The End of Wall Street

January 13, 2012

No, this isn’t a prediction of mine, but the title of the book I’ve just finished reading. Written by Wall Street Journal reporter Roger Lowenstein and published in 2010, it traces the build-up to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in 2008.

Isn’t it amazing how quickly we forget how grim it looked and sounded back then, when American banks such as Lehmans and other ginormous corporations went under or were bought and/or propped up by the US government, and it looked like the next Great Depression would happen?

It was just over three years ago now, but in the meantime various bailouts and much money-printing helped keep the wheels of commerce and consumerism spinning – at least for a while longer. And while they keep turning, we are led to believe that the problem is over. We may have a mild recession, we’re told, but the system will right itself in time and we’ll be able to get back to economic growth and raising our so-called standard of living.

I read this book aiming to understand a little better how it happened, and hoping to gain a view on how the capitalist system that the US has bestowed (or inflicted) upon the western world must be changed to turn things around to a sustainable system rather than business as usual which is merely delaying the inevitable.

You see – and I don’t want to sound like I’m bragging – I was one of those who sort of saw it coming, back before the experts were saying that “in hindsight the GFC was bound to happen but no-one could have predicted it beforehand”. It was in fact predictable, and this book shows how the storm gathered. Greed, irrational optimism and adherence to a credo that “values (particularly of real estate) always rise” combined to make most of us blind to what the dark clouds were telling us.

The author of The End of Wall Street is not an expert business reporter but simply a thorough researcher with a good reporter’s way of simplifying complex facts and parallel developments into a consistent, readable narrative. Not that I understood it all – but then not many people back then seemed to fully understand what the Wall Street traders in stocks, equities, securities, bonds, mortgage swaps, CDOs etc were actually doing. But I think I’ve got the gist of it now, thanks to Roger Lowenstein.

What the traders and banks were in fact doing was speculating on the value of anything they could get their hands on or could imagine mathematically (particularly future values), and more often than not with no inkling of the value or riskiness of those things. The name of the game was not owning anything but rather moving money, IOUs, stocks, bonds, mortgages, sliced mortgage securities, and other intangibles around between themselves, collecting a percentage along the way with each transaction along with any capital gain.

They made the hamster’s treadmill spin faster and faster (going nowhere in particular, of course) until, one day, it seized up. Perhaps a bearing broke or a spoke snagged. The Wall Street traders and banks were left with nothing tangible, nothing of intrinsic value, and no way of borrowing money to pay for the stuff they had in their hands or the debts they owed when the treadmill snagged.

Now we’re seeing something similar in effect, though different in substance, in the Euro crisis. All bailout plans are merely attempts to keep the hamster’s treadmill moving, short-term ways of keeping cash moving around by borrowing from anywhere and using the period of time before repayment is due to work out some way of doing it again to keep the lenders happy.

Anyone who publicly says what is pretty obvious – that this cannot be sustained even in the medium term – is considered an unwanted pessimist or doom-merchant. The goal of the wheel-greasing process is to maintain enough confidence among consumers and money dealers to see the system through another day, week or month. The horizon appears to be little further than this.

My view remains as I wrote in August in this post, that it’s the change of tide we should be reacting to, not the waves. The tide is coming in and we’re the children on the beach trying to build defences and diversion channels to stop the individual waves from destroying our sandcastles. In the end, the tide will win.

As Roger Lowenstein concludes, the lessons are there for the learning, and if we don’t learn them and make the changes necessary to our capitalist system, we will continue to get it wrong.


Chickens coming home to roost

September 26, 2011

That flapping you hear is the sound of chickens coming home to roost, both in European economies and around the US’s Middle East policy.

Those damn chickens are everywhere. And we realists, so often mocked as doomsayers and pessimists, are trying not to do the “I told you so” thing when we hear all the anguish and panicky guesswork coming from the capitalist world’s financial and political leaders.

Take first the world’s financial mess. What is it that makes some leaders determined to press on until the bitter end, hoping that some magic solution will soon emerge to enable us to avoid the inevitable consequences of two decades of borrowing to fund our expanding sense of self-worth and entitlement? We thought we deserved it, but in fact we deserve the consequences.

Most of us will know of certain high-flying business people who battle against the inevitable, seemingly certain that a solution to their financial problems will be found. I worked as an employee with/for two of them, one after the other, back 20-odd years ago. They were interesting (though also tragic) to watch as they told anyone who cared to listen that black was white, that a spoon was in fact a spade, and they actually seemed to believe their own lies. I remember spending hours trying to work out if they were simply deluded or exceptionally talented in telling blatent lies to suit their goals.

