ads with our private e-letters? I really do not know how to answer those questions but at least I immediately confessed to my wife and daughters what had happened, and they took it well, which lifted a very big load of bewildered shame from my shoulders.

Yours truly,
(Name withheld)
A presumably dirty spammer

The mother of all systemic risks

Sir, when Richard Beales reports (April 2) that “Uproar forces Moody’s into U-turn over bank ratings” he gives compelling evidence to what some of us have been voicing for almost a decade now, namely that to give some few credit rating agencies so much decision power about how the world’s financial flows should be allocated will, sooner or later, implode or explode into a crisis, as that carries within itself the genetically coding for the mother of all the systemic risks. By reading their “theological discussion” of “how to factor into ratings the possibility that some banks were unlikely ever to be allowed to fail even if they appeared financially weak” you surely must conclude that we might have all been placed on a vicious circle that could perhaps only end with the demise of the by then the world’s only remaining bank. On a side issue, can you sue your credit rating agency for the losses caused by the additional market volatility that his change of heart creates?

Don’t cry for the bank regulators

Sir, Wolfgang Munchau in “Cross-border banks require a single regulator” (April 2) explains that this is now becoming a European Unions issue as a consequence of the cross-border mergers of some European banks. Munchau should not forget though that for many of us living in developing countries, where sometimes the majority of our local deposits are held in banks controlled by foreign interests, the question of who really is the final responsible regulator has always been present, especially since we know how relatively easy it would be for banks in times of crisis to decide who are left holding the bag. Could a foreign regulator be sued for not doing his job properly? As to the consolidation among the regulators themselves and that could imply some of them losing their jobs, we shed no tears for them, since they must have known they had it coming when the bank regulations coming out from Basel so much favour the consolidation between the banks.