The nuclear option

So George Osborne, sources are letting it be known, will rule out the notion of a formal currency union with an independent Scotland? Interesting negotiating position if you're an utter walloper (1).

In that case, when Scotland hopefully votes yes to independence, the Scottish approach to relocating the Rest of the UK's nuclear bombs will presumably be; your problem pal, pick 'em up next Tuesday and F'right off in the meantime. Or not.

Actually negotiating both points would very obviously be the right, nice, sensible, intelligent and decent thing to do. Or is that asking too much of a Bullingdon Club Tory?


(1) interesting reading English people commenting on this and how its all about Scotland wanting its cake and eating it. Even if it was, and? Jealous? And that's besides the obvious benefits a currency union would also give to English businesses that trade with Scotland - or is the approach here one of sour grapes mixed with cutting 10% of your nose off to spite your face?

Hmmmm, flip flops. Nice.

For reasons I’ll spare you I found myself in Edinburgh’s Hollister shop recently. What struck me about the place was that the poor sods getting paid to fold stuff were wearing flip flops. In Edinburgh. In winter. Given company policy is to keep the place as dimly lit as possible I felt genuinely sorry for the shop assistants’ toes as all the shoppers crunched past in their winter footwear.

Then I discovered the CEO of the US parent company, the 69 year old plastic-fantastic freakzoid pictured above, has a 40 page plus manual detailing what the male models hired to attend to him (and his dogs) on his private jet have to wear, from  pants, to cologne to flip flops i.e. the poor sods with bruised toes folding jumpers down George Street are actually the embodiment of one pensioner’s sexualised fantasies.  

This is profoundly liberating I guess in that it relegates men to the same eye candy standards traditionally imposed on women so engenders an equality of a sort.  However, rather than gender issues, I reckon it provides a useful warning as to the future direction of British society and British culture. No seriously, it does.

This is because it’s an example of what the super-rich, the ruling class, the 1% even, does when it's free to dictate how others have to behave. Want a job? Getting hassled by the broo to do so? Then put on some flip flops. Why flip flops? Because a very rich old age pensioner thinks attractive young men look cute in flip flops that’s why. And no you’re not a shop assistant (yes you are, you're not even a visual merchandiser) you’re a brand ambassador. So how does that make you feel when you put on the company flip flops, eh?

In Hollister-land the super rich clearly have no sense of let alone concern for the personal dignity of anyone other than themselves and their own. In fact, they don't just lack empathy, they blithely shred the dignity of those they employ on low wages whenever it gets in the way of their personal whims and sexual proclivities. And if challenged, they will readily draw upon free market rhetoric about how making people wear flip flops in winter is good for shareholder value, creates jobs (that would be there regardless cos we all need jumpers, its simply whose jumpers we choose to buy) and confers a competitive advantage in a globalized economy, etc..

The reality of course is more complicated than this; the super rich dodge taxes the rest of us pay and benefit from government policies focused on boosting asset values i.e. wealth and subsidising the low pay that ensures the rich continue to get an even bigger slice of the cake. Except, this would be to imply the super rich aren't 100% wholly responsible for their great fortunes and we apparently can't have that.

This all matters because if there’s one country in the world that’s gallavanting as fast as it can towards the American model of super rich, super poor and fuck all those in between, its Britain. So bring on the flip flops and lets hope - as per Abercrombie & Fitch/Hollister company policy - our photos are judged pretty enough at their monthly review for us to keep our jobs.

I blame Gordon Brown

Kinda-ish. Him making the Bank of England independent in 1997 is normally viewed as having been an unquestionably good thing. You could argue, well I’m going to anyway, that it actually made a notable, if indirect contribution to the credit crunch in Britain. Here’s why.

Banks regularly run stress tests. These set out stressful scenarios wherein property prices fall, inflation rises, the economy goes into recession and so on, the point being to develop a sense of what all of these things would do to a bank’s profitability, capital and liquidity. This in turn should inform how much capital a bank needs to hold just in case.

The most demanding stress test used to be the 1 in 20, which looked back over the previous 20 years (or what was regarded as being 3 to 4 business cycles), then used the experience of the worst ever period during that time to set the test parameters.

Before 2007 this meant 1987 to 93 when Canary Wharf first boomed/bust and Britain had its Black Wednesday. The primary cause of this feck up was the exchange rate mechanism experiment when the Tories used what eventually became crucifyingly high interest rates to hold the pound at an artificially high level. Then George Soros bet against the pound and won.

