Another Hung Parliament, Please

With the UK general election looming in May, I thought I'd declare my apolitical hand: I'm hoping for another 'hung' Parliament and a coalition government.

I've been a fan of the idea since the opportunity presented itself in the last general election. I think the beast has worked pretty well for the pragmatic amongst us, and is well suited to dealing with the nasty challenges ahead. As I hoped in April 2010, politicians on both sides of the coalition have had to behave much more reasonably and responsibly in seeking solutions to the root causes of our problems than their party-political dogma would have otherwise dictated. This has spiked the guns of an extremely dogmatic opposition. And even the media's doom-mongering about instability and chaos has proved groundless. Sure there have been U-turns and major disagreements between the coalition parties, but the democratic progress should be dynamic, open and messy - not engineered, top-down, by a party leader with a Whip.

The same form of government is needed over the next five years because the long journey out of the tunnel has barely begun. That light up ahead is not looming economic recovery, it's an on-coming train laden with vast public sector debt, slowing Chinese growth, savagely low oil prices that might rebound higher than before, the Russian Problem, insanity in Greece, negative real interest rates and a stagnant Eurozone. Oh, and a new global financial crisis, as Hank Paulson infamously forecast in 2010:

"...We'll have another financial crisis sometime in the next 10 years because we always do.""

The public finances are still in a parlous state. So all the UK political parties face the need to cut public spending, whether they like it or not. Raising expenditure is out of the question, because it would mean borrowing more - and higher taxes won't bring in any more money. The total UK tax receipts have hovered at or below 40% of GDP for over 40 years. We're bumping along the ceiling, people! Raise taxes, the economy grinds to a halt and the best you'll get is 40% of a smaller pie. Cut taxes to around 35% of GDP,  the economy roars into life and you get a smaller slice, but of a much bigger pie.

But, hey, if you think the UK should drift into the next financial crisis with even higher debt and taxes, why not simply move to Greece?

What's left to cut? There's no end to it: we need our politicians and civil servants to remain focused on making the public sector more efficient, by removing waste and insisting that services be designed to operate more efficiently in future, particularly in the major spending areas. The defence budget, for example, is a rounding error on a more efficient tax and benefits system and a leaner, better co-ordinated public health and social care sector (20% of hospital beds are occupied by people who aren't even sick!). Money could also be saved by addressing root causes instead of their many symptoms. For instance, would more social housing have helped ease the pressure on first-time buyers, avoiding government subsidies to them and pre-empted the policy battle over immigration levels? Similarly, we must continue financial reforms to increase the sources of funding and the range of payment services for consumers and small businesses (who create half of all new jobs) because the economy is still too dependent on a few major banking groups who remain a millstone around the country's neck.

Some people will say this is dry, boring and unimaginative. But if you want entertainment, head to the movies. 

Others want something to believe in. For instance, they accuse David Cameron of lacking political ideology or a 'pattern of belief', an '-ism'. Yet they claim that his "legacy will be a collection of tactical manoeuvres, with as many prominent surrenders as victories." Apparently these people have never heard of pragmatism. But they've also unwittingly hit on the benefit of the hung Parliament in restraining coalition parties from implementing their more extreme policies. By contrast, the 'believers' expect us to cling to the idea that Ed Miliband is "in politics for the right reason" (just the one?) or "propelled by something more noble than the salvation of his own skin", which you could choose to mean anything that gets you through the day. But beware words like 'right' and 'noble'. They are the cloaks of dogma and moral panic - rallying cries for the likes of Tony Bliar's weird crusade or Gordo's crash, in which Miliband (and Balls) played key roles - not to mention the ballooning cost of the Security State. So, actually, if we believe anything in this vein, then it's surely that such 'noble' ambitions make Labour governments the kind of luxury that only a much wealthier country could afford. 

But, who knows, maybe being trapped in a coalition would even convert Ed to pragmatism.

Whichever way you look at it, we need a government that's forced to focus on resolving the root causes of society's actual problems - not one driven to distort the facts to suit its own dogmatic solutions. And my sense is that only another hung Parliament will ensure we get it.

Short Selling Hygiene

Good to see the short sellers doing the regulators' work for them again - not that the authorities like it. 

Last week, Spain's stock market regulator called on the SEC and the FCA to provide information about short seller Gotham City at the same time as its dodgy target, Gowex, was declaring GC's fraud allegations to be "categorically false". But yesterday, Gowex's founder admitted to falsifying accounts for past four years.

