Why Would The #Brexiteers Lie?

Follow the money. 

Years of low interest rates have made investors desperate for higher returns, and volatile markets mean lots of big ups and downs, like the rollercoaster ride we've seen since the Brexit vote and are likely to see for many years as a result. Movement either way is an opportunity for speculators to make money, even if the longer term trend is down. And paying rock-bottom prices for UK assets could mean good profits can be made selling them to predatory trade partners in the future. 

At any rate, steady as she goes won't cut it for the wealthy investor - which is why "strong and stable" is just another #Brexiteer lie. After all, the wealthy don't have to live in Britain when the going gets tough.

So this is why the Leave campaign was largely funded by 5 wealthy financial investors, and why after the Brexit vote, George Osborne knew it was best to leap into an investment fund manager. 

And now that Brexit is hitting the buffers, guess what? Legatum, the Tory's hard-Brexit stupidity "think" tank has received £4m from a wealthy investor from New Zealand who Private Eye says made his money "by finding undervalued assets the rest of market ignored – “transition economies or distressed sectors where information is not easily available and standard metrics don’t apply”.

It's still unclear where the so-called "Institute for Free Trade" got its money, but it has similar hallmarks to the other Brexiteer stunts.

Meanwhile, the same Brexiteers are charging 55p a minute for benefits recipients to call the Universal Credit helpline... never mind that it's illegal for debt collectors to do so.

Make no mistake: Brexit is for a few, not the many who are unwitting pawns in their game. 

There Is Not A Great Retail Bank In The UK

Ross McEwan's appointment as CEO of RBS roundly endorsed his remark that he has been "quite surprised by how bad this industry is. There is not a great retail bank in the UK." 

This from a banker who's reported to have twice failed an accounting module, been passed over for top dog at Commonwealth Bank of Australia and to be "more comfortable with people than figures." 

It's hardly an insightful comment, given the enormous publicity surrounding the damning testimony to the Parliamentary Banking Standards Commission, but McEwan is the first senior banker to have the self-awareness to actually admit the appalling state of the industry. As such, the remark even topped today's editorial in the FT. I mean, there's only so much the pink propaganda machine can ignore.

Amidst all this, the Information Commissioner's Office finally revealed the miserable little saga of Bank of Scotland's "chronic and repeated" disclosure of sensitive customer information. Apparently it sent faxes from many different machines to wrong numbers from 2009 to 2012, despite alerts and complaints from mistaken recipients, and notification that the ICO had begun to investigate. The fine: a mere £75,000. Another speeding ticket on the road to oblivion.

Add this to the revelations of UK banks' gross misconduct and poor controls over the past few years, and you have to doubt the wisdom of handing shares in these businesses to the general public. 

Unless, of course, you want taxpayers to experience the banks' terminal decline firsthand. A sort of 'scandal to end all scandals'.  That would be nice.

Political Lipstick On a Pig

Source: Guardian/Observer

The spin doctors are feverishly applying lipstick to RBS, so it can be 're-privatised' in time for the next election. No matter that the bank is still short of capital after five long years of public ownership, that the Exchequer is sitting on a £19bn loss and that the bank continues to lend less and less to the productive economy while soaking up the subsidies.

Renowned for 'group-think', the IMF also seems to have seized on the election as an opportunity to get the politicians to 'clarify the plan' for continued state ownership. Duly emboldened, the Chancellor has dismissed calls by other departments and members of the Banking Standards Commission for the bank to be broken up as not being achievable within the electoral time frame.

Of course the election won't wave a magic wand over RBS's inability to operate without massive public subsidy, or its failure to align with the interests of its customers. It will always have cheap ISA money to fall back on, and it's obvious by now that no one will force it to lend more to small businesses. It even recently announced heavy overdraft charges, on top of its many previous expressions of contempt for those it is supposed to serve.

