The Bitcoin Mania

By all appearances, the Bitcoin phenomenon is now in the "mania" phase of what is otherwise known as an "economic bubble" (when asset prices deviate from intrinsic values).

I advise caution.

Related Posts

Charles Ferguson: Predator Nation

According to Dr Charles Ferguson (2012):

It is no exaggeration to say that since the 1980s, much of the American (and global) financial sector has become criminalized, creating an industry culture that tolerates or even encourages systematic fraud. The behavior that caused the mortgage bubble and financial crisis was a natural outcome and continuation of this pattern, rather than some kind of economic accident.

Dr Charles Henry Ferguson (1955- )

Follow the link below to learn more about Dr Ferguson's new book.

Predator Nation

Source: Ferguson, C (2012, How Financial Criminalization Crashed the Economy, and the Culprits Got Off Scot-Free, Huffington Post.

Related Posts

The Most Significant Developments of 2011 with Trends in 2012

From Jesse's Café Américain Copyright © 2011 Droit d'Auteur

As always the four great variables in human history are war, weather, disease, and religion.

Weather includes a wider range of natural phenomenon, and similarly religion includes secular movements such as fascism and communism that are essentially godless religions that involve the ordering of the relationship of the individual with a higher power that is not supernatural.

I do not address stocks, including the miners, specifically as I see that investment sector as extraordinarily risky. Tell me what the Fed and ECB will do and I will tell you how stocks will perform. That is the nature of this market.

As I am comfortable with stagflation, stocks most likely will not perform well in real terms. However, they could be targeted by the Fed as they implement nominal GDP growth and it puts more weight on selective inflation within the stagnant real economy.

Stocks tend to play the role of a variable hedge in my forecast and my own portfolio. The bigger investments are bonds, including cash which is a bond of zero duration, and alternative currencies like gold and silver, oil and income producing physical assets.

1. Wall Street dropped some of its pretense to fairness and softer forms of fraud and resorted to overt theft as MF Global stole significant sums of money, bonds, and bullion assets directly from customer accounts, under the eyes of the regulators, and transferred the money to its global bankers who refused to give it back.

Trend: Theft by the financiers will continue and intensify. The victims will be vilified to blunt public reaction.

2. The Eurozone came under unremitting assault by the ratings agencies and their associated banks and hedge funds. The Euro is an inherently 'difficult' currency to manage and has always been more susceptible to broad swings in value. This is because it is an economic union without a comprehensive political and financial union. It more closely resembles the original thirteen states of the US under the Articles of Confederation than it does a comprehensive Republic.

Trend: The Eurozone will continue to struggle to find a balance between political and financial factors, and will evolve into a stronger union of fewer members. Germany and France will continue to emerge as the great Western European power. The UK will be preoccupied by its own set of severe internal problems and regional unrest as austerity bites deeply. The UK will begin to act as more of an Anglo-American agent in the Eurozone. It may take on more of the character of an Orwellian state.

3. The Federal Reserve is expanding its power as a monetary authority and regulator of the financial system in an extra-Constitutional manner. The Fed is determined to fight the deflationary forces of global trade and credit contraction by expanding its balance sheet. They have little fear of inflation. Hyperinflation is highly unlikely in the absence of an exogenous shock. Stagflation is the new normal disguised somewhat by government statistics.

Trend: The Fed will start a new program of 'nominal GDP targeting' without stated limits in size of activity, as it will be defined by the scope of its objectives. The bond bubble will continue particularly in the long end of the curve. It will falter and breakdown at some point, but this is not likely in the near term unless some external standard is imposed or exogenous force intervenes.

4. A currency war is well underway in the aftermath of the closing of the gold window and the erosion of the Bretton Woods agreement, into an uneasy floating exchange rate system known informally as 'Bretton Woods II.' This currency war manifests in currency devaluations and pegs in support of mercantilism, particularly in the developing countries. It is a form of neo-colonialism supported by the great multinational corporations.

