Opinion

James Saft

Britain eats (leverages) its young

Nov 22, 2011 16:31 EST

James Saft is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

Four years, several failed banks and at least one global recession later, Britain has finally discovered what its young people need: 19-1 leverage.

Britain has announced a new housing initiative, the centerpiece of which is a plan to entice first-time buyers into buying newly-built properties with as little as 5 percent down.

Under the plan both builders and the government would contribute funds to partially indemnify lenders against what I am betting are the inevitable losses. Borrowers, who are almost by definition younger and less well off, will still bear all losses, but will be rewarded with the chance to take out the kind of loan which has proven time and again to be a bad idea.

This is utterly wrongheaded — the best possible thing that can happen for first-time buyers, and arguably for most Britons, is for housing prices to fall to a level commensurate with earnings.

Why are houses in Britain so difficult to afford? Partly because of problems with supply, issues that the housing plan takes some steps, almost certainly insufficient ones, to address. And also because Britons, first out of necessity and then in the fever of greed, borrowed so much money in order to wedge themselves into what little housing was available that they drove prices up to unaffordable levels.

Again, as in Europe and the U.S., we have governments which, when confronted with problems that are fundamentally about debt, decide that piling yet more debt on top is the answer. Like the European Financial Stability Facility, which has proved utterly ineffective in supporting Italian debt, this plan too will fail, but not before many people will be tempted into taking on houses and debts they ought not to risk.

Prime Minister David Cameron himself pointed out that in some places in Britain a police officer married to a nurse would not be able to buy a first home. Exactly, and the solution to that issue is not allowing young civil servants to take on more debt but rather concentrating on policies which will bring prices back into balance with household cash flows.

As it stands, most lenders in Britain require a down payment of about 20 percent, a far higher amount than required in the boom years, but historically not a particularly high figure. That’s right and prudent. People who have only been able to scratch together 5 percent of the purchase price too often prove to be not in a position to carry through on the commitment.

BRITAIN’S DEBT MOUNTAIN

To be sure, first-time buyers purchasing new houses helps to create jobs but this is a stimulative policy that depends on putting people in harm’s way for a supposedly greater good. Some borrowers will naively assume that it must be safe to borrow so disproportionately to their means simply because it is being done as part of a government program. They, however, are not the prime beneficiaries here. Instead, it is the building industry, and to a certain extent existing home owners and the banks which hold their mortgages.

It is not, after all, as if you can construct an argument that Britain has too little debt. Despite the imposition of fiscal cutbacks, overall indebtedness continues to rise and is the highest among developed nations. According to data from consultants McKinsey obtained by the BBC, aggregate indebtedness — household, company, government and bank debts taken together — is now 492 percent of British GDP, slightly higher than a year ago.

So why then when faced with debt problems do so many governments seek to solve them by adding even more leverage? For one thing in a balance sheet recession — the type we are now experiencing — all sectors of the economy try to pay down debts at the same time, creating further downward pressure in growth and asset prices. Britain’s government is attempting to pay down its own sovereign debt right now, though they are perhaps finding that the economy is deteriorating at a rate that makes this impossible.

Ultimately this phenomenon calls into question the solvency of borrowers, be they individuals owning housing, banks owning mortgages or governments backstopping banks. It is tempting then to support the asset prices by adding a bit more leverage.

What’s really needed is either a sustained bout of salutary inflation — a polite default on the debt — or some kind of organized jubilee to rebase both asset prices and the debt which supports them.

While the Bank of England is mulling yet another round of quantitative easing, the current high rate of UK inflation should fall rapidly, and shows little sign of spreading to housing.

Britain, and especially its young nurses and police, would do well to keep their heads down, save their pennies and wait for housing to fall another 20 percent in real terms, as ultimately it must.

At the time of publication James Saft did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund. You can email him at jamessaft@jamessaft.com.

COMMENT

If we are about to have a bout of deflation would nurses be advised to save? Given that NS&I have shut up shop because they know they will inflate?

If there is a debt jubilee should they not buy a massive house?

Posted by pfi | Report as abusive

Save capitalism from the banks – Nassim Taleb

Jan 30, 2009 11:31 EST

Black Swan

Nassim Nicholas Taleb,  the author of  “The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable”, has a simple proposal to as he puts it, “save capitalism and free markets from the banks.”