It defies belief that short sellers should be able to find such golden opportunities amongst listed companies. 

Just goes to show that auditors still need to understand the nature of scepticism. And that regulators could benefit from hiring some traders of their own.

Will This Book Stop The Dogmatists Waving Their Fallacies Around?

As one who loathes the use of party-political dogma to muddy the waters of sensible debate, I was delighted to read Tim Worstall's list of the top "20 Economics Fallacies" that political types wave around to justify some of their weirder ideas, and exactly why they're false. Maybe this book will help focus debate on the real issues.

At any rate, with the next general election less than a year away, you'd do well to keep a copy by the armchair to guide you through the evening's political interviews. So long as you can resist the urge to throw it at the screen.

Dirty Data

Westiminster recently feigned shock and horror that the UK's coppers cook the crime figures. But Simon Jenkins says we've known for years that the numbers are meaningless and they should be banned as "they spread confusion and fear".

But 'plod' is not alone in mis-classifying, mis-recording, ignoring or otherwise presenting data in a way that suits himself. We've had many financial trading scandals where banks apparently had no idea of the exposures they faced, either because transactions were concealed or perhaps no one was looking hard enough - the global financial crisis was a function of poor due diligence.

A possible root cause of the problem is that humans are involved too early in the data collection and reporting processes. Rarely are we responding to the 'raw' data, as opposed to figures that have been 'gathered' and 'rolled up' through a series of other people's filters, manipulations and interpretations (which are often taken out of context). It's puzzling why regulators' systems don't receive a feed of the actual trades straight from bank trading desks - or from peer-to-peer lending or crowdfunding platforms - rather than relying on periodic reporting of summary data.

Maybe GCHQ can help...

At any rate, we should focus more on 'clean' mechanisms for capturing and presenting raw data rather than someone else's interpretation of it.

Image from TraceyNolte.
 

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.

Old Lady Suffers From Undue Deference And Group Think

In March I related a story about the unduly deferential meeting protocol at the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street, and hoped it was more welcoming of critical thought than the rule suggested. However, three recent reports have confirmed the worst.

Not only were the terms of reference for those reports criticised for being too narrow and avoiding contentious issues. But, according to the FT, Bill Winters also found a "tendency [among less senior staff] to filter recommendations in such a way as to maximise the likelihood that senior staff will find the recommendation palatable." And David Stockton "criticised the bank for its opacity and a culture that discourages independent thought."

Naturally, I detect a certain lack of enthusiasm in the Governors' response:

“We welcome these three Reviews. The Reviewers have given us an independent perspective on some of the key challenges the Bank has faced in responding to the financial crisis and have given us a great many ideas to consider that could improve the Bank’s performance. We are starting programmes of work to evaluate the recommendations and to plan changes.  We will report regularly to Court." 

At least they aren't alone. The IMF suffered from 'groupthink' for years, and auditors have been struggling to understand the meaning of 'scepticism'.

Come to think of it, Auntie seems to suffer from the same maladies, along with most of Britain's institutions.

In fact "maladies" is strangely apt to describe two ailing institutions called 'Auntie' and the 'Old Lady'. It also sheds new light on the reason for the apostrophe in m'lady…

The Complex Job of Producing Simple Financial Services

There has been a futile tendency amongst regulators to view 'simple' retail financial services as merely 'basic' or 'vanilla' versions of existing products. And the Treasury's aspirations in this area have not improved, at least as of February 2012.

Perhaps ironically, the route to simplicity and transparency is much harder than producing a complex product that no consumer really understands. To produce a simple retail financial service involves first understanding the complexity of the consumer problem being addressed, then figuring out the simplest, most consumable service that will solve it. That's the role of a facilitator. By contrast, those producing complex products are unlikely to be focused on the consumer's problem in the first place, let alone understand it - they're focused primarily on solving their own problems at consumers' expense.

The path to simplicity involves disruptive innovation and critical thought to remove not only the complexity but also the intermediaries ('institutions') who've failed to solve consumers' problems cost-effectively to date. Trial and error, testing and learning, flexibility and adaptability are all key characteristics of this process. Yet our financial services framework is intolerant of them. In fact, a new service could launch and undergo several iterations in the time it takes to get it authorised by the regulators in the first place. Tiny factual differences have seismic regulatory implications in the type of permission or licence needed, and this adds to the time-lag and legal advice involved. We must figure out how to make the process of decent innovation easier.

