OK, OK. But Absolutely No Fifth Runway

As Gordon Brown's wasteful, intrusive juggernaut grinds the blood and bones of yet another protest line into the political landscape, so the survivors must rush to the next defensive position.

But in the absence of any effective political opposition, it is wise to choose something that Gordon and his goons would be truly looney tunes to set their sights on. Something so inherently dangerous that New Labour will spontaneously combust in the attempt to achieve it. Because we all know now that as soon as the good citizens gather to defend their interests, New Labour acquires another target, and the Cavalry stays away.

Iraq turned out to be just another rut in the road for these automatons. And I'm sure they can squeeze in a fourth runway at Heathrow, if we don't mind the odd plane landing on the M4 by mistake.

But I reckon a fifth runway at Heathrow would put New Labour on collision course with the M25. Nothing could survive that.

Low Cost Government

Well, here we are in '09, the last of the Noughties: a fitting epithet for a decade of both reckless abandon and total collapse on the fiscal and financial front.

There's a lot of soul-searching going on, as well as a search for inspiration and leadership. While the US President-elect seems to have risen to the challenge, in the UK the search continues.

Bereft of vision, we look to the past, and it's a sign of the times that I was given Speeches That Changed the World for Christmas. Of course it includes Franklin D Roosevelt's First Inaugural Address, heralding the "New Deal", which has often been referred to in the news lately. It can also be read here.

While FDR's speech and the New Deal must be seen in the context of a more parlous economic situation than today's, and many of FDR's tactics are being deployed today, I was struck by one that's yet to be honoured in the UK:

"... insistence that the Federal, State, and local governments act forthwith on the demand that their cost be drastically reduced."

I mention it not just because UK civil servants were promised a 2% pay increase in a time of rising unemployment (public sector teachers will get 2.3% extra this year and next, while the Daily Mail shrieks that private schools are closing). I also raise it because New Labour might just mistake the need for fiscal stimulus as a wheeze for saddling us with more civil servants in the long term, who'll generate further cost in terms of random policy initiatives and bureaucracy to justify their existence. See the Taxpayers' Alliance "non-jobs" for examples.

Of course, hiring more public sector workers flies in the face of last September's promise to cut jobs, as reported in the Guardian:

"Separate ONS figures on public sector employment showed the number of people employed by the government fell 44,000 in the second quarter to 5.8 million, the lowest total since the second quarter of 2004. The government has pledged to cut 84,000 jobs by next April as a result of a review conducted by Sir Peter Gershon in 2005."

But as Chancellor, Gordon Brown approved a 13% increase in the public sector workforce from 5.1 in 1997 to 5.8m in 2006, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. So, Sir Peter's 2005 review was merely borne on the rising tide.

The IFS also says that public sector pay has caught up with private sector pay, yet about 76% of public sector workers have final salary schemes, versus 17% in the private sector. And public sector pensions are worth 25% of salary versus 20% in the private sector. With pay the same, there's no reason for that gap - if there ever really was one.

But take heart! Perhaps it's a sign the trend is about to reverse that certain people in the public sector are bizarrely receiving their Honours now - it's to reward them before they can be accused of selling out their colleagues.

On that basis, we really should have welcomed the news that, for overseeing massive public sector expansion and bail outs at the taxpayer's expense, the Permanent Secretary of HM Treasury gets a knighthood, while the captains of private sector finance get hunted out of office for their part in Brown's Boom and Bust.

The last of the Naughties?

Let's hope so.

Enjoy the year as best you can!

Madoff Unleashes the Counter-Veblen Effect

I seldom bother to read the Sunday Times, but today I had little choice but to learn how the Madoff scam has rocked the exclusive world of the super-rich.

We can skip the lecture on supply and demand, save to say that all the featured sob-stories suggest that Madoff targeted the mega-wealthy private investor on a personal level, triggering a snob effect and/or bandwagon effect. In other words, the mugs confused either exclusivity itself or popularity amongst their "circle", with the quality of the investment. According to the FT, even "Union Bancaire Privée, the Swiss bank that is one of the world’s biggest hedge fund investors, told clients in a letter this week that it had spotted potential dangers but had been reassured by Mr Madoff’s reputation and clean regulatory record." More snobs on the bandwagon.

Of course, appealing to investors on this basis was especially insidious, as it robbed them of any interest in transparency. Whereas concern at the lack of it kept more rational institutions and professional investors safely at bay. Even the publication of Michael Ocrant's article in May 2001 ("Madoff tops charts: sceptics ask how") strongly suggesting a scam, failed to restrain the rampant enthusiasm amongst the wealthy elite for the long social climb ahead.

Well, they're all down from the mountain now, of course, claiming they should've been warned by the SEC and raging round their lawyers' offices spouting the whole sorry history of restaurant names and lunch dates while litigators take notes. But once they've ridden the whole length of the change curve, I have little doubt they'll get their own back without any help from the lawyers or regulators.

In fact, the backlash could well unleash what has been termed the "counter-Veblen effect: preferences for goods increasing as their price falls, over and above the traditional supply and demand effect, due to a conspicuous thrift amongst some consumers."

This will be more than merely an austerity measure. Like investing with Madoff, the counter-Veblen effect will be the product of a lifestyle choice. So, while it's interesting to see how it fits with the ways in which we are tightening our belts as a tactical response to the credit crunch, the counter-Veblen effect might actually chime better with, say, the actions of prominent people driven by environmental concern - like Darcey Bussell leaving for Australia to become an "eco-Mum", the committment of the entrepreneurs behind the Tesla electric car, and ultimately the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation - as well as the authenticity demanded by the Web 2.0 community that clashed with "gut instinct" politics during the recent US Presidential campaign. Like these trends, the counter-Veblen effect could well turn out to be real and lasting.

