BEHAVING BADLY? POLITICIANS V BANKS

Inevitability when something happens; there is a tendency to blame the system itself rather than the behaviour within a system. Grasping for the need to be shown to do something, politicians – backed by hectoring calls from the media - ignore the obvious in favour of introducing more strict regulations or laws. The obvious being, what was the behaviour of the people involved?

From gun laws to dangerous dogs, the effect has been that the lawful have been punished for the actions of the unlawful and the actions, or inaction, of politicians, police and judiciary.

And so it is with banking.

Three years ago, we saw the financial crash that we have yet to recover from. As banks went to the wall and the markets crashed, governments stepped in to bailout other banks.

As a result, the UK government set up the Independent Banking Commission which releases its final report on the future of UK banks in under a week’s time.

In all likelihood, the report will recommend the ring-fencing of the retail operations of a bank from the investment side.

Predictably, in these bank-bashing days, the public and politicians have applauded the suggestion and in fact go even further and want a full-blown abolition of universal banking.

However, it is important to note that, in the UK at least, the major failures in the banking system came from retail operations or takeovers.  Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley were high-street operations, whilst RBS entered into a disastrous purchase of ABN Amro. In addition Lloyds was a paragon of virtue in banking terms until being forced to take on Halifax.

Those truly universal banks, Barclays and HSBC for example, were relatively unscathed despite having extremely aggressive investment divisions. Barclays even going for the profitable parts of Lehman’s following its demise.

The crash started with sub-prime mortgages – a political strategy from Bill Clinton. It was not casino banking, this was a politically-motivated form of irresponsible lending. When the sub-prime mortgages were repackaged, it was also not just the “Anglo-Saxons” that were caught up on the idea of ever-increasing returns. German, French and Swiss banks were happy to pick up sub-prime debt packages with the promise of monies to come.

The issue was behavioural. Poor risk management and poor decision-making at a time when politicians were making claims for an end to boom and bust and the consumer feeding frenzy was about to hit its peak. Everyone was at it. The politicians, you the public, us in the media, the banks, they were the good times. Only a few were predicting the bubble burst and their voices weren’t loud enough to be heard above the ringing of cash tills and ATMs.

Making a decision, so you appear to be decisive, is not a sensible option unless you look at the events and behaviour within the system.

In 2008, Northern Rock should have been allowed to fail and RBS should have gone to the wall, same with Halifax. This was the moral hazard that Bank of England governor Sir Mervyn King had talked about – take the risk, take the fall. A structured wind-up with depositors and mortgage holders protected should have happened.

This would have given the signal to the markets and the banks themselves that they were not protected, only their customers were. This would have led to a natural change in investment and risk habits rather than the politically-enforced one that is being suggested at the moment.

Although banks, and politicians, doom-mongered about banks being “too big to fail”, my view is tough. The economic world needed an adjustment no matter what. Speaking as one who was hit by the crash, I know how tough it could have been but I would argue that this adjustment could have prevented us from being where we are at the moment, teetering on the edge, lacking a confidence in the global economy.

It is not that some of the ICB’s ideas aren’t sound. Capital adequacy rules are already being put into place through Basel II and the European bank-stress tests, while living wills - to allow an orderly wind-up of a failing bank whilst protecting savers - are good if done correctly. But splitting operations and not allowing banks to cross-finance operations would not restrict risk and indeed could actually hinder not help the British economy.

Investment banking in its own right is not inherently wrong, in fact it provides financing for companies and income for pension funds. The issue is about people and risk. Rather than destroying a structure that rightly or wrongly, plays a big part of our economy, the question has to be about shareholder or investor accountability for management actions, protection for retail savers, and sensible regulation that promotes the recovery, not kill it dead.

With both the US and European leaders rejecting the banning of universal banking, it hardly seems believable that some in Westminster seem determined to go ahead with this and present a Britain which appears completely hostile to investment and finance.

It seems it is not just banking behaviour that carries a risk to the UK.

EAT THE RICH THEN STARVE

The UK government has done a deal with Switzerland to get a modicum of income of those UK citizens who have private Swiss bank accounts. Some moan that it doesn’t go far enough, while others warn that account holders may switch territories. However, one thing people forget is that the tax-conditions in a country will dictate where the taxable money is. And, unfortunately for the UK, we are certainly not in a goldilocks era of taxation being ‘just right’.

One refrain that keeps coming back as a result of the financial crisis of 2008 is to eat the rich. That is to say that there is an idea that the “rich” need to pay more, especially the pernicious bankers.

However, as with a Tobin tax, there is the law of unintended consequences to consider when enacting stringent measures to tax those in the top two rates of tax.

First of all, there is the simple expedient that people and capital are mobile, you tax them, they and/or the capital moves. You overtax a company, it will move. Now, there are many that say ‘call their bluff’ and, yes, for certain companies, they are intricately tied into the framework of the country – think Barclays and its high-street branches.