Having waded through all this treacle to actually produce an innovative, simple product, there is then the challenge of explaining very simply how it works - and on a low budget. I recall Richard Duvall saying that £60m was spent on the launch of Egg, while the marketing spend dedicated to the launch of Zopa was £35k (though the phenomenal PR benefit from launching something truly new was priceless). But perhaps that isn't as much of a disadvantage as you might expect. While we see plenty of pointless, fluffy TV ads for expensive banking products, we don't see much marketing effort devoted to the 'basic' versions. As Professor Devlin found in his research for the Treasury, low fees and ease of switching has dampened traditional institutions' enthusiasm for creating and marketing simple stuff when there's so much money to be made from complexity and inertia.

At any rate, we need to celebrate the really simple, clear and transparent explanations of how our new financial services work. I've set out some examples below from my own experience. Some relate to services that are in beta or brand new, some established. To demonstrate the ability of TV journalists to explain things incredibly simply, I've also included just one piece of excellent coverage that removed the need for the business concerned to produce videos of its own.

Other top-tips on great explanatory clips are welcome.

Nutmeg




Abundance Generation




Elexu



Zopa



Funding Circle




PeopleFundIt

No More Undue Deference

By now we've witnessed the disasters that resulted from a lack of critical thought amongst auditors, ratings agencies, the Federal Reserve, the IMF, the UK Parliamentary Fees Office, the HBOS audit committee, and Gordon Brown's cabinet. So you would've thought a few lesssons had been learned. Yet I was peeved to hear last week that the protocol for meetings within the Bank of England demands complete deference to its officials - even an expert from another regulator must not speak unless asked to, and their unsolicited questions or observations are pointedly ignored.

Now, I'd like to think that somehow overstates the position - especially in light of Mervyn King's increasingly vociferous assaults on the banks he oversees - and I'm very happy to be put right in a comment. But I also fear someone will laugh and point out that every wing of the civil service works the same way and probably many other large organisations to boot. 

But if this is true, it does not bode well for the levels of co-operation and cohesion that will be required amongst the UK's new financial authorities.

I'm not advocating a culture of disrespect, impoliteness or disobedience - the opposite of deference. I'm against undue deference - the kind that amounts to acquiescence, capitulation, complaisance, condescension, docility and submission. If organisations are going to adapt to facilitate solutions to our problems rather than their own, they should welcome thoughtful contributions from every angle, not allow their management to hide behind phoney rules. 

In short, like Australian troops during the 'Great War', we should only salute officers who earn our respect.

Image from The Philosopher's Magazine.

When Will Control Truly Shift To The Consumer?

For those engaged in the process of empowering consumers, 2012 is already a fascinating year. So it was timely that a bunch of us met at Ctrl Shift's "Explorer's Club" to try to map the timeline for when 'customer relationship management' truly inverts and firms finally acknowledge their customers control them. 

The output of the session is being converted into an 'infographic' that will be available as a reference soon. In the meantime, here's an excellent drawing that Joel Cooper produced during the session to reflect the various themes:

Let's Be Unreasonable

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
George Bernard Shaw.

Bad Data In...

The IMF seems to be having a bad year. First it was accused of 'groupthink'. Then it was rumoured (again) to be considering Gordon Brown as its leader.

Now it's The Economist's turn to sink the slipper. It points out that the IMF's forecast of China's current-account surplus assumes a steadily depreciating yuan, and a widening surplus. That provides ammunition for protectionists to impose tariffs on Chinese goods. Yet China's current-account surplus has actually declined since 2006.

But let's not just pick on the IMF. In "Botox and Beancounting", The Economist also points out the cosmetic effect of US official measures of government debt, productivity and economic growth compared to European measures. "The snag comes if investors fail to grasp that official national figures can show the American economy in an overly flattering light."

Of course, none of these is an isolated incident. There are also fundamental problems in comparing corporate financial data, for instance, given differing accounting standards.

And we live in a world where auditors are still trying to figure out what "scepticism" means...

But we don't have a problem detecting bad data. Plenty of people warned others about what Madoff's fraud, for example, and investment analysts routinely uncover issues such as The Economist has reported. Short-sellers make this their business. No, as David Einhorn elucidated in "Fooling Some of the People All of the Time", the problem is how to give the same weight of publicity to the prudent interpretation of the data as is given to the release of the data itself.

The media and social media clearly play a significant role. But even if we create an Office of the Devil's Advocate, ultimately each of us must accept responsibility for thinking critically about the data we're given if we're to avoid making some big mistakes.

Image from TraceyNolte.