So welcome, I suggest, to a new world of battered Bentleys, frayed collars and housecoats in Knightsbridge, where cheaper is better and champagne is for wimps.

EC to Ask First, Shoot Later

Great news. In her recent blog, the European Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, Meglena Kuneva, has said:

"In January, I will publish a report on the realities of cross-border e-commerce for consumers in Europe and investigate what the real barriers to shopping online in another Member State are. Once the problems are identified, they are easier to resolve."

This is indeed a welcome departure from the Commission's approach to facilitating cross-border e-commerce over the past 8 years or so, which resulted in firing out a plethora of European directives that only 7% of EU citizens have been able to enjoy.

Time, at last, to focus on the analysis and resolution of the root practical causes of why cross-border appears to be growing so slowly - if that is truly a problem in itself.

Of course, there is no single “e-commerce market”. Rather, every market has its online segment, and each develops differently from its offline counterpart as well as online segments of markets for other products. Drawing together the “vertical” analysis may help identify which areas of e-commerce may be more ripe for early progress and/or especially difficult practical problems on which work/education needs to start now if a market is to materialise in the longer term.

For example, it is worth considering that the May 2007 study by Civic Consulting revealed the main barriers to a single European market for consumer credit to be “different language and culture; consumers’ preference for national lenders; credit risk for lenders – no access to creditworthiness information; problems related to tax, employment practices etc.; difficulties to penetrate local market; different consumer demand in different Member States; lack of consumer confidence in a brand; differing stages of development of consumer credit; and lack of adequate marketing strategies.” The study concluded that “a single market for consumer credit cannot be expected to be created by harmonisation of legislation alone, and this is a long term rather than a short or medium term perspective.”

The Bank That's Fair

To keep up my professional development points, I'm currently groaning under more than just the weight of the judgments in the UK overdraft charges litigation against the 7 institutions who've cornered the current account market.

Here's some context for the case:

• UK overdraft users - and particularly those who incur fees - essentially pay for everybody's personal current account service. Mr Justice Smith found in his April judgment that interest on credit balances as well as overdraft interest and fees are relied upon by banks to provide "free-if-in-credit banking" (para 53). The fees "are not set by reference to the costs of activities which give rise to them, but... to support the personal current accounts service as a whole" (para 54).
  

• Further, consumers have no real choice in the market for current accounts. So they're stuck with the current pricing situation. In July the OFT reported that:
  

"The complexity and lack of transparency of personal current accounts makes it extremely difficult for individual customers to compare their bank account with other offers. There is thus little incentive for consumers to switch - especially as people generally believe that it is complex and risky to switch accounts. Also, when the switching process does go wrong consumers can find themselves bearing a significant proportion of the resulting costs. The result is that only six per cent of customers we surveyed had switched in the last 12 months - one of the lowest switching rates in Europe."

While I'm interested in the judicial reasoning to date, you'll be aware the case is frustratingly inconclusive on whether or not the charges can even be assessed for fairness, let alone whether they are actually fair or not. In the current economic circumstances, I agree with Which? that such uncertainty is "piling on the misery" for those affected - and as Mr Justice Smith found in his April judgment (at paras 56, 57), that's roughly 20% of current account customers with an overdraft facility. The Financial Ombudsman Service is awaiting the outcome of proceedings before processing any more complaints and this has encouraged various opportunists to bury their snouts into the trough of despair.

In the midst of all this, you may recall that Barclays recently launched its "Personal Reserve" - an 'over-overdraft', as it were. It's obviously an attempt by the bank to dig its way out of the litigious mess. But as this slew of Google search results demonstrates: when you're in a hole, stop digging.

Personal Reserve is supposed to be a very "simple and transparent" "service" in itself. Trouble is it's targeted at overdraft customers on an opt-out ony basis. And surely one can infer that it is intended to address a key issue with the underlying overdraft - what happens when you exceed the limit. In that sense it could be seen as a feature of the overdraft, rather than a service in itself. Further, a trawl through the multiple web pages describing the feature alone suggests that it is some distance from being either simple or transparent. It's less than clear what happens if you opt out - I can't even find a link to an explanation of the ordinary unarranged overdraft situation, if that still applies. And the fact that there are many different circumstances which can trigger additional charges makes it just as tough to forecast the potential cost of a 'bad month' as with any overdraft - something that's never been what you'd call "simple" or "transparent". Finally, it just doesn't smell right that one could be charged £22 every 5 days that you use as little as £1 of your "Personal Reserve" (see FAQ #7).

I'll spare you further detail, save to say that the feature does rather whet one's appetite for a whole new merry-go-round of analysis as to how well it really complies with the myriad technical requirements of the law related to fees, interest rates, advertisements and consumer contracts, including the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (the subject of the current litigation) and the brand new Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regs. Indeed, it will be interesting to see how this feature, and overdraft charges generally stack up as "treating customers fairly" etc., etc., under the FSA's reforms to the retail banking regime, whenever those might take effect.

But as the current inconclusive litigation demonstrates, the legal niceties don't transmit to the coal face very quickly, if at all.

So surely there's a golden opportunity for one of the members of the current account collective to break ranks and genuinely distinguish itself from the others. It could start by submitting to an independent assessment of the fairness of its charges. Then it might capitalise on the pleasant surprise by diverting the money it spends on TV ads claiming to have the personal touch towards actually engaging with customers to produce something that they buy into as fair.

Anyone for first-mover advantage?