Given this experience, the subsequent decision to make the Bank of England independent and take the politics out of monetary policy made and makes perfect sense. Except, doing so fed directly into the NICE (Non-Inflationary Constant Expansion) decade that followed or what retrospectively looks more, in economic policy terms, like the “Great Complacency” as when schumcks started claiming to have conquered boom and bust.

Going back to the stress tests i.e. what bankers used/use to identify the risks that should be keeping them up at night, the biggest stresses they used to be institutionally aware of – destructively high interest rates and an over-valued pound - were both politically determined and as such  no longer options, the Bank of England was independent and increasingly transparent after all i.e. finance could be confident politicians were no longer in a position to do anything daft. However, this change also meant it simply wasn’t clear what the actual risks or triggers were or could be. In this environment confidence became hubris, which in turn begat a bubble that became a crash (to be fair historically low interest rates helped here as did the FSA, which was utterly rank rotten incompetent shite too).

I reckon we’re still suffering from a broader, complacency hangover due to the Bank of England’s independence when it comes to the broad understanding of economic policy. The interest taken in Mark Carney’s appointment, his supposed superstar status and notions of him being here to save the British economy distract from how (a) the Bank of England has already done pretty much all it can and then some, (b) economic policy is about monetary policy AND fiscal policy and (c) by focusing on a pretty technocrat, we ignore the reality, which is political dogma is alive and well and actively – via fiscal austerity – influencing economic policy in ways that are actively undermining Britain’s short, medium and long-term economic prospects.

The question isn’t can Mark Carney save the British economy, his primary purpose after all is nothing more than to keep consumer price inflation as close to 2% p.a. as possible, rather its why are George Osborne and the ConDems doing so much to undermine it?

The help to buy scheme is mental

The government’s help to buy scheme is all sorts of bad rolled into one. Here’s some quick context as to why; one of the main things the actual and former building societies that blew themselves up in the financial crisis did to blow themselves up was to lend too much against assets. House costs £100 grand? Here, borrow £120 grand - i.e. a loan to value or LTV of 120% - so you can buy new furniture and a car as well. 

Things subsequently changed with the onset of  the credit crunch - we’re still very much in - as (a) the more mental banks failed/where taken over and (b) the remainder started using tighter lending criteria to ration credit, that being what a credit crunch is.

Or in more straightforward terms, there aren't any banks willing to do stupid LTVS. Or in even more straightforward terms borrowers have to stump up a much bigger deposit.  The problem is in a consumer driven economy and our consumerist culture - at a time when actual policy is to keep real savings rates negative to encourage spending and borrowing - borrowers need and want to spend rather than save, hence the housing market falling into the doldrums, people moaning on about not being able to buy a house and Sarah Beeny not getting as many channel 4 presenting gigs as she used to.

In response, the help to buy scheme neatly fills the gap between the deposits consumers have and what banks are willing to lend, so go go help to buy. Except, the amount banks are willing to lend is saying something very straightforward, which is this; we do not consider lending at high LTVs to be an acceptable or affordable risk. 

Turns out the government response to this is to say fair enough we’ll put the taxpayer on the nail to cover the gap - i.e. take on board the risk you consider unacceptable - between the deposit someone has and what you’re willing to lend. Lovely.

Now, another thing the actual and former building societies that failed  failed to do was to adequately price for risk. Again that’s not so much the case these days. Here’s the mortgages the post office is offering as of today to illustrate what I mean: 

• For a mortgage where the LTV is 60% the overall cost for comparison is 4.2%.
• For a 75% LTV its also 4.2%, 
• By 80% LTV its crept up to 4.3%.
• It's 4.4% for an 85% LTV mortgage. 
• Finally, at 90% LTV it’s 4.6% or 4.7% for a 5 year fixed rate mortgage. 

 I’d put in the 95% rate except they don’t do one that high. Similarly moneysupermarket.com told me there aren’t any mortgages for an LTV above 90%, presumably because EVERY bank in Britain right now thinks that’s just too risky. Still, the Post Office example makes the point, which is the higher the LTV, the more expensive the mortgage i.e. the greater the return required to compensate for said risk*.

This is nice and straightforward really; more risk = borrowers being charged more to borrow, that being what the lender uses to encourage bigger deposits and to cover the losses lending to higher risk borrowers entails (think whatever 1000% p.a. Wonga charges if you want another example).