Trend: Global trade will begin to come under greater political assault as the exchange rate mechanism fails to impose a reasonable balance on the flows of goods and capital. The SDR is the most likely replacement for the US dollar as the world migrates towards a dual currency regime with one currency for domestic only use and an international unit for the settlement of world trade. The composition of the SDR will be a major point of contention between the BRICs and the Anglo-Americans.

5. The US political process is dominated by Big Money, a system in which a small number of people choose the candidates which will be allowed on the final ballot despite great pretense of a selection process and primaries. Despite the usual emotional heat expressed by a minority on each side in any competitive process, the end result is that no candidates can be chosen without being vetted and approved by the monied interests. This tends to continue to promote and support a status quo.

Trend: There may be a third party candidate, and perhaps one other fourth party of any real significance, but the end choice will be between Obama and Romney who are the corporate candidates. Strong voter dissatisfaction will cause minority parties to secede from the two major political parties, including at least one crypto-fascist movement and one progress movement. Watch for a rising current of racism, and attempts to make prejudice socially acceptable, and a growing class hatred. There will be major riots and demonstrations each summer from now until 2020 or a return to representative government.

6. As the global monetary regime continues its change, the US dollar continues to be stretched thinly. Despite all the odds and strong opposition from Western central banks and monetary authorities, gold has sustained an eleven year bull market.

Trend: Gold is in a bull market that will last until around 2020, or until the global monetary system reaches a sustainable equilibrium with a replacement for the US dollar as the reserve currency that is acceptable to the new economic powers. Silver and gold will continue to move with significant volatility as their prices increase. Bonds are the current asset bubble. At some point this may break as the housing market has done, and this will have a negative impact for gold if interest rates on the short end turn positive. This may not happen if inflation increases faster than interest rates rise.

7. China and Russia have replaced their command and control communist economies with command and control oligarchies. The power of China is the exploitation of labor, and of Russia, natural resources. Despite their calm outward appearance, there is significant turmoil beneath the surface, often regional in nature.

Trend: The governments of the world will continue to be shaken by the restructuring of the world economy. Change and calls for reform will most often be met by repression, often harsh. The world will continue to develop into three or four spheres of influence, with the greatest unrest and contained wars on the fringes of those spheres. The greatest region of conflict will remain where Europe meets Asia, and Asia meets the subcontinent.

I hesitate to put forward such a gloomy outlook, but this is in keeping with the forecast I put out in 2005 and it seems that most of the trends have occurred and even intensified. This is a period of great change, and this presents both risks and rewards.

And as always, against the backdrop of great events, while nations rise and fall, the life of the ordinary family goes on. 'There are these three things that endure: faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these is Love,' for it is the highest likeness to God in this world.

Republished with permission of Jesse's Café Américain

Source: The Most Significant Developments of 2011 with Trends in 2012 (2011, December 31), Jesse's Café Américain.

A Regulatory Architecture for Cross-Border Banking Groups

by Stefano Micossi © VoxEU.org

Policymakers and commentators have suggested that large banks should be broken up. This column argues that such an idea risks the very existence of a global financial system. It outlines an alternative framework in which deposit insurance should be covered by banks not taxpayers, banks should not be guaranteed a bailout, and regulators should be mandated to step in when the warning signs begin.

Following the demise of Lehman Brothers, the debate on regulatory reform has led to the conclusion that large banking institutions must be broken up and their risk-taking activities limited by law along the lines of the ‘Volcker rule’ (Gros 2010). Not only are such actions unnecessary, they may be hard to implement and could reduce the availability of credit to the economy (if for example they reduce the ability of banks to hedge their credit positions). The main consequence of such a plan would be the disintegration of global financial markets as they break down into segregated national markets.