Instead, the government sees the 're-privatisation' as a sweet opportunity to enhance its electoral standing, sexing-up its plans to 'give away' some RBS shares as a sign of its commitment to 'protecting' or 'maximising value' for taxpayers. It's as if laying the blame for the astronomical cost of the bailout at Labour's door somehow resets the counter to zero...

Promising RBS shares to every taxpayer is of course a standard political ploy, designed to prey on middle class greed (the rich couldn't care less, and the paper will be slim comfort to those on lower incomes). On this occasion, however, the proximity of the election might also lead some to describe it, rather aptly, as 'porkbarrelling'.

But the very reason the government wants to foist RBS shares on you is the very reason you shouldn't want them. Free of its chains, this porcine monster will be eager to get its snout back amongst the big, speculative assets as quickly as possible, and your shareholding will be taken as a personal vote in its favour. Some might even naively cheer the beast on, dreaming that their stake in the mystical 'upside' from its activities will somehow compensate them for getting fleeced on the bailout in the first place, and all the disasters that have followed.

Meanwhile the rest of us will wait forlornly - along with the inert, beleaguered customers - until the government finally pours another bucket of publicly funded swill into the banking trough.

All Your Problems Solved - For Life

A new TV game show promises to solve all your problems for life - on the single toss of a coin.

A spokesperson for independent production company CoinToss Productions confirmed the show's ultimate promise, but refused to give further details. "We're still in stealth mode," she said, "and we don't know how this got out. But all will be explained in the launch."

Industry analysts were enthusiastic about the show's potential. One pundit, who preferred not to be named, suggested "this really captures the zeitgeist." Asked what he meant, he said, "it's a German word, and I'm not entirely sure what it means. But what's certain is this country is on its knees and the majority of people are employed by the government or receiving some kind of benefit. The entrepreneurial spirit, the get-up-and-go that created whole countries like America and Australia and... and... Fiji has been replaced by an entitlement culture the pinnacle of which is knocking a hole in a shop window to grab a telly, followed by a cheap lager and a bag of crisps down the local as a warm-up for the public sector strikes. I mean, a show like this will appeal to most people in the UK, of course, because it's just about basic human greed at the end of the day, isn't it? But it'll appeal particularly to those who expect it all on a plate and can't be bothered to take control of their own lives."

Sources say the show, which has the working title "Coin Toss", should be out in time for Christmas.



Image from Blackberrysites.

GreedTV

I believe that mainstream popular culture is a pretty good bellweather for the national state of mind. That's not to say there's necessarily a causative impact (apart from fads), merely reflective.

Last year, I was struck by Hollywood's happy ending to Money Never Sleeps, which celebrated the fraudulent success of one Gordon Gecko. Later, I wondered whether there is anything else we regard as socially more important than the accumulation of wealth?

This year, having already witnessed that greed and stupidity are winning, I've been struck again by greed-inducing TV programmes like The Million Pound Drop and Red or Black.

Maybe people need 'hope', but surely this sort of cheap route to fortune is merely setting us up for frustration.

What sort of film and TV would reflect a culture that has adjusted to our new economic reality?

Snake Oil And The "Science" Of Liberty

A hat-tip to @rorysutherland, who drew my attention to a paper called "The Science of Liberty" by Paul Zak, self-styled "founder in the field of neuroeconomics" with the following tweet on 1 December :

"http://bit.ly/gMGr06 expect to hear a lot more about Oxytocin in marketing writings going forward. This is a good piece."

The paper purports to provide a basis for lighter financial regulation, but ironically points in the opposite direction. It was funded in part by the John Templeton Foundation, a conservative philanthropic organisation, whose President also supports "Let Freedom Ring", the lobbying outfit that also supports the "Tea Party"; and partly by the Gruter Institute for Law and Behavioural Research.