Nationalise the banks, limit the rewards to those who work in what he calls the “utility” part of the system and have a completely uninsured second leg that can take all the risks it wants and lose its shirt, he said in an interview in Davos at the World Economic Forum.

“They rigged the game. We pay them for their profits, there is no clawback so their incentive is to hide the risk they are taking.”

“Which is why eventually as someone who loves free markets,  a total nationalisation of the part of the business that requires insurance and does clearing and payments needs to happen.”

“I am angry with U.S. policy. What we had is exactly the opposite of socialism, they got TARP to pay their bonuses and to take more risk.”

He describes his plan as Capitalism 2.0. It would have a barbell structure, with the insured utility-like part on one end and the free market bit with privatized risk on the other.

He describes banking bonuses as asymmetric because the banker gets the upside but does not share in the liability which ultimately may be funded by taxpayers, as we have seen.

Taleb, who as you may have noticed doesn’t mince words, is no fan of private equity.

“Private equity has absolutely no reason to exist. The private equity holder has all the upside and the banks all the downside.” He’d have no objection to a system where private equity funds itself via hedge funds, so long as neither party had any recourse to government insurance.

And a bit like an Old Testament prophet, Taleb is angry and wants those he thinks are responsible to suffer.

“I want them poor and they deserve to be poor.You can’t have capitalism without punishment.”

Oh, and another thing, he wants Bob Rubin, who trousered millions while chairman of Citigroup, to cough up.

“I want Bob Rubin to return his $110 million dollars to the American taxpayer.”

James Saft is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
COMMENT

Absolute right on the nail!! And not only Bob Rubin but each and every one of the bankers who have got us into this mess should be made to pay back all the bonuses they received whilst doing so.

Posted by Adrian Head | Report as abusive

Shocker – Davosians vote against more regulation

Jan 28, 2009 07:49 EST

Duncan Niederauer, chief exec of NYSE Euronext, told a panel here at Davos that rather than inventing a whole host of new regulations, we’d be better off focusing on existing means of bringing order to markets, specifically taking a page from the exchanges books by having central clearing and more price transparancy for derivatives and off-exchange structured products. I think he’s actually got a great point about clearing and better price information, but I can’t see this as being anywhere near bringing regulation up to scratch.

The response from others on the panel was similar.

Nourial Roubini of NYU – “The ideology of the last decade was self-regulation which means no regulation. Reliance on ratings agencies with massive conflicts of interest.

“If we don’t want a backlash against trade we have to have prudential regulation of the financial system.”

Obama economic advisor Laura Tyson -

“We need regulation, we’ve tried self regulation and it doesn’t work. Psychology tells us that in a highly competitive game the insensitivity to risk grows. It’s like a drug addiction problem. They got so much pleasure that they simply stopped paying attention to the risk.”

At the end of the panel they held a vote on Niederauer’s idea and it won 71 percent to 29. Whether that was a vote for the sensible parts of his idea or for making that the whole of the regulatory effort I leave you to decide.

James Saft is a Reuters columnist. The ideas expressed are his own.

Stephen Schwarzman’s hair of the dog

Jan 28, 2009 07:33 EST

jimsaftcolumnSo what is Blackstone Group chairman Stephen Schwarzman’s prescription for solving the banking crisis?

More leverage and less transparency, apparently.

Schwarzman told a panel at Davos that you can’t mandate higher levels of bank capital at the same time losses are mounting and that mark-to-market accounting needed to be changed.

“You need lower capital. Do something with fair value accounting which is exacerbating things . . . We have to add more leverage to the system.” He further took issue with what he described as a “fixation on transparency” and said “We have to use regulators to schedule out losses.” By that I presume he means keep the bank on life support until they can make enough to absorb their losses. It did work in the 1990s with some prominent U.S. banks, but…

Laura Tyson, an economic advisor to the Obama administration, didn’t seem to be buying in to the more leverage less disclosure meme.

“Nobody trusts the private system, why should they trust them?” she said. She also mentioned the Swedish solution, which you may remember imposed some pretty tough conditions on bank shareholders. She said that voters would be watching who made money out of bailouts and would be concerned by “compensation and dividends.”

  •