In recent research, my colleagues and I set out an alternative solution that can achieve a more stable and resilient financial system without renouncing the benefits of global and multi-purpose financial institutions and innovative finance (Carmassi et al 2010). These are predicated on effectively curtailing moral hazard and strengthening market discipline on banks’ shareholders and managers by raising the cost of the banking charter to fully reflect its benefits for the banks, and restoring the possibility that all – or at least most – large banks can fail without unmanageable systemic repercussions.

Back to basics

The crisis was generated by cross-border banks levering their deposit base and acting, through the wholesale interbank market, as the residual suppliers of liquidity for all the other players in financial markets. This multiplied funds for speculation and helped to sustain a gigantic inverted pyramid of securities made up of other securities and yet again other securities. Without the money-multiplying capacity of the banks, the asset price bubble and the explosion of financial intermediation and aggregate leverage would not have been possible. Extreme investment strategies by bankers obviously reflect moral hazard created by the expectation that governments would step in to bail them out in case of large losses.

The first thing that needs to be done in order to restore corrective incentives for bank managers and shareholders is to eliminate the most obvious pitfall in banking regulation, that is, reliance on capital requirements based on risk-weighted assets. This approach is flawed since asset risk cannot be assessed and measured independently of market conditions and market sentiment. As a result, the need for capital will always be underestimated under favourable market conditions, leading to balance-sheet fragility and precipitous asset sales when market sentiment turns sour. Banks need a capital buffer to overcome the massive asymmetries of information between bank managers on one side, and investors and regulators on the other. This asymmetry currently makes it easy for bankers to accumulate excessive risks in the quest for higher returns, before markets become aware. The way to do this is to set capital requirements in straight proportion to total assets or liabilities of banking groups.

Fixing flaws in prudential capital rules does not remove moral hazard from the banking system, whose specific sources must be tackled separately. These are:

• the deposit-institution franchise,
• the implicit or explicit promise of bailout in case of threatened failure, and
• regulatory forbearance.

The problem associated with the deposit franchise is well known. If depositors have doubts on the bank’s solvency, they will run for the exit, forcing rapid liquidation of banks’ assets, possibly with large losses and contagion spreading instability to other banking institutions.

First pillar for tackling moral hazard

Deposit insurance can reassure depositors, and thus is the first pillar for tackling moral hazard, but it also mutes their incentive to monitor the management of their bank, since they no longer risk losing their money.

More importantly, deposit insurance has evolved in most countries into a system effectively protecting the bank, or the entire banking group, rather than depositors. When a bank risks becoming insolvent, supervisors step in to cover its losses and replenish its capital so as to avoid any adverse repercussions on market confidence. Moreover, most deposit insurance systems are inadequately funded by insured institutions, entailing an implicit promise that taxpayers’ money will make up the difference in case of failure of large banks.

Thus, in order to re-establish a proper price for the banking charter, banks should carry, ex ante, the full cost of deposit protection, making sure that in most circumstances the guarantee fund would be adequate to reimburse depositors when individual banks fail. Of course, no fund could ever be sufficient to meet a general banking crisis, but a fund of an appropriate size would offer adequate protection in normal circumstances, with only a predictable share of banks going bankrupt.

Deposit insurance fees are the right instrument to make banks pay for risk generated by banks. They should be determined on the basis of a careful probabilistic assessment of the likelihood of failure within the overall pool of deposits and risks of the banking system (within appropriately defined market jurisdictions). This is where the risk profile of banks’ asset and loan portfolios can be taken fully into consideration, together with, more broadly, the quality of bank management and risk control, thus creating effective penalties for riskier behaviour. Size itself could be appropriately penalised by higher fees that would incorporate a probabilistic price for the potential threat for systemic stability.

Second pillar: Not “too big to fail”

The second pillar required in order to greatly limit moral hazard in the financial system is credibly removing the promise that large banks cannot fail. To this end, all main jurisdictions should establish special resolution procedures – as already exist in the US and the UK – managed by an administrative authority, with powers to require early recapitalisation, manage required reorganisations and, once all this has failed, liquidating the bank with only limited systemic repercussions. Crisis prevention, reorganisation and liquidation would all be part of a unified consolidated resolution procedure managed for each bank, by one administrative authority.

In order to make resolution feasible, all banks and banking groups would be required to prepare and provide to their supervisors a document detailing the full consolidated structure of legal entities that depend on the parent company for their survival, the claims on the bank and their order of priority, and a clear description of operational – as distinct from legal – responsibilities and decision-making, notably regarding functions centralised with the parent company. This "living wills" document may also comprise "segregation" arrangements to preserve certain functions of systemic relevance even during resolution: for clearing and settlement of certain transactions, netting out of certain counterparties, suspension of covenants on certain operations.

Third pillar: No regulatory forbearance

Finally, the third pillar of an effectively reformed financial system is a set of procedural arrangements that will prevent supervisory forbearance. Supervisory discretion to postpone corrective action would be strictly constrained, so that bankers, stakeholders and the public would know that mistakes would always meet early retribution. To this end it is necessary to establish a system of early mandated action by bank supervisors ensuring that, as capital falls below certain thresholds, the bank or banking group will be promptly and adequately recapitalised. Should capital continue to fall, then supervisors should be required to step in and impose all necessary reorganisation, including disposing of assets, selling or closing lines of business, changing management, ceding the entire bank to a stronger entity.

Should this not work, then liquidation would commence. A bridge bank would take over deposits and other “sound” banking activities, thus ensuring their continuity. All other assets and liabilities, together with the price received for the transfer of assets to the bridge bank, would remain in the “residual” bank, which would be stripped of its banking licence. An administrator for the liquidation of the residual bank would be appointed to determine its value and satisfy creditors according to the legal order of priorities (based on the law of the parent company and other jurisdictions involved).

The attractive feature of mandated corrective action is that asset disposals and change of management will normally take place well before capital falls to zero, so that losses for the insurance fund and ultimately taxpayers are more likely to be much smaller.

References

Carmassi, E L, and Stefano M (2010), "Overcoming too big to fail - A Regulatory Framework to Limit Moral Hazard and Free Riding in the Financial Sector," CEPS-Assonime Report.

Gros, D (2010), "Too interconnected to fail = too big to fail: What is in a leverage ratio?", VoxEU.org, 26 January.

Republished with permission of VoxEU.org

The Nordics in the Global Crisis

by Thorvaldur Gylfason, Bengt Holmstrom, Sixten Korkman, Hans Tson Söderström, and Vesa Vihriälä © VoxEU.org

Is the Nordic model an asset or a liability? The global crisis has seen GDP in the region decline by between 4.5% and 7%. This column argues that the Nordic model, with its welfare state and high rate of investment in human capital, can, properly implemented, be part of the solution.

The Nordic countries – Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden – are champions of free trade and open markets. And for a good reason; they see international specialisation within a global framework as a means of raising productivity and income. Much of the Nordic socio-economic model can be interpreted as aiming at collective risk sharing with a view to fostering acceptance of open markets, new technologies and the need for change.

In a broad sense the model includes a set of labour market organisations, with an important role for negotiations, a comprehensive safety net and a high rate of publicly supported investment in human capital. Embracing globalisation and sharing risk are mutually reinforcing planks of the Nordic Model, as discussed in Andersen et al. (2007).

Is the Nordic model an asset or a liability?

The current crisis is not only a financial and economic crisis but also a crisis of the much heralded globalisation process itself. It therefore raises many key questions for small open economies, not least the Nordics. What are the lessons of the crisis for economic policies? Is the future of the global economy more unstable than the past, and does that perspective call for a fundamental review of the economic policy strategy? Is the Nordic model an asset or a liability in the light of the crisis?