New Zealanders will be aware of two characters of recent or current times who have battled on for months trying to avert the inevitable – Wellington’s Terry Serepisos and Christchurch’s Dave Henderson. Their media presentations are totally plausible, just like those of the two employers I mentioned in my previous paragraph. “Problem? What problem? The solution is just around the corner! Just leave it to me.” Do you see a flicker in their eyes? A frown of self-doubt? No way! They actually believe what they’re saying, against odds that would be overwhelming to us mere mortals.

And in Henderson’s well documented case (and probably with many recently failed finance companies such as South Canterbury Finance), the answer when things get tough is to create new business entities, holding companies etc, which can lend money to each other when needed to give the appearance of business liquidity.

This seems to work as follows: Company A is struggling to pay its debts, so you create Company B, borrow money to start it up, then lend that money to Company A, just enough to get its creditors off its back for a few months. Company B won’t need to address its debt for a while yet, and when it does, a new Company C will lend it money. When creditors of Company B chase their debts, the directors say that they’re owed money by A so the creditors have to try somewhere else.

This goes on (as it appeared to do for a few years in Henderson’s case) until finally the major creditors have had enough and start working their way through the strands to wind up the core of the failing empire.

This leads to the next common feature of these debt situations – the owner of Company A, B, C etc says that if the receivers are called in or he is bankrupted, the creditors will get back very little if anything at all, so they should hang in there. In other words, his empire is too large to fail, and the best way (he says) of creditors getting anything significant out of the mess is to lend more or wait longer while the business gets on its feet. And round the circle we go yet again – everyone further in debt but too scared to call it quits. Next time around, it’s worse still.

To me, this is what is happening now in the capitalist world. We’ve lived beyond our means for a while (and got used to the lifestyle this has brought), and now the creditors are knocking on the door. So what do we do? In America you simply borrow more money (from Asia) in the hope that eventually the US will get back into the black. You’re way too big to fail.

In Europe you fluff around restructuring money and loans and bonds, shifting obligations from one entity or country or bank to another. Countries bale out other countries by borrowing from each other or from outside Europe, making it look like movement back toward financial solidity but in fact only making things worse and even more intractable.

I have no idea what it would take to remedy this, apart from winding everything back several pegs and hoping not too many people are hurt in the process. Stop borrowing for anything other than what is really needed. Buy what you need using money that you actually have. Step back to a simpler, less ambitious and less material style of life.

——————————————————

And those other chickens coming home to roost? Here I’m referring to America’s Middle East policy. I’ve long been convinced that The US’s foreign policy is riddled with double standards.

This is because it is based not on intrinsic relationships with other (equal) sovereign states, but on how best to use alliances and conflicts at that time to advance American interests. There are numerous examples of US allies becoming US enemies, and vice versa, because it suited the current strategy. Think Sadam Hussein and Osama bin Laden as allies who became demons, or Libya’s heroic revolutionary leaders who were only recently America’s enemies.

The double standards occur not only when an enemy becomes an ally, but also when two parallel situations exist and the US supports one but not the other. And this is what’s happening now in Palestine. America encourages freedom and democracy in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Syria but turns a blind eye in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and is positively antagonistic to the thought of Palestinians getting a fair deal for their democratically elected leadership.

And finally Palestine has had enough. Buoyed by the events in Egypt etc, its leaders now have the confidence to give the US and Israel the fingers and seek international acceptance at the United Nations without having to forever grovel to the demands of the US and its proxy state Israel.

I say, good on you Palestine. Go for it. I know that there will still be conflict ahead, but the call to continue negotiations with Israel while Israel continues to make more settlements on Palestine land is simply a waste of time, and has been for many years. Israel can drag negotiations on for another 10 years if it wishes, all the time taking more land and making it harder for Palestine to ever get a viable homeland.

In fact, I see the action of hard-right Jewish settlers taking more land, supported or not by their political leaders, as little different from random rockets being fired into Israel by left-wing Palestinians, with or without the support of their political leaders. Both sides are acting in ways that seek to bully the other side.

The US and Israel are becoming increasingly isolated in a region where the bullying old ruling elites are being replaced. Largely I believe they brought it upon themselves. Those chickens are starting to roost.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers