These are my links for January 16th through January 19th:

 

Is this the start of a new government bank? The follwoing was issued minutes ago by the Treasury:

Mortgages and Northern Rock. The Government will also consider further ways of addressing the loss of mortgage lending capacity in markets. As a first step, the Government can confirm that Northern Rock is no longer actively pursuing a policy of rapidly reducing its existing mortgage book. Northern Rock is releasing a separate statement on this.

I sense a change of mood. The press release also says:

The situation we find ourselves in is to a great extent a product of banks – all over the world – taking risks that they should not have and which in many cases they did not even understand. And governments all over the world are having to take action to deal with this.

The confidence in the bankers is evaporating.

Now lets see real control taken. And let’s see the government lead real structural reform to build a new type of banking of benefit to us all.



 

It’s time to talk about what I’ve been doing in DC.

I’ve been attending the first meeting of the Co-ordinating Committee of the Task Force on Financial Integrity and Economic Development . This task force is being administered in DC by my good friends at Global Financial Integrity (GFI), but its importance is the unique way in which it brings together civil society (currently represented by GFI, the Tax Justice Network and Global Witness) and a great many governments to work together to tackle the multiple problems we face in developing a transparent economic system. As the press release issued after our meeting said:

A unique global coalition of civil society organizations and more than 50 governments was launched today to address the inequalities in the financial system that penalize billions of people. The Task Force on Financial Integrity and Economic Development advocates for greatly improved transparency and accountability in the global financial system. The opacity and complexity of the financial system, enabled by financial institutions, laundering techniques and more than 70 secrecy jurisdictions, is at the heart of the current financial crisis and significantly impedes the ability of poor countries to develop their economies.

“The Task Force will promote increased transparency and international cooperation to enhance the integrity and governance of markets,” said Raymond Baker who is Director of Washington, DC-based Global Financial Integrity which heads the Task Force. According to John Christensen of the Tax Justice Network in London, “Illicit financial flows drain money out of poor countries, enable criminal activity, and undermine international development.” Julien Meimon of the Leading Group on Solidarity Levies to Fund Development noted that “the explicit goal is to facilitate innovative financing mechanisms to ensure a fair share of the world’s resources are made available to its poorest people especially in developing countries.”

The Task Force advocates:

• That systems be put in place to curtail the practice of mispricing trade;

• That country-by-country reporting of sales profits and tax paid by multinational corporations be required in audited annual reports and tax returns;

• That the beneficial ownership, control and accounts of companies, trusts and foundations be readily available on public record to facilitate due diligence;

• That automatic exchange of information between tax and governmental authorities on income, gains and property received by non-resident individuals, corporations, and trusts, be made mandatory;

• That predicate offenses for a money laundering charge be harmonized and codified.
Norway is the first funder of the Task Force and Harald Tollan from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that “the Task Force is a natural extension of Development Minister Erik Solheim’s focus on the damaging effects of illicit financial flows, and the continuation of the constructive partnership formed by civil society, international organizations and governments under the Norwegian-led efforts to address illicit financial flows.”
Dorothee Richter, from the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, noted that “the new coalition is indispensable in the fight against illicit financial flows. Our initiative at the International Tax Compact strongly supports the work of the Task Force.”

In the near term the Task Force will focus on the April meeting of G20 nations in London to promote its agenda with governments.

I want to add to that though some thoughts I offered in my concluding remarks to the meeting. A few years ago a few us in a number of different countries set out on a journey to tackle the problems secrecy jurisdictions and the financial architecture that supports them cause within our own economies and most especially for the poorest people and developing countries of the world. People can say what they will of us, but it’s clear we travelled in hope, and in the face of considerable opposition from those whose behaviour we questioned. To have the explicit backing of several governments present at the meeting, both financially and explicitly, plus the clear support from the more than fifty nations aligned to the Leading Group of Nations, ably represented by France in DC, is an extraordinary boost to the partnership we are seeking to create that wants to create a new financial architecture that can be integrated into a sustainable future economy.

It was a good time to do this. DC is clearly very excited about the inauguration of Obama, and rightly so I think. As one well informed commentator at the meeting put it, we might now see a US administration that recognises the real need for reform in this area.

But let’s just borrow a phrase from Obama for a moment. We left our meeting quite sure that if asked if we can deliver the reform that is essential in this area we can reply “Yes we can”.

And we mean it.

Frozen out

 Blogging, Economics  Comments Off
Jan 192009
 

I am not the world’s greatest traveller. I hate doing it. I usually enjoy being at my destination. I always enjoy my return. But anything to do with air travel is loathsome in my opinion.

The trip to Washington was familiar in this respect. Getting there was tedious but no more.

Getting back was different. Temperatures had dropped significantly. They were seriously sub-zero. So cold in fact that the water for the toilets in my plane froze. But they didn’t notice that until we got on board.

So they got us off again. And took the plane for a trip round the airport. They pressurised it. They turned the heating up to maximum. In a little over two hours they defrosted the tanks. They reloaded us.

Then they announced they’d noticed that the water was now on the runway – they’d broken a pipe in the process of defrosting the tanks. As some wit put it – at least having the water on the runway was better than using the water as a runway (the Hudson river being very fresh in everyone’s minds). Either way though we were dumped back in the terminal way after midnight.

And so I got home a day late.

The last time I crossed the Atlantic the airline went bust on me. This time the plane was bust. You can see why I love this process, can’t you?

And pragmatically, so lacking in joy is air travel that I really cannot see that any of the projections for Heathrow runway 3 make any sense at all, even if the climate change and peak oil consequences are taken into account.

So yes, I’m against it.

 

My mood has deteriorated pretty rapidly as this year has progressed – and let’s be candid – it’s not that old yet.

As 2008 closed I at least felt banks were probably safe and we could get on with tackling the other issues of enormous concern within the economy. It’s apparent that this is no longer true. It is now very obvious that for all practical purposes that despite previous interventions the US banking system is bankrupt and dependent for its survival entirely upon the US government. But what is not being said is that this possibility is predicated upon the possibility of the US government continuing to sell debt. This has always proved possible in the past, not least because of the slightly illogical but continuing support provided to it by the Chinese, who have bought US Treasury bills seemingly without there being limit on their financial commitment.

But, I argued last week with colleagues in the US that as the continuing debacles called Citigroup and Bank of America developed, China may not have this capacity forever: it too has financial problems right now, not least because its largest export markets that have provided it with the surplus foreign earnings to invest in such bonds are all in recession. Suppose, I said, that the US Treasury lost the capacity to issue bonds? What then? Would the dollar collapse?

And then came Friday with a further major loss in value amongst UK bank shares – especially the one I consider weakest of all, Barclays. Barclays might say it can see no reason for suffering a 25% fall in its share price but I can. Synthetic finance (in which it is a specialist – and which is simply another form of abusive structure) is to be better regulated and so require greater commitment of capital. Barclays has run out of new routes for raising capital, the last round driving its shareholders to exhaustion and suggesting even those in the Middle East who have supported it to date are aware of the risks they are taking. It now seems to me that a business model so dependent upon regulatory abuse as Barclays’ is is finally bust. To even the most partial of observers it must now be very obviously near the limit of its useful life-cycle. To put it another way, this bank looks to be heading into history in the not too distant future, at least in its current form.

The consequence is that yet again the UK is being asked to bail its banks out, wherever and however their losses might have arisen. It’s sickening that just £200 million is to be supplied to supporting those in mortgage difficulties in the UK, and those partaking in that process will lose their equity, and yet seemingly unlimited funds can be supplied to keep the banks going without any ownership penalty so far on those involved.

But what we now need to ask is is this possible? Will Hutton asked that question in the Observer this weekend. He thinks that the UK is at the end of its credit line: that sometime the capacity to issue debt in sterling, which is fast becoming a relatively devalued non-reserve currency is going to expire and that the UK will itself face bankruptcy. It’s the same hypothesis that I put forward in the US last week.

Hutton’s solution is a simple one and admittedly reflects a position he has held for a long time. He says we must promise that once the current crisis is worked through we will join the Euro and so provide a meaningful prospect of there being value left in which people will be repaid what they loan to us now.

Instinctively I am opposed to this idea: I think that retention of a local currency allows a nation to price its people into work, although there is scant evidence that many share that opinion in the corridors of power. I also, I fully admit, think the market model on which the EU is built is wrong. Its commitment to the free movement of capital looks like the remnant of a failed economics experiment now, whilst having what is in effect a government with monetary but not fiscal powers is just plain mad, especially when those monetary powers are in themselves delegated to a body that is almost beyond control due to the mandate it has been given.

So I have instinctive reservations. Hutton anticipates these. As he says “there will be little appetite for my proposed measures” but that is almost enough by itself to make me ask whether this is the moment to reject my instinctive reaction and reappraise the situation.

There are good reasons for doing this. Instinctively I feel that both the pound and dollar are fundamentally misvalued right now. So many of the supposed assets supposedly denominated in these currencies are likely to prove worthless, and so significant are the loan books in those currencies that are still likely to fail (credit card debt has hardly been touched as yet – but you can be sure it will be) that the only way in which their value can go against the more cautiously managed Euro is down.

Of course there are problems in the Eurozone – I name Ireland, Spain (and Santander in particular) and Greece as problems that are all too obvious – but at its core the economies that drive the Euro have been better regulated and managed than those of the US and UK and this means that a continuing shift in value towards the Euro remains likely at present, which is a change of heart on my part.

There’s a further issue. I can see no way at all that sterling can rid itself of the consequence of so much debt of dubious value being denominated in the currency without substantial inflation to wash it out of the system. There is no other way I can think of that bad money can, effectively, be devalued to the point where what is, in effect, a new currency with the same denominator replacing it bar (and this is the nub of the point I think Hutton is making) the currency itself being replaced. We know though that inflation can bring on disaster. We know it an create instability of international magnitude. I have no answer to that with regard to the US right now. But for the UK Hutton is right: our alternative currency at the end of the cycle of adjustment is already available to us. It is the Euro.

I suggested something like this to a group of Labour MPs last autumn, but then backed away from it (partly in the face of their obvious reaction to the idea) but I return to it now. We cannot give up our currency right now: we have to work through the issues it has given rise to first. But when that is done – two or three years hence we will face a real risk of inflation whatever the current likelihood of deflation might be (and it is high).

In that case I think Hutton has a real point, and one that even those who find such an idea unpalatable now have to give real consideration to. If we cannot find a way out of crisis but by asking someone else (the Eurozone) to underwrite the promise we have to make to those who will accept your debts then shouldn’t we think seriously about how we can secure that guarantee, which we might well need? And wouldn’t it be irresponsible to do otherwise?

I’m expecting vociferous response to this one. But the reality is that we may have proven ourselves unable to regulate value into our currency. That may be why we might lose it.

It’s a scenario that it is too realistic to ignore for two reasons. The first is that the alternative of asking for loans to be repaid by whittling the debt away by inflation is not the most attractive sales pitch, partly because it will also defeat the objective of low interest rates.

The second is he requirement to muse on why this came about. I think the reason is obvious. when you make everything tradeable as a commodity in its own right, including the currency in which all other trades are denominated, you take the risk that everything can at the very least be inappropriately valued, or maybe have no value at all. That is the mess we’re in. Whichever way we look, reclaiming the credibility of our currency and the right of the government to issue it for the benefit of the people of this country is either a prerequisite for change or a right we entirely forgo in exchange for the guarantee that the spread of risk is increased to provide the security we need. In other words, we have to head for monetary and banking reform and exchange controls or join the Euro. Where we are is not sustainable.

Jan 172009
 

Senator Carl Levin has issued the follwoing press release:


A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released today by U.S. Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Carl Levin (D-MI) shows that a majority of the largest publicly-traded companies and federal contractors in the United States use multiple subsidiaries in offshore tax havens to conduct business. Dorgan and Levin, who have focused on combating offshore tax abuses causing an estimated $100 billion in lost U.S. tax revenues each year, point out that many of these companies are paid with taxpayer dollars and some have also received billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout funds.

“This report shows that some of our country’s largest companies and federal contractors, many of which are household names, continue to use offshore tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of taxes to the U.S. And, some of those companies have even received emergency economic funds from the government,” said Senator Dorgan. “I think we should take action to shut down these tax dodgers and we will be introducing legislation to do just that.”

Senator Levin said, “We need to put an end to the use of offshore secrecy jurisdictions as tax havens. We must get to the bottom of activities such as the following: Citigroup has set up 427 tax haven subsidiaries to conduct its business, including 91 in Luxembourg, 90 in the Cayman Islands, and 35 in the British Virgin Islands. Hundreds more tax haven subsidiaries operate under strict secrecy laws in places like Switzerland, Hong Kong, Panama, and Mauritius. But not all large U.S. companies are major tax haven users and there is great contrast between competitors. For example, Pepsi has 70 tax haven subsidiaries, while Coca Cola has 8; Morgan Stanley has 273, while Fannie Mae has 0; and Caterpillar has 49, while Deere has 3.” Levin chairs the U.S. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations which has made offshore tax abuse a major subject of its investigations.

Dorgan and Levin requested the GAO report to get detailed information on both U.S. corporations and federal contractors using tax havens. Using publicly-available data filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, GAO determined that 83 of the 100 largest publicly-traded corporations and 63 of the 100 largest federal contractors maintain subsidiaries in 50 tax havens.

The report updates a similar GAO report performed for the Senators in 2004. A complete listing of the 100 largest publicly- traded companies and the 100 largest contractors and their tax haven information is available in the GAO report, including the number of tax havens for each company and their locations.

And we wonder why Citigroup is in a mess?

Or why Lehman failed (just check it out in the report)?

Or Why Morgan Stanley is a mess?

Just look at the numbers. There is no wonder to this. It is deliberate.

Now we just have to get the cancer out of the system.

 

These are my links for January 16th:

  • FT.com / Companies – Citi expected to show loss of at least $6bn – "The calm before the storm. That is how one Citigroup executives described the mood within the company ahead of Friday’s fourth-quarter results that are expected to show a loss of between $6bn and $10bn and provide details of its planned break-up.

    Unfortunately for Citi, the markets were anything but calm on Thursday, hammering its shares on deepening fears that the government will have to come to the rescue of the troubled financial group less than two months after a $300bn bail-out.

    Any further government intervention would bring Citi a step closer to nationalisation."

    Banking as we know it is dead

  • FT.com / Companies / Banks – Dublin nationalises Anglo Irish Bank – I have no doubt the Irish are now out of their depth

    They will in turn need an EU bail out – just give it time

    And the condition must be a simple one – stop stealing other people's profits

  • Bloomberg.com: U.K. & Ireland: British Tax Haven’s Safety, Secrecy Face Brown, Obama Challenge – "To remain a finance center, Christensen said Bell will have to prove that what’s good for the Isle of Man is also good for the world."

    It's a test they can't pass

 

The FT has reported:

Bank of America will on Friday receive $20bn in fresh capital from the US government and a guarantee on most of a further $118bn of potential losses on toxic assets.

The emergency bail-out will help to cushion the blow from a deteriorating balance sheet at Merrill Lynch, the brokerage BofA acquired earlier this month.

So why didn’t the B of A know what Merrill’s position was?

1) Accounting rules were designed to disguise it – don’t doubt the complicity of the accounting firms in this

2) The losses haven’t been suffered since it acquired Merrill – they were there all along hidden in its tax havens and SPVs – complexity and obfuscation designed to undermine regulators and which conned the bankers themselves.

We cannot make progress until:

1) We have new banking regulation

2) Banks have new ownership structures (state and mutual being most likely as the concept of equity in these organisations has gone right now)

3) All cards are put face up on the table

4) The tax haven ‘get out of regulation free’ card is removed from the game that bankers play.

All are needed – but the last is a prerequisite of focusing attention on the rest.

Do it now, please. Let’s cut the crap, the cost has already been too high and we can’t afford it to carry on.

Missing the point

 Regulation  Comments Off
Jan 162009
 

I took part in a discussion with Francis Fukuyama on Wednesday evening.

His suggestion to those of us looking to reform regulation and taxation for the benefit of developing countries was to ignore government.

I know Fukuyama has jumped the Republican ship but it’s not hard to see why neo-cons ran out of steam if missing the point is developed into an art form of this magnitude.

I think my suggestion to that effect was polite, but clear.

© 2005 - 2011 Tax Research UK.
Some rights reserved. Creative Commons License
Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha