Seven dwarfs in Stockholm

The seven finance ministers calling for strict limits on banker's bonuses in an open-ed article today (we spotted it first in a reference to Dagens Nyheter) do their intellectual standing no favours. If their collective wisdom only leads them to express crude judgements about the size of bonuses paid in financial services it is a sign of intellectual poverty. Rather than calling bonuses 'indecent' the ministers should concentrate on the causes of high bonuses. Otherwise their posturing lacks any credibility. Of course, we would agree that bonus payments in many cases are too high but that is due to lack of regulation, distortion in the competition and similar structural deficiencies in financial markets. Name-calling alone will not do as the same argument could be applied to compensation of sports stars, media stars and footloose international business men. Just remember that a certain Mr. Mittal is always listed as 'Briton's richest man' but it is unclear how much tax he pays in the country.

Publish all details of stress-tests!

The news that the UK Treasury may ask the FSA to conduct a detailed stress-test on Lloyds-TSB before agreeing that the bank does not participate in the asset protection scheme and launches a share issue instead should serve as a reminder that the stress tests performed so far in the US and the UK have not really helped to improve confidence in the banking sector. Of course, the fact that the authorities claimed that the recent stress tests were satisfactory did help shares of banks to rebound but this was more due to the fact that markets simply realised that the governments would stand behind the institutions deemed to big to fail and not because investors really could see behind the official smoke-screen. If all numbers would be in the open investors could really draw their own conclusions and would probably have much more confidence in the viability of the banking sector rather than rely on the say-so of the regulators. The same argument can be made with respect to the rating process that would be to a large extent supplanted by due diligence conducted by the investing public.

Less debt, more equity

Willem Buiter argues that the financial sector in most countries is too large partly because of the implicit government guarantee the sector, and in particular depositors, enjoy. This subsidy (in conjunction with the fact that interest expenses can be deducted for tax purposes) makes debt finance and saving in the form of deposits more attractive than investment and financing conducted in the equity markets. We think that a reduction of this subsidy would have the additional benefit of putting more companies on a more stable financial footing and stimulate the growth of business in general as start-ups and smaller companies in particular would benefit from the reduced attraction of parking money in supposedly safe investments.

A poisoned chalice?

Congratulations to Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, on being ranked Number One on Vanity Fair's Power List. But maybe this is not the most opportune time to receive such a nomination, - however well deserved it may be.

Reading list for Insomniacs

The most recent Bundesbank circular about the regulation of market risk is a hefty 34 pages long, 4 pages more than a similar circular issued 2 years earlier. While some readers who are used to study regulations issued by the FSA or the Basel Committee may consider these publications the equivalent of a short story we still challenge all market professionals subject to these detailed bureaucratic prescriptions to go through the publication with a fine tooth comb. What a paradise for lawyers and nitpickers alike! Every sentence is in effect a rubber paragraph without any specific meaning. Time and again the word 'sufficient' is (ab)used to cover up a meaningless generalisation. As economic thinkers have predicted decades ago, any effort to subject the economy to planning makes it necessary to issue ever more detailed regulations and the final destination of the journey into the paradise dreamt up by socialists from right and left can be seen on a short trip to Cuba. (It MUST be paradise for the as there are no banks worth the description to be found there!).

Caps on Banker's bonuses - Devil is in the Detail

When Gordon Brown tries to garner support for a limit on banker's bonuses one is reminded that talk is cheap. But the devil is in the detail: who decides? what is the right amount of bonus? what will be the side-effects? (certainly an increase in base pay, if not in other fringe benefits)What is a bank? If payment is regulated at banks, will people and business not migrate to other areas of financial markets like brokers, investment banks and hedge funds? (not to mention the likely migration to emerging financial centres that are outside the global G2/G7/G10/G20/OECD cartel?

Welcome to the Inquisition

Trying to find the right candidate for any position is a difficult and arduous task in the best of times. The same can be said about the problems candidates face when looking for a new job. Things (nearly always) take longer than expected and we often remind both parties in the recruitment process that nothing is done until someone actually sits on a new chair. (And sometimes even that is premature as we have seen new appointees quitting after a short time). So the news that the FSA is putting extra emphasis on vetting the appointment of senior staff is going to complicate things further. What experienced professional will be happy to be subjected to a detailed and bureaucratic grilling by people he will rightly consider to be professionally inferior bureaucrats? So far we have not seen what criteria the FSA is applying during this vetting process and as it will forever be shrouded in secrecy confidence in the procedure will never be established. Firms where appointments are subject to this interference will be at a competitive disadvantage in the future, In addition, this is just another step on the paths towards the reduction of London as a financial centre.

Lessons from Dresdner Kleinwort fiasco

The news that three more former employees are suing Commerzbank for the payment of allegedly promised bonus payments should serve as a reminder of the dangers of trying to build a financial services business by putting together a collection of senior professionals. The danger of the winner's curse that threatens the success of many a corporate takeover is a real threat. Staff that is hired too expensively is a drag on profitability and may also dampen the team spirit as those employees of less favorable terms might resent being in a second tier in terms of pay and job security. Cobbling together professionals with disparate backgrounds will never be a substitute for a corporate culture that has developed organically. As a consequence while we do recommend selective hiring of senior professionals to fill gaps in an organisations managerial line-up we strongly advise clients not too neglect the systematic development of their existing staff.

Lehman - another eyewitness account

Larry McDonald has just finished and interesting book about Lehman. It just underlines that the all-purpose boards at best are an expensive form of consultant and at worst useless decoration. Would you like to have the ex-CEO of a brezel manufacturer discuss the details of your forthcoming brain surgery with your doctor? As we argue at another place we think that non-executive directors without any experience in the business a company is engaged can more cheaply and effectively be used in the form of consultants. That way it will be much more transparent if the can make a meaningful contribution to a company's progress.

Banks need to be protected from themselves

The farcial comedy surrounding the attempted takeover of Continental by Schaeffler proves that the old saying is correct: the more you owe the banks the more you can dictate to them. The banks should never have agreed to advance billions of Euros to support Schaeffler's attempt to gain control of Continental AG in the first place. Even in times or normal credit markets the leverage ratio was just too high and made no allowance for a deterioration of the economy and/or markets. Lending cannot just be done on the basis of assuming the best of all worlds. As the upside is limited in any credit exposure (to par value) lenders have to build in worst-case scenarios and err on the pessimistic side. Regulators must assure that banks are conservative in their lending practices and should limit loans to prudent ratios in relation to the equity capital available to creditors.