However, let’s say the Independent Commission on Banking insists on splitting retail operations from investment banking. Immediately it gives a framework for Barclays to shift operations away from the UK, perhaps even sell-off its high-street chain. So taxable income, people (who get taxed) and company could now move – is this what people really want?

Secondly, for others, such as BP, it is a matter of funding and development. I don’t agree with the threats to the Treasury by BP over funding oil and gas discovery in UK territorial waters, especially since compared with other countries, the windfall tax is fairly on par. But it does demonstrate another consequence. For the UK, energy security is of increasing importance. If companies like BP are willing to pay for and search for new fields then that can only benefit the UK, if and probably when, we enact emergency provision orders sometime down the line. However, tax them too much and they stop looking and paying, going to other ‘benign’ territories.

So does ever-increasing taxation work? Nope. Not at all. Yes there is a brief spike but then money starts exiting a country or ways are found to either not pay the tax or results in people being paid in non-taxable forms.  Already, the Treasury is concerned that the 50% personal tax rate is hurting income and is examining returns. Despite what the ideologues say in the Liberal Democrats and Labour parties, the Laffer curve has been known for quite a while now. Although disputed, it is a simple formula, the more you tax, the likelihood is that you will get less revenue, with the reverse being true.

Now the Laffer curve suggests the peak is at 50%, which anecdotal evidence from Treasury officials suggests is too high at least in the UK, however, in principle what happens with taxation is that there is a compact between the state and those taxed and there is a goldilocks moment where everything is just right.

The state gets its money and the individual feels that it is OK to pay. Now I am not talking about the Abramoviches and Rothschilds of this world. The mega-rich do have a habit of avoiding tax whatever the rate. I am talking about the well-off, the generators that maintain our system through taxation, services and such-like. The sweet-spot has to be just right, enough money generated for the state and not too much taken away from the individual.

Unfortunately, this spot no longer exists. The pips are being squeezed direct and indirectly and people who you would consider ordinary members of the public are employing accountants to look at avoiding tax.

Although the government has made the right noises about cutting spending, people look at their take home pay – remember no upper ceiling on national insurance anymore – and wonder why it’s getting smaller.

This will result in more and more people avoiding tax and less and less income, a nice way to try and balance the books.

If the Treasury finds what most people expect and incomes have dropped due to the 50% rate then Chancellor George Osborne must ignore the threats from his Lib Dem partners and drop it. Indeed, I would go further and examine the direct correlation of income and taxation throughout the system.

You see, by eating the rich, eventually you will end up with an empty plate and feeling very hungry indeed. 

SHIFTING SANDS

Isn't it always the way, you take your summer break and all-hell breaks loose, be it US downgrades, market runs or riots on the streets of London.

However, the roller-coaster still has some way to go. 

Last night, the Franco-German summit failed to convince markets that there was an action plan in place to save the eurozone, indeed, proposals were resurrected to put fear into the stock exchanges with financials particularly taking a hit this morning. 

As I have said before, a Tobin tax cannot work unilaterally. Money moves and in this electronic age money can move very quickly. Despite the individual costs being relatively low, it will add up and traders will shift to more friendly markets - in particular the burgeoning middle east bourses, I suspect will benefit, as will New York. 

From a UK political perspective, this raises an extremely interesting scenario. The Conservatives have, for the most part, successfully clamped down on the European argument in their own party which threatened to overwhelm them with an image of being a one-issue party. Also, despite being portrayed to the contrary, Labour is also riddled with divides over Europe, indeed until the mid-80s it was Labour that was vehemently opposed to European union. 

So the two biggest parties in the UK will find themselves in possible internal civil war with MPs from both the left and the right of the spectrum rising up against a further erosion of financial independence. The Lib-Dems will, inevitably, shift in the sand to the most politically convenient outcome for their party as personal manifestos make perfectly clear around the country, there is no real uniformed Lib-Dem policy, just convenient politicking. 

And yet the question remains of whether there is anything the government can do to stop this tax? The Lisbon Treaty is an enabling document, that is it can continually be changed to suit circumstances. However, it has yet to be fully tested so it will be interesting to see what, if anything, can happen if the UK becomes a blocking point.

The so-called lines-in-the-sand that all UK governments boast about are about to be swept up in the wave of European tax proposals and it could mean that the only solution is the one that all leaders fear, the eventual departure from the EU to the European Free Trade Area by the UK.

Implausible? Possibly. But when you consider that the Tobin tax would essentially tax London which is not in the eurozone to bailout the eurozone and possibly kill-off a key component of the UK economy, the question becomes one of what risks are more important to the politicians?

SCOTLAND THE BORROWER

So Scotland is going to be able to issue bonds.

Now councils have issued their own bonds for years but I am interested at how the rating will be realised.

After all, the oil fields are UK-owned, and I doubt that tax reciepts are strong enough to offset risk of default.

OK there is a strong financial sector but does anyone else think that, despite the aim of the Scottish government for independence, maybe,  just maybe Westminster will have to act as guarantor?