As we discuss in our new report (Gylfason et al. 2010), the crisis is best seen as the outcome of a lopsided globalisation process that overwhelmed the global financial system. The global savings glut was largely absorbed by the US shadow banking system, because of its capacity to create innovative products. It seemed to offer safe investment outlets at attractive rates of return, while at the same time encouraging excessive leverage. Once the bubble burst and the world economy went down, the Nordics, with their high dependence on exports of investment goods and consumer durables, were particularly hard hit (with the exception of oil-rich Norway). Their GDP in 2009 declined at rates between 4.5% and 7%.

While the sharpness of the global downturn was a surprise, so was the early stabilisation, which started around the middle of 2009. At this point the recession has been declared over in many countries and a recovery – though weak and hesitant – seems to be underway. There is little doubt of the explanation; policies matter. Authorities have demonstrated an unprecedented activism in monetary and fiscal policy as well as inventiveness in financial crisis management. While the world escaped a repetition of the Great Depression, the crisis has nevertheless left a legacy of difficult issues and challenges.

The Nordics are vulnerable but also resilient. While Iceland is a case of its own, we believe that the Nordics have the capacity to recover and to continue combining economic efficiency with high social ambitions. Sweden and Finland experienced a severe banking crisis in the early 1990s, thereby learning a lot about the need for better financial regulation and supervision.

Lessons were learnt about the need for a solid crisis management framework, the pros and cons of a blanket government guarantee for financial institutions, the need for precautionary and other capital injections, the problems of transferring assets into “bad banks”, and the case for not shying away from the government taking over institutions in certain circumstances. Many of these lessons were useful in avoiding mistakes in this crisis and they have attracted interest in other countries. This is also why companies and banks in the region have had balance sheets strong enough to weather the crisis pretty well (we obviously leave out Iceland again).

The effect of the euro

The Nordics have all had different monetary regimes since the euro. Given their similarity in other respects, a comparison of Finland and Sweden is especially interesting. It is almost a laboratory experiment. Sweden has a floating exchange rate and an independent central bank geared to price stability, while Finland is part of the Eurozone. Who has made the better choice?

The krona was mostly stable and developments in Finland and Sweden were strikingly similar during the first decade of the euro. Once the crisis erupted, however, the krona fell significantly relative to the euro, thereby strengthening the price competitiveness of Sweden relative to Finland and the euro area. One might expect this to help Sweden come through the crisis at less cost than Finland, arguably benefitting at the expense of its neighbour by capturing market shares.

The decline in exports and output in 2009 was indeed smaller in Sweden than in Finland, and GDP growth is forecast to be somewhat faster. However, the differences do not seem large. Also, manufacturing output shows little response to the change in competitiveness, and unemployment is rising in parallel with developments in Finland.

Either the effects of the improved competitiveness are relatively modest or the lags are long, or a depreciation of a floating currency has less effect on export and output volumes than a devaluation of a pegged currency used to have. What is clear is that the floating exchange rate does not insulate an economy from external shocks, and the economic differences between the two exchange rate regimes seem smaller than often claimed in the heated debate about the Eurozone.

An effective fiscal stimulus?

For small and open economies, in particular, one may question the power of fiscal expansion as an instrument of demand management. Nevertheless, we still find that an expansionary fiscal policy is helpful in a crisis. It is a useful complement to monetary policy when the interest rate hits its lower bound or when the credit system becomes dysfunctional. Also, fiscal action may alleviate particular problems such as long-term or youth unemployment. Furthermore, automatic fiscal stabilisers allow the government to avoid hasty and unduly harmful measures. The social contract is very valuable in a crisis as it tempers the panic and gives the government more time to plan and undertake measures to reignite growth in an orderly manner.

Of course, sustainable public finances need to be restored, and it is useful to consider the merits of alternative means of fiscal consolidation. Public expenditure may be cut or its composition twisted in a growth-friendly direction, and efficiency in the provision of public services improved. The tax base may be broadened by measures to raise the employment rate, particularly by prolonging the length of working careers. There is some scope for changing the structure of taxation with a view to encouraging economic growth, notably by reducing the share of taxes that fall directly on corporate profits and wage income.

The Nordics were in a position to pursue fiscal expansion in the crisis because these countries were – in contrast to the US and almost all other EU countries –running sizeable budget surpluses in the preceding decade. The government debt level of the Nordics is only half of what it is in the OECD on average and they continue to borrow at very favourable terms. Given their track record, there is reason to believe that the Nordics will continue to be countries with relatively sound public finances, retaining the scope for fiscal policy to be used when needed.

Safety in numbers

Most importantly, the Nordic model itself contributes to resilience. The comprehensive safety net, one of the attributes of the Nordic model, has proved to be robust also in times of crisis. The entitlements are not tied to the fate of individual companies or particular markets, and risks are widely shared in the society. While forest plants are shutting down in Finland and car manufacturing is sharply contracting in Sweden, the governments are firmly rejecting requests for support of ailing industries. Still, there are no crowds protesting in the streets, largely because flexible work arrangements, based both on general and company-specific agreements between businesses and labour, alleviate a rise in unemployment. Structural change is enhanced by the employment protection legislation, which is more liberal than in most other EU countries. A well-educated labour force, another of the attributes of the Nordic model, facilitates adjustment by making it easier to upgrade skills through additional training.

Provided that governments continue to be able to take the decisions needed to safeguard competitiveness and the sustainability of public finances, the Nordic model can be both robust and resilient. The Nordic model with its welfare state, labour market institutions and high rate of investment in human capital, is not the source of the current problems. On the contrary, the Nordic model, properly implemented, can be part of the solution.

References

Andersen, T, Holmström, B, Honkapohja, S, Korkman, S, Söderström, H T, and Vartiainen, J (2007), ”The Nordic Model – Embracing Globalisation and Sharing Risks,” The Economic Research Institute of the Finnish Economy, Helsinki: ETLA.

Gylfason, T, Holmström, B, Korkman, S, Söderström, H T, and Vihriälä, V (2010), "Nordics in Global Crisis – Vulnerability and Resilience,” Helsinki: ETLA.

Republished with permission of VoxEU.org

Eleven Lessons from Iceland

by Thorvaldur Gylfason © VoxEU.org

How to stop a repeat of Iceland’s crisis – both in the country and elsewhere? This column provides eleven lessons covering asymmetric information, moral hazard, better warning systems and improved regulation, preventing banks becoming “too big to fail” and restricting asset bubbles, holding creators of externalities to account, and providing safeguards on political interference.

Iceland’s economic crisis has destroyed wealth equivalent to about seven times its GDP. The damage inflicted on foreign creditors, investors, and depositors amounts to about five times its GDP, while the asset losses thrust upon Icelandic residents account for the rest. These figures do not include the cost of Iceland’s increased indebtedness. Iceland’s gross public debt, domestic and foreign, is estimated to increase by more than 100% of GDP as a result of the collapse of the banks, or from 29% of GDP at the end of 2007 to 136% by the end of 2010. In 2009, the government spent almost as much on interest payments as on healthcare and social insurance, the single largest public expenditure item. The damage due to Iceland’s tarnished reputation is harder to assess.

A number of economists have discussed the consequences of Iceland’s troubles and suggested solutions (Buiter & Sibert, 2008; Danielsson, 2010), but a key question remains: How could this happen?

To make a long story short (for the longer story, see Gylfason et al., 2010), the absence of checks and balances that had led to an unbalanced division of power between the strong executive branch and the much weaker legislative and judicial branches came to haunt the country when unscrupulous politicians put the new banks in the hands of reckless owners who then found themselves in a position to expand their balance sheets as if there were no tomorrow – and no supervision. Politicians who privatise banks by delivering them on a silver plate to their friends are not very likely to subject the banks to stringent supervision or other such inconveniences.

Collective guilt and responsibility

Iceland’s predicament raises old questions about collective guilt and responsibility. Many wonder how taxpayers can be held responsible for the failures of private bankers. But taxpayers are also voters – many of them voted for the politicians who sided with the bankers, having abstained or voted for the opposition is clearly not a valid excuse. Guilty or not, many feel responsible as taxpayers, but not all.

Opinion polls suggest that a majority of the electorate did not want parliament to approve the IceSave deal between Iceland, the UK, and the Netherlands by which Iceland agrees to repay the British and the Dutch about a half of the amount that the latter unilaterally decided to pay out in compensation to depositors in the IceSave accounts of Landsbanki.*

The stakes are high because Iceland’s agreement with the IMF appears to hinge on the parliament’s approval of the deal with the British and the Dutch. As it turned out, even this is not enough, because the President of Iceland chose to intervene by referring the IceSave law to a national referendum. It is a matter of record that the stipulation concerning the deal on the IceSave accounts is part of the IMF-supported programme at the behest of the Nordic countries, or at least some of them (Gylfason 2009). Without their support, the programme – with less financing available – would require stricter adjustment of public expenditures and taxes. In other words, without a settlement of the IceSave dispute, Iceland’s short-run crisis would deepen – an almost certain outcome of a “no” vote in the referendum scheduled for 6 March.

Parting company

In 2009, while the unemployment rate shot up to 9% of the labour force, a very high rate by Icelandic – if not by European – standards, GDP fell by 7%, and is not expected to be restored to its 2008 level until 2014 in local currency at constant prices. In dollars or euros, however, per capita GDP will take longer to recover enough to regain parity with the Nordic countries because the króna is not expected to rise in value for a number of years to come. As a result of the collapse of Iceland’s banks and of the króna, Iceland’s GNI per person sank in 2008 to a level one-third below that of Denmark, Finland, and Sweden (see Figure 1; Norway’s oil puts it in a class of its own). Due to emigration, Iceland’s population fell slightly in 2009 for the first time since 1889. Significant emigration over the next few years would weaken the tax base and depress the living standards of those who stay.

Figure 1. Nordic countries: Gross National Income per capita 1980-2008 (at purchasing power parity, current international $)

Source: World Bank (2009), World Development Indicators.

And the lessons?

What can be done to reduce the likelihood of a repeat performance – in Iceland and elsewhere? Here are eleven main lessons from the Iceland story, lessons that are likely to be relevant in other less extreme cases as well.

Lesson 1. We need effective legal protection against predatory lending just as we have long had laws against quack doctors. The problem is asymmetric information. Doctors and bankers typically know more about complicated medical procedures and complex financial instruments than their patients and clients. The asymmetry creates a need for legal protection through judicious licensing and other means against financial (as well as medical) malpractice to protect the weak against the strong.

Lesson 2. We should not allow rating agencies to be paid by the banks they have been set up to assess. The present arrangement creates an obvious and fundamental conflict of interest, and needs to be revised. Likewise, banks should not be allowed to hire employees of regulatory agencies, thereby signalling that by looking the other way, remaining regulators may also expect to receive lucrative job offers from banks.

Lesson 3. We need more effective regulation of banks and other financial institutions; presently, this is work in progress in Europe and the US (see Volcker, 2010).

Lesson 4. We need to read the warning signals. We need to know how to count the cranes to appreciate the danger of a construction and real estate bubble (Aliber’s rule). We need to make sure that we do not allow gross foreign reserves held by the Central Bank to fall below the short-term foreign liabilities of the banking system (the Giudotti-Greenspan rule). We need to be on guard against the scourge of persistent overvaluation sustained by capital inflows because, sooner or later, an overvalued currency will fall. Also, income distribution matters. A rapid increase in inequality – as in Iceland 1993-2007 and in the US in the 1920s as well as more recently – should alert financial regulators to danger ahead.

Lesson 5. We should not allow commercial banks to outgrow the government and Central Bank’s ability to stand behind them as lender – or borrower – of last resort. In principle, this can be done through judicious regulation, including capital and reserve requirements, taxes and fees, stress tests, and restrictions on cross-ownership and other forms of collusion.

Lesson 6. Central banks should not accept rapid credit growth subject to keeping inflation low – as did the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan and the Central Bank of Iceland. They must take a range of actions to restrain other manifestations of latent inflation, especially asset bubbles and large deficits in the current account of the balance of payments. Put differently, they must distinguish between “good” (well-based, sustainable) growth and “bad” (asset-bubble-plus-debt-financed) growth.

Lesson 7. Commercial banks should not be authorised to operate branches abroad rather than subsidiaries if this entails the exposure of domestic deposit insurance schemes to foreign obligations. This is what happened in Iceland. Without warning, Iceland’s taxpayers suddenly found themselves held responsible for the moneys kept in the IceSave accounts of Landsbanki by 400,000 British and Dutch depositors. Had these accounts been hosted by subsidiaries of Landsbanki rather than by branches, they would have been covered by local deposit insurance in Britain and the Netherlands.

Lesson 8. We need strong firewalls separating politics from banking because politics and banking are not a good mix. The experience of Iceland’s dysfunctional state banks before the privatisation bears witness. This is why their belated privatisation was necessary. Corrupt privatisation does not condemn privatisation, it condemns corruption.

Lesson 9. When things go wrong, there is a need to hold those responsible accountable by law, or at least try to uncover the truth and thus foster reconciliation and rebuild trust. There is a case for viewing finance the same way as civil aviation: there needs to be a credible mechanism in place to secure full disclosure after every crash. If history is not correctly recorded without prevarication, it is likely to repeat itself.

Lesson 10. When banks collapse and assets are wiped out, the government has a responsibility to protect jobs and incomes, sometimes by a massive monetary or fiscal stimulus. This may require policymakers to think outside the box and put conventional ideas about monetary restraint and fiscal prudence temporarily on ice. A financial crisis typically wipes out only a small fraction of national wealth. Physical capital (typically three or four times GDP) and human capital (typically five or six times physical capital) dwarf financial capital (typically less than GDP). So, the financial capital wiped out in a crisis typically constitutes only one fifteenth or one twenty-fifth of total national wealth, or less. The economic system can withstand the removal of the top layer unless the financial ruin seriously weakens the fundamentals.

Lesson 11. Let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Since the collapse of communism, a mixed market economy has been the only game in town. To many, the current financial crisis has dealt a severe blow to the prestige of free markets and liberalism, with banks – and even General Motors – having to be propped up temporarily by governments, even nationalised. Even so, it remains true that banking and politics are not a good mix. But private banks clearly need proper regulation because of their ability to inflict severe damage on innocent bystanders.

Footnotes

* According to the IceSave agreement, Iceland must during 2016-23 pay the UK 2.350 million pounds and the Netherlands about 1.330 million euros. The sum of the two figures is equivalent to about a half of Iceland’s GDP in 2009, and seems, with reasonable asset recovery, likely to overstate the ultimate cost involved. The interest rate on the loans is 5.5% per year.

References

Buiter, W, and Sibert, A (2008), “The Icelandic Banking Crisis and What To Do About It,” CEPR Policy Insight, 26.

Danielsson, J (2010), “The Saga of Icesave,” CEPR Policy Insight, 44.

Gylfason, T (2009), “Governance, Iceland, and the IMF,” VoxEU.org, 26 September.

Gylfason, T , Holmström, B, Korkman, S, Söderström H T, and Vihriala, V (2010), “Nordics in Global Crisis,” Helsinki: ETLA.

Volcker, P (2010), “How to Reform Our Financial System,” New York Times, 31 January.

Republished with permission of VoxEU.org