Financial Transaction Tax: Ideology wins over Reason

No surprise that the tax-and-spend zealots have won a victory (Reuters) on the issue of the Financial Transaction Tax (FTA). Politics is forever dominated by those who either want to control other people's lives and behaviour (Stalin and Hitler are extreme examples, but history is full of prominent examples, not a few of them have earned themselves the additional title 'Great') or those who want to benefit from the sweat and effort of their fellow human beings (Slavery being the extreme example there). The proponents of the FTA are a confused bunch where the common denominator is (1) a lack (or unwillingness) of understanding of economics and finance, (2) the desire to spend other people's money and (3) the desire to legislate in an arbitrary, discriminatory and undemocratic fashion. The fact that in the case of the FTA a tax is levied on a particular activity puts the intelligence coefficient behind this tax on a par with the medieval window tax. Basically all taxes directed at specific human activities should be kept to an absolute minimum as they are an effort to constrain the free choice of the citizens. This means that any discussion of the FTA's technical merits are an implicit admission that such arbitrary legislation is acceptable. In addition, tax legislation in most (pseudo)democracies following the 'Westminster Model' is undemocratic and not subject to the agreement of the citizens - for a discussion of this aspect readers are referred to have a look at www.dirdem.org. Please get in touch if you are interested to support our campaign for direct democracy. In the meantime we will watch with interest the impact of the FTA and financial markets - who will win, who will lose - and how long the machinations of the Euro-Clique can continue until their whole bureaucratic edifice implodes.

Investment Management to the Rescue?

Many banks now think that a renewed focus on asset management will allow them to replenish their depleted earnings as investment banking income continues to be under pressure from difficult trading markets and uncertain economies. (see Wunderwaffe Asset Management?) While asset management certainly is a (very) profitable business if managed correctly it is also a business that requires management skills that are not always in abundant supply in many financial service firms. This applies to banking and insurance behemoths but also to small boutiques. While the larger bureaucratic organisations can easilty be stiffled by too much politics, rigid hierarchies and the lack of focus due to a multitude of business lines the smaller firms are not immune to infighting among senior management and often are overly dependent on an autocratic founder or dominant shareholder.

To-big-to-fail banks worse than before - Roubini

No one should be surprised about Nouriel Roubini's latest comment. The simple reforms that would go a long way to make banking systems safer - while not requiring enormous rule-books and an army of expensive consultants, lawyers, accountants and compliance officers - have still not been considered, let alone implemented.

Regulators turn blind eye on Payday lenders
The number of bureaucrats in regulatory agencies is growing exponentially but where is the beef?

Subsidised Bank lending problematic

This headline (Government scheme to boost lending to small firms 'could lead to abuse by banks and plunging rates for savers', Daily Mail) points to a serious flaw in all schemes that are designed to boost bank lending. Apart from a command-and-control economy where governments direct banks to lend to specific sectors or companies the use of subsidies (including those from supranational entities like the EIB or World Bank) open the door for abuse. The application process is convoluted and not transparent in most cases and it is far from clear that in the end it is not more important who knows the bank manager well - or is politically well connected - than the viability of the project for which the loan is proposed to be used.

UBS hit by loss on Facebook IPO

This headline says it all. The hottest (or most hyped, depending on your point of view) new issue deal of the year, maybe decade, and one of the investment banks involved in the deal has to declare a $356 million loss related to the transaction. As I am never tired to repeat: Investment Banking is a simple business - if you do not make it complicated!

Asian Financial Centers - Opportunity or Threat?

To predict that Asian economies - and financial centers - will see more growth than Europe or the USA will come as no surprise to anyone. But the use of words such as 'power shift' sounds alarmist as the expression carries an undertone of threat. Quite to the contrary, the growth of these Centers will create numerous opportunities for older centers - in particular those in Europe, and especially for the dominant center in London.

Libor Manipulation: A Victimless Crime?

After having received a lot of criticism for my earlier post on the subject I am glad to find voices that also 'query the effect of Libor manipulation'.

The latest Idiocy from Brussels (via Paris)

Control freaks in Brussels and various capitals in 'democratic' Europe are having a field day planning ever-more convoluted regulations. The latest example are the "Guidelines on sound remuneration policies under the AIFMD" that have just been released for 'consultation' by the Paris-based ESMA. The perfect antidote for those suffering from sleepless nights. I did not expect much before opening the document but 104 (!!) pages surpassed my expectations by a wide margin. Anyone wants to comment? Does the political class really push Europe down to second-class economic status?

Libor Manipulation: each coin has two sides

I am not condoning manipulative behaviour by any of the banks that contributed to setting London Interbank rates. But to all those confessing to be 'shocked' I would like to say that they should see things in perspective. For everyone who is charged too high an interest-rate as a consequence of manipulation there is another party who can enjoy a lower interest rate. Even among those banks contributing to the daily fixing there will be losers and winners on any given day. It is highly unlikely that they all would be positioned the same way. The way the rates are set (smoothed averages of the rates submitted by all 16 banks) also prevents that rates are too far out of line with the 'true' market rates. Inverted comma due to the fact that one can dispute what a market rate for Libor is as it moves up and down all the time and is not necessarily set in stone. Different customers get charged different rates, it is after all a free market rate.
In conclusion one may say yes, there was manipulation. But was there really a lot of damage done? and who lost/won, and by how much? The bloodhounds in politics, the media and self-declared experts will have a field day, as will have lawyers on both sides of the Atlantic. There will be wholesale condemnation of greedy bankers but very little forensic work. And above all this will be another triumph for the compensation culture. One group will escape without any punishment: the regulators who have once more found to be sleeping at the wheel!