Now lets look at the terms of the help to buy scheme: “you’ll need to contribute at least 5% of the property price as a deposit” – here, hang on a mo, this taxpayer backed scheme is open to people with a deposit the British banking industry considers too low? Crikey. Well I hope there’s a charge to compensate for the risk this involves …… “You won’t be charged loan fees for the first 5 years of owning your home.” – sorry? Are you serious? Nothing extra, like not a penny? Nope, I missed the small print; “In the 6th year, you’ll be charged a fee of 1.75% of the loan’s value. After this, the fee will increase every year”. Thank Christ, so its not simply a handout intended to turn house buyers into Tory voters.

Except, hang on a mo, going back to the Post Office example, the higher the LTV, the greater the risk, the more the borrower should be charged isn't it? So what about the help to buy scheme, like if I got support worth 20% of the place I was wanting to buy I’d presumably have to pay more than if it was only 5%, wouldn’t I? Wouldn’t I?

Nope, you’d be charged the same, which is nothing for 5 years i.e. the government’s scheme not only puts the taxpayer on the nail for risks banks are no longer willing to take, it appears to take absolutely no account of the different degrees of risk doing so involves. Even worse it creates an obvious incentive to get as much government aid/save as little as possible because to the recipient its essentially 5 years worth of free money be it bridging the gap between a 5% or a 15% deposit and what a bank will lend. Brilliant, so this actively encourages an increase in the risk being dumped on the taxpayer. And, as the Post Office example shows, because it lets borrowers reduce the LTVof their mortgage, they get to borrow at cheaper rates.

Obviously, a lot of things can happen over 5 years. House prices can be kept unsustainably high, helping people borrow more will kick hard against the deleveraging that’s supposedly a central plank of government policy, it'll expose more people to the risk of interest rates rising in however many years time than might otherwise have been the case etc.,. Oh and because of the time it takes builders to respond to market signals cos  it actually takes a while to build a house, then other than Wimpey and what no getting to trouser the profits resulting from a sudden pick up in house prices,  it won’t actually do hee haw about the size of the total housing stock either this year or in 2014.

So in return for the potentially Orish levels of risk the government has decided to dump on us all, this risk being something the entire banking sector is simply unwilling to take on (and the associated potential damage to Britain’s credit rating against which Osborne used to say he should be judged, that being presented as a reason why there’s all those shitty spending cuts) we’re officially getting f’all before 2018 in return**.



* the risk here is straightforward – can’t afford to pay your mortgage? The bank repossesses your house and sells it to repay what its owed. The higher the LTV, the less likely the bank is to get all of the mortgage repaid (what with it being a fire sale, the borrower not having had enough money to keep the property up to scratch and so on). 


** Reading a bit more its banks that appear to have to pay a fee. Hiding things behind the scenes like that just makes this look even more like bribing voters.

Fiscal austerity finale meme

Expansionary austerity was always an implausible contradiction in terms that fitted right-wing political sensibilities better than the facts. Now though a run of events have made its increasingly (oxy)moronic nature indisputably clear.

Here, cutting spending to retain the UK’s AAA rating – and by so doing holding down borrowing costs – largely defined ConDem economic policy with the rating to provide a benchmark for assessing George Osborne’s success as chancellor (remember that?). Well, the UK is AAA no longer AND borrowing costs remain at record lows i.e. Osborne couldn’t do something he shouldn’t have been doing in the first place.

Then there’s been the Reinhart and Rogoff debacle were an apparently empirical justification for cutting government debt turned out to be based on a sloppy methodology, bad arithmetic and wishful thinking.

Except, this only followed on from the debunking of the notion that government spending in response to a downturn had only a limited multiplier effect i.e. why bother spending more and anyway cutting spending wouldn’t be that painful. Paul De Grauwe's work carried this critique a step further by setting out the “strong negative correlation” between “austerity measures introduced in 2011 and the growth of GDP over 2011-12” i.e. funnily enough the countries that've cut spending the most have suffered the sharpest reductions in GDP etc., And no them doing so didn’t put a cap on their borrowing costs, that was the ECB stating it was “ready to do whatever it takes”.

Really, picking thru the above, rather than apologise Professor Ferguson should be applauded for setting out the one remaining argument spending cut supporters appear to have as to why Britain should not adopt an actively counter-cyclical fiscal policy. 

Increase government borrowing by say £25bn to finance a 3 year social housing programme? Ha .......