Economic Barometers

Talking to business colleague of mine recently he told me a family member of his works in an upmarket estate agents. Business seems to be pretty good in that stratosphere, but they have one real worry - there simply aren't enough houses in the £10m+ bracket coming on the market to satisfy the demand.

In a sentence that about sums up this recession and financial crisis. The brunt of the hardship in this tough time has been endured at the low end of our earners. Over a million people in the 2.5m unemployment figure are classified as young and already we are talking of a 'Lost Generation'. One firm, who have fared well in this recession, has spent £200,000 on a graduate entrant scheme where in all their history they have drawn from the local labour pool of 18 to 25 year olds to man their sales desk engine. Now they start graduates there instead - it's a great investment in the future but a sad indictment of the times we are in and no incentive for young people to get a good education as it does them little favours.

What it seems is that those people who are rich may have had their net worth dented but their income stream only paused minimally - they are still exceptionally rich and earning a very strong monthly and annual incomes. At the lower and middle ends of the scale is where all the negativity has bitten hard. The stark reality is that while kids may have a lost out, there will be a new tranche of 45+ year olds who were made redundant who may never find equivalent work and earnings again - to add to those woes, they will not have sufficient pension resources to survive either. The future for those 'baby boomer' offspring is bleak.

While Prince Andrew puts out a plaintive call to protect the 112,000 people who are non-domiciles, who pay no tax in Britain he may as well have added those corporations who hide part or a majority of their wealth offshore. When Lehmans bank collapsed it left thousands of subsidiaries many housed in offshore territories known as tax havens - there can be only one reason why banks love doing this.

Small businesses, who constitute 97% of the companies in Britain, who employ over 13m people and who pay a disproportionate amount of the tax revenue in this country will be where the Government goes to get more - where VAT decreases have had least benefit and where bank lending has decreased by £14.7bn during this crisis. It will be the base level tax that will be increased most, rumoured to be a further 7% shortly while those who have demands of 50% will find ways around the system by using tax avoiding accountants and lawyers.

It all stems from the first port of call in the financial failure - to save the necks of rich bankers with no strings attached. Now we are looking spiteful in attacking bonuses but that will not stop banks making vast profits on high risk activities associated with products that benefit no one but banks themselves.

Politics takes a different view. No one wants to home in on the problem and admit responsibility, so conveniently parties like the BNP blame all those people who do not have Celtic ancestry or have skin of a different colour. If only people like Griffin knew that the Gallic races are not of these islands either but that is the domain of unintelligent brutes, they shape history as they like to suit their needs - that's why in their eyes Jews either deserved what they got or it never happened. It is when the country and crisis hits us and we see our lot diminished we look to the daft answers.

The answer is that there is a shortage of homes to be sold in the £10m+ bracket. Go figure.

Rock Unsolid

Here's a conundrum. The Government stepped in to save Northern Rock in February 2008 by nationalising it. When they did so, they assumed the bank was no longer a going concern and so severely wrote down its value.

By doing so, they offered to pay far lower compensation to shareholders than they should have done. Those shareholders have now run the matter through court and their appeal against the Government's actions and for higher compensation has been defeated.

The Government's argument is that the bank had been loaned £45bn prior to the nationalisation, without which the bank would have failed and therefore the shareholders would have seen their investment reduced to nothing. The Government, therefore argues that they were doing the shareholders a favour.

It is a difficult situation. The Government did indeed rescue Northern Rock but at the time there were other avenues that could have been explored. When nationalised, the entire liabilities of the bank were assumed by the taxpayer, some £100bn and we are by no means clear of danger although the Rock has been paying back considerable amounts of its loan. Danger was unjustifiably increased when the interim CEO, Ron Sandler, somehow allowed the Rock to continue to hand out 125% mortgages, the very product that nearly killed the bank, for a good 6 months after nationalisation. Then Sandler and is team almost unilaterally renegotiated the terms of its loan facilities from the taxpayer in order to offer around £14bn of new mortgages.

There were two alternatives at the time. One was that Northern Rock was sold as a 'going concern' albeit with its liabilities effectively underwritten by the taxpayer for a period to someone like Virgin One who argued that the Rock brand was defunct and that Virgin would revive it by offering their own branded products. The Government argued that the Virgin plan did not inject enough capital into the Rock and therefore it was not viable. The second option was to let it go bust in the same manner as the Fed did with Lehmans and let others pick over the parts of the business which were viable.

In many respects what happened gave the worst of both worlds. The taxpayer ended up covering the entire liability anyway, we gave the loans, we were exposed to the stupid extra 125% loans, we paid the bonuses to the Rock staff just for repaying some of the debt, we pay the vast bills for Sandler and his army of consultants, we allowed the Rock to renegotiate the deal to save itself and the juicy assets of really nice mortgages were tied up in a vehicle called 'Granite' which we do not own. Meanwhile, the shareholders got shafted whereas, arguably, with Virgin's management and skills they could have shared in some future profit as part of the Virgin brand and you can bet your life Sandler, the daft mortgages and bonuses for loan repayments would not have featured in the equation.

There is another aspect to this case, though. As the Credit Crunch unfolded and major bank after major bank revealed their stupidity, the Government actions veered markedly from its action on the Rock. Almost as if they realised they were stupid to have nationalised the Rock, they tried a variety of other methods to save the other banks such as HBOS, Lloyds, and RBS.

Two major cases are very prominent. First, events triggered the Government to virtually force Lloyds to buy HBOS against all anti-competition rules and all good advice. Immediately, both banks came cap in hand to the Treasury and we had to save the entire new group to the extent that we now own nearly 50% of the new Lloyds Group. What the Government did was to fund an anti-competitive takeover that now gives the new Group an unhealthy 28% of the UK mortgage market. The shareholders of both HBOS and Lloyds, in the wake of one of the most ill advised takeovers you could imagine as Lloyds discovered the extent of the HBOS situation as it was not allowed to do full due diligence and pay the right price thanks to Government intervention at the highest level, they also stepped in to save the skins of Lloyds shareholders so that they may benefit in the future from any rise in the market. The Rock shareholders were afforded no such luxury.

Secondly, as Bradford & Bingley sank, the Government allowed Santander, a Spanish bank, to increase its share in the UK market after already buying Abbey and Alliance & Leicester by letting it buy only the bits it wanted - the juicy ones of course. On top of this, the Government later proposed the Asset Protection Scheme which allowed banks to ring-fence their toxic debt and have the taxpayer 'insure it' by paying a premium.

If any or all of the above options had been allowed for Northern Rock, it is arguable that while the shareholders would have lost out in the short term they would have reaped some benefit as the markets recovered as the shareholders of all other banks will. The argument here is that the nationalisation of the Rock was a knee-jerk reaction that cost us all a great deal of money, it was mismanaged and there were alternatives, particularly after the Government sat down and thought about it.

Personally, I was in favour of the Rock going under and then bought for a song by some other bank who would have done a better job than Sandler, who for all his excessive fees has only done the obvious. I do not have a great deal of sympathy for the shareholders in the Rock, even now as it was a bank that had traded on a substantially flawed model that was cruising for a disaster. However, in the light of the actions to save other banks, the shareholders have a very good point. All other banks offered loans, guarantees and capital were effectively saved by the Government and respected the interests of shareholders. The Rock was a fiasco that benefited no one - least of all the British taxpayer.

I dare say, the 'rescue' of the Rock will feature in future Economics lectures, although hopefully long after they have rewritten their text books and fired the lecturers. They got it all so horribly wrong, after all.

Let it Fail, Let it Fail, Let it Fail

Sing the title of this entry to the tune of the Christmas song, 'Let it Snow' and we have a natty little anthem for the day.

I was pondering, at the beginning of all this banking fiasco, that had the Government stepped in at Northern Rock and just picked up the mortgage book and guaranteed all depositors, just what might have happened.

This was not my idea, no less an economist as Nobel Laureate, Joseph Stiglitz, suggested this some time ago. He was fixed on the fact that a contract for a Credit Default Swap or Collateralized Debt Obligation was in fact a two way contract or bargain jointly entered into by two companies fully aware of the consequences if something went wrong like part of the debt was toxic. Indeed, if they had had any sense, just prior to signing the deal they might have embarked on a bit of 'Due Diligence', that long lost phrase which went out of the window during the Enron scandal to have avoided such a calamity.

Stiglitz was of the opinion that if we had allowed the consequences of that failure to play out, only then could we have teased out what the true underlying liabilities were - not just at Northern Rock but in the entire banking system. True, many banks would have failed but he claimed that we could have used the shell of those old banks to build new ones with more secure procedures and tighter regulations to focus them on their core functions of providing credit and capital.

Further, Stiglitz asserted that the overall cost to the taxpayers would have been less in the long run as at least we would have known exactly what we were paying out for. His claim is that in the current scenario, we are propping up an already failed system, that part of the guarantees and loans that we have paid for will actually underwrite part of the 'good books' because no one is encouraged to itemise the toxic debt as it is being all paid for so why not ask for more and cover current good debt.

Sound wrong? Just look at the Enterprise Loan Guarantee Scheme from the Government meant to cover and encourage new lending - banks are taking existing loans, handing out small increments to qualify for the scheme and then getting 75% of the original debt covered. The amount of net new lending is trivial.

My view, which is with Stiglitz, is that banks should have played this all out. I dare say there would have been more sad cases like Mr. Kellerman in the US as bank executives were troubled with the terrible burdens of their greed, but I doubt it would have troubled them that much. There would have been a terrible loss of confidence in the banking system, have no doubt. That is what has been most protected in all this - banks must never fail, according to all Governments. The fact is that some banks do fail. Lehmans were left to fall and the repercussions were not that huge.

The problem we have bought for ourselves, as Stiglitz has pointed out, is that if all we do is reset the sail to catch the wind again, then all we have done is hidden the problems to manifest themselves again in the future. He now predicts we have set ourselves a course which will commit us to ever shortening cycles of peaks and terrible troughs in our economies with no chance of any kind of sustainable stability. There is no doubt that the alternative would have meant a period of recession possibly depression but we are in a different age now. No more the '30s where people could not eat, the majority would still have had some way of providing for themselves. It would have been a different kind of austerity that would have curtailed our wanton materialism - and would that have been such a bad thing? Besides, it could argued that this is exactly what we are going to get anyway.

As Stiglitz does, I think we have missed a massive opportunity to put this all right and start again, properly.