I hope I don't do Paul's reasoning any injustice, but I understand his thesis to be as follows (italics are mine):

• His research found that "a brain chemical called oxytocin (ox-ee-TOE-sin) is released when a stranger takes money from his or her pocket and intentionally gives it to another person in order to demonstrate trust tangibly... the more money the person receiving the trust-denoting transfer receives, the more his or her brain releases oxytocin. Oxytocin levels, in turn, predict how much the second person will reciprocate the first person; that his, how trustworthy she or he will be."
• This process is "nearly impossible to inhibit".
• However, 2% of those studied did not reciprocate, and "there is a technical word in my lab for these folks: "bastards (sic). Not people you want to have a coffee with... On the other hand, two percent isn't bad. It means most people most of the time are trustworthy, and the others can be identified with a slight bit of investigation."
• Participants go out of their way to punish moral violations in the market "when observers of ethical violations are in a position to punish the violators".
• As a result of these findings, Paul argues that "virtue is in fact the very foundation of trade... The market can be fabulously large if most people, most of the time, behave morally, and if their moral tendencies are supported by a legal system in which property rights are protected and contracts enforced."
• Accordingly, Paul asserts that "Economic systems that provide for freedom and limited oversight recognize human dignity and the desire for self-direction."  Such "economies are complex, adaptive, and evolving systems that need no controller. Just a clear set of rules that are enforced by some independent regulatory body."
• "A number of studies have shown that too much oversight crowds out our innate sense of virtue (Gneezy and Rustichini, 2000). A fine for every violation decouples transgressions from the moral violations to a "greed is good" justification. This is Enron and the like" [includes Ford (Pinto gas tanks) and USSR].
• In other words, the Enron scandal was created by overly intrusive regulation, and therefore we should have less of it.

Certainly at this last point the logical elastic band finally snaps.

Ironically, far from presenting a basis for lighter financial regulation, I'm afraid Paul Zak's research into the effects of Oxytocin shows exactly why people need greater protection from the snake oil salesmen, who understand it's effects only too well. The "bastards" are out there, and even two percent of the population means there are actually a lot of them. They can be tough to challenge, especially once they've generated a bandwagon effect. And other market participants are not always in a position to punish these rogues, at least not in time to prevent them doing significant harm - due diligence does not scale well. Finally, Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve advocated light touch financial regulation for 40 years, and lived to regret it:

"In Congressional testimony on October 23, 2008, Greenspan acknowledged that he was "partially" wrong in opposing regulation and stated "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity — myself especially — are in a state of shocked disbelief." Referring to his free-market ideology, Greenspan said: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.” Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) then pressed him to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Waxman said. “Absolutely, precisely,” Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.” Greenspan admitted fault in opposing regulation of derivatives and acknowledged that financial institutions didn't protect shareholders and investments as well as he expected."

As observed in Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism:

"...[T]the unvarnished invisible hand story, although right in a fundamental way, is wrong at the level of detail and approximation that is necessary to explain what we need to know about macroeconomics.

The old story about capitalism is correct: it gives us what we think we want. But capitalism does not act as its own policeman if we fail to watch over it and give it proper directions. It actively, competitively, seeks the most profit-maximising opportunities. Capitalism will follow such opportunities wherever they lead us...

If [we] are willing to pay for real medicine, it will produce real medicine. But if [we] are also willing to pay for snake oil, it will produce snake oil. Indeed, nineteenth century America had a whole industry devoted to fraudulent patent medicine."

Now, I'm no fan of the Nanny State. I don't believe regulation acts as a market catalyst. And I've written often in support of better regulation rather than simply more of it. It's also clear that the financial regulation spawned by the accounting scandals like Enron failed to avert the latest financial crisis, and is unlikely to avert the next without a fundamental change in the importance that we attach to wealth creation.

But this paper perhaps may serve as further evidence that regulation should be aimed at improving transparency at the point when people first engage with a financial service or its promoter. Simplifying products, documentation and disclosures is critical. Another tactic may be to move away from vertical to horizontal models for intermediation.

More limited oversight is not an option.