CDS - Why not prohibit states issuing debt?

When a professional party politician like the MEP Markus Ferber (he is a charge on Europe's citizens since the tender age of 29!) states that prohibiting uncovered CDSs on government bonds is under serious consideration we see that one thing is certainly represented in the useless European Parliament: ignorance about financial markets! I am critical of Credit Derivatives for a number of reasons as this blog documents but prohibition by the EU and/or its member states would simply drive the business to friendlier shores. The flood of government paper in itself is a sort of uncovered short sale that can only be described as a Ponzi scheme. As the debt level inexorably rises towards a tipping point - close to or above 100 percent of GDP - the political class that is addicted to buy votes by spending other people's money becomes increasingly desperate in the search for ways to extend its spending spree a little further - at least beyond the next election.

UBS CEO raises doubts about London

Oswald Gruebel, CEO of UBS, wants the British government to state its intentions concerning regulation and taxation that will affect the banking sector in the years to come. Gruebel states that it is very difficult to work in a constantly-changing environment and that there may be a point where it becomes preferable to de-emphasise London as a business hub. In my opinion there is a danger that the City of London may suddenly reach a critical 'tipping point' though it is not obvious if the candidates to take over a large part of the business are really an alternative. Zurich would simply not have the capacity and Frankfurt and Paris are not exactly free from regulatory overgrowth. CS may have be a special case as it has a large hub in its Swiss headquarter and the duality of two large centres pose a management problem in terms of duplication and coordination that American or Asian banks coming to Europe do not have when concentrating European activities in London.

Arbitrary Bonus Awards - potential for contentious litigation

A recent court judgement illustrates again that arbitrary bonus awards and redundancy decisions should be avoided at all costs. Not only do they demonstrate poor judgement by the managers responsible but they also put their employers into a bad light. We have argued for a long time that it is just not good enough to make bonus or redundancy decisions on the basis of 'whose face fits in'. The secrecy surrounding bonus decisions is a contributing factor to this problem. Bringing qualitative judgements into decisions which ultimately revolve about hard numbers and money allow abusive practices to flourish. In addition, the revenue potential that an individual employee has is also dependent to a large extent on the client base he is allocated or the product he is assigned to trade (and the dealing limit he is given). It would therefore be much better if a large part of all bonus payment would be allocated on a firm-wide basis (or based on departments). In addition the much maligned percentage basis (related to profits, credits or whatever) would also put bonus decisions onto a more objective (and less contentious) basis.