GDPR Notice

GDPR Notice:
Please note that Google, Blogger, Adsense and other Google services may be using cookies and doing whatever they do. Please take notice that by using this blog you give your consent to those activities.
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 06, 2020

Will US Dollar collapse? What will be an alternate currency? What about Gold?

At this point I am not sure Dollar collapse is closer. 

A dollar collapse needs to have three points - 
  1. The fundamental weakness in USD (we have this more or less) 
  2. a World not reliant on US consumer demand 
  3. A strong challenger

Last 2 conditions are not met - at least not yet. Euro has its flaws and needs to iron those out before it can become a challenger. Yuan will not be a challenger. SDR is closest option we have but there are issues there too. I am not confident of the blockchain currencies that exist presently.

IF Dollar is really stressed we may go back to a gold-peg rather than other currencies. In fact, gold peg may be quite a good Fed policy for the short term.

If we correct the SDR structure then eventually even the US would love to have a 2-level currency system. 


Previously I have discussed views on US Dollars here:
Dollar, the International Currency system and the Ghosts of Connally

Friday, February 08, 2019

About Australian banks and Australian property


John Hempton highlights something interesting today about resignation of top Australian Bankers.

Back in 2016 John Hempton and Jonathan Tepper of Variant Perception conducted research by personally meeting with the real estate brokers and seeking apartments to buy. In a sort of reply of scenes from the Big Short, they found banks wanting on the paperwork, mortgages being sold to those with questionable ability to repay. You can read some media reports about this here, here or here.

Today John Hempton wrote about recent firing in light of the final report of the Royal commission into banking and detailed allegation therein. John Hempton says:
Anyway come the Royal Commission Dr Henry talked to the Commission in a frank and open way about the problems. It was Dr Henry being Dr Henry: honest, competent, and realistic.

It came off badly. I remember the grilling he got from the Royal Commission and understood what was happening. It was clear that what was required from the Royal Commission was kowtow, rather than honest frank discussion. Dr Henry looked bad even though he was probably the single most reliable and honest witness the banks put up.

The Royal Commissioner made specific findings against Dr Henry and Andrew Thornburn. This surprised me because on my research National Australia Bank was the best of a bad lot, both in absolute level of moral decay and in direction.

The report quotes Dr. Henry and Thorburn in many places. The transcripts do not show Dr. Henry in good light. The transcript indicates that possibly Dr. Henry took this too lightly. He did not do any homework. A deposition once you are sworn in is a serious business. I do not sympathize with Dr. Henry.

The transcript of some others reveal that they kept repeating from jargon books and PR manuals. To that extent whatever their deep rooted ills did not come out. 

Implication for property market
There are two fundamental issues with the housing and mortgage markets. 

First the search for yields and the quantum of capital available makes real estate the best asset class to absorb the QE effects. It is doing precisely that. So some of the price appreciation is attributable to this. The macro policies have created this asset builders boom - create an asset and sell it to REIT type holders at ludicrous cap rates without any regard to final consumer.

Second, the problems in mortgages are of banks creation. As banks search for return in a tight market they have crossed the limits. The crisis in Australian banks is part of continuum that includes Wells Fargo opening accounts for customers to US sub-prime crisis. It may not be as acute but it is part of the same class.

Learnings for Commissions in India
The commission for banking has its website and documentation spot on. I urge Indian commissions to maintain such kind of records open for public scrutiny.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

RBI minutes of meeting - Was RBI unanimous in its monetary policy?

The Reserve Bank of India released the minutes of the third meeting of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC). In that meeting two important decisions were made. Firstly, the rates were left unchanged and second the stance was changed to "neutral" from "accommodative". While the first was in the deliberation set of the market, the second truly spooked the market. Markets were not expecting a change of policy stance. There was speculation about if the decision was, in fact, unanimous or not.

Well, the minutes do not give us that clarity. Indian mentality is to deliberate and discuss the differences and then once consensus is reached, the decision is "unanimous". The deliberations and differences are left out of the public statement. 

The statement includes this explanation as such:

3] According to Section 45ZL of the amended Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Reserve Bank shall publish, on the fourteenth day after every meeting of the Monetary Policy Committee, the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting which shall include the following, namely:–
(a) the resolution adopted at the meeting of the Monetary Policy Committee;
(b) the vote of each member of the Monetary Policy Committee, ascribed to such member, on resolutions adopted in the said meeting; and
(c) the statement of each member of the Monetary Policy Committee under sub-section (11) of section 45ZI on the resolution adopted in the said meeting.
In effect, the minutes of MPC are nothing but public statement or press release for the MPC and is duly sanitised. It does not state of any differences between the MPC members. Nevertheless, the committee seems to have been unanimous on both the aspects of the decision. The committee has made some important statements: [formatting changes for improved readability are mine]

On Inflation 
It is important to note three significant upside risks that impart some uncertainty to the baseline inflation path – 
  • the hardening profile of international crude prices; 
  • volatility in the exchange rate on account of global financial market developments, which could impart upside pressures to domestic inflation; and 
  • the fuller effects of the house rent allowances under the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) award which have not been factored in the baseline inflation path.  
The focus of the Union budget on growth revival without compromising on fiscal prudence should bode well for limiting upside risks to inflation. 

On GVA growth 
GVA growth for 2016-17 is projected at 6.9 per cent with risks evenly balanced around it. Growth is expected to recover sharply in 2017-18 on account of several factors. 
First, discretionary consumer demand held back by demonetisation is expected to bounce back beginning in the closing months of 2016-17. 
Second, economic activity in cash-intensive sectors such as retail trade, hotels and restaurants, and transportation, as well as in the unorganised sector, is expected to be rapidly restored. 
Third, demonetisation-induced ease in bank funding conditions has led to a sharp improvement in transmission of past policy rate reductions into marginal cost-based lending rates (MCLRs), and in turn, to lending rates for healthy borrowers, which should spur a pick-up in both consumption and investment demand. 
Fourth, the emphasis in the Union Budget for 2017-18 on stepping up capital expenditure, and boosting the rural economy and affordable housing should contribute to growth. 

The Committee inflation and growth expectations are mapped as follows:

The forecasts do lend legitimacy to the neutral stance. The statement includes emphasis on "caliberated approach" to achieve the 4% target. Urjit Patel clarified that neutral stance implies that rates can move any direction. Thus, in effect turns out to be quite benign policy.


Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Tax as a destabilising force - Border Adjustment Tax

John Mauldin, a prolific commentator, is well connected to the Republican establishment. He has recently concluded a three-part series titled Tax Reform: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly on the coming tax reform in the US. The parts can be found here - first, second and third. It is a must read. 

The US is trying to simplify tax structures. This, by itself, is nothing new. All the countries have been trying since time immemorial to simplify tax codes. Surprisingly, they keep getting more complicated. I do not think "simplify" means what you think it means. But this time, it does seem simpler. Let us not jump the gun, it is still early days. Let the bureaucrats have a go at it and it will come out as complicated as it has ever been. Nevertheless, the intent seems to be right.

The disturbing part is the way BAT or Border Adjustment Tax is supposed to work. John paints a pretty grim picture and rightly so of the adverse consequences of ill-thought out Border adjustment tax. Mauldin and his friend Charles Gave, both seem to suggest that this move will disturb the present equilibrium. Other republicans do not think so. But there is merit in Mauldin-Gave arguments.

And then I read the US intelligence’s ‘Global Trends, Paradox of Progress’ report. That is another bleak report. What is disturbing is that the world seems to be in a precarious balance at present and 5 years out. Some situations in next 5 years as highlighted by the report:



Now the timing of BAT by Trump has become exceptionally crucial. At times in history you get amplified impact because historically small acts happened at unstable times. Here we are faced with a big act at unstable point. In effect, we are beholden to Trump's good sense, pragmatism and sense of leadership.

Interesting times these.

Monday, February 20, 2017

Why is the current easy-monetary policy ineffective?

Ben Inker, head of GMO's Asset Allocation team had a great article this quarter.


It has been the extended period of time in which extremely low interest rates, quantitative easing, and other expansionary monetary policies have failed to either push real economic activity materially higher or cause in ation to rise. The establishment macroeconomic theory says one or the other or both should have happened by now. It seems to us that there are two basic possibilities for why the theory was wrong. 
The first is a secular stagnation explanation of the type proposed by Larry Summers and others. 
The second possibility for why extraordinarily easy monetary policy has not had the expected effects on the economy and prices is an even simpler one: Monetary policy simply isn’t that powerful. is line of argument (which Jeremy Grantham has written about a fair bit over the years) suggests that the reason why monetary policy hasn’t had the expected impact on the real economy is that monetary policy’s connection to the real economy is fairly tenuous.

In this context, there are some important aspects.

First, monetary policy and economy are connected to each other by feedback loops. By now, every market participant knows that if there is any inflation up-tick the monetary policy will be tightened. This information prods the participants in asset classes where the inflation impact will be low. A look at inflation basket will tell us which are these sectors where price runs will not affect inflation. Exotic assets are in fashion for this reason. Art, diamonds, high-end real estate (trophy), luxury items etc all form part of this group.

Second, why does the low-cost debt not push investment for improving productivity for general items that form part of the inflation basket? The answer is there is no demand. When the market concludes that there is a substantial demand to justify the investment then the investments will come. There is no demand because there is excess capacity, predominantly in China for manufactured goods. This is the reason monetary policy is not effective. 

Monetary policy is effective when there is underlying demand is strong. Without demand monetary policy is just an enabling environment for nothing in particular.  That the monetary policy is not working is itself a data point. It is telling us that the masses do not have the purchasing power to fuel a demand pick-up. There are two reasons.

Most of these masses derive their incomes from the products that make up the inflation basket. If inflation remains subdued, their incomes remain subdued. The low-interest rate has reduced the cost of capital meaning it is cheaper to deploy robots instead of people. So in fact machines are replacing some jobs. These two factors currently suppress the purchasing power. To compensate, people want to build higher threshold of income-level before they start consuming normally. So, the general population is busy buttressing their purchasing power. 

The second reason is that the pre-crisis demand was inflated by debt. The low-cost debt created a hyper-demand which may never return. At the same time, the debts from the past consumption binge have come due. So the indebted families are busy working their debts off. If all the debts of the bottom 50% of the population were simply forgiven, it would have been cheaper than QE. But it would have immediately buttressed the purchasing power of the masses. 

It is a complicated explanation, but it cannot be simplified any more. When feedback systems are interacting, you will get complexity.


Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Should democracies reclaim power over production of money?

Ann Pettifor writes a blog post drawing on her new book "The Production of Money: How to Break the Power of Bankers" saying as much. At the outset I must say that I love to read her articles and posts and I have tremendous respect for her.

Her diagnosis is that our present predicament is the following: (emphasis mine)
It is my view that current economic disorder is largely caused by the invisibility, the lack of transparency, and the intangibility of the international financial system – the cause of recurring global economic failure. The fact that the system cannot be seen or understood, that it is opaque to society, means that it cannot be changed or transformed by society. Widespread ignorance of the workings of the great public good that is our monetary system has made society vulnerable. Ignorance enables those financial interests that have wrested control of the system away from democracies, to continue to undermine the security of society. 
If democracies are to once again subordinate the finance sector to the role of servant to the real economy, it is vital that the public gains greater understanding of the monetary system – which I believe to be a great public good. That is the ambition of my modest book, The Production of Money.
This book indeed will be interesting. At present, I am only commenting about this post. I am with her up to this point.  Understanding the monetary and banking system is indeed important. But then she cites an example of the system:
The reality of life under a model that elevates the global over the domestic economy was starkly exposed recently by the fate of a small tea room based in Highcliffe Castle, Dorset. The tea-room had been owned and run by a local, Sean Kearney, for 17 years. It was put out to tender by the council. The company that won the tender was a global behemoth – the $14bn Aramark corporation, that owns prisons and canteens worldwide and is headquartered in Philadelphia. 
This ‘storm in a tearoom’ as The Times dubbed it, was a classic example of how today’s economic model fails the people of Britain. It pits the minnow of a locally-owned tea room against a globally powerful and financially mobile shark. This is not free market competition. This is grossly unfair, economic slaughter of a viable business. As a result Sean Kearney may well now become one of those ‘left behind’ by British government policies.
I am not sure I understand this. There are too many confusing ideas at play. Are we against a buyout of small companies by big ones? Are we against a buyout of local companies by foreign companies? Are councils beholden to grant tenders to local individuals? 

Then she says:
Depressingly, our politicians – on both sides of the House – learn nothing from this. Despite all the nationalist rhetoric, we know that the dominant economic model that led to the populist uprising for Brexit has not been seriously challenged by the Conservative party, or any of our politicians. The government will continue to stand aside as footloose, mobile capital uses its absolute advantage to swallow up the enterprising minnows of the economy, and to wreak havoc on society’s social, economic, and political goals.
This example is very casually stated - it does not buttress the case of the book. In fact, governments that intervene in such deals are frowned upon by commentators like Ann Pettifor. Such protectionist interventions are limited to companies where strategic interests are involved. (Ports, dams, critical road or intellectual property etc.) What is surprising are the steps suggested to control the capital are even more onerous.
Capital control over both inflows and outflows, is, and will always be a vital tool for doing so. In other words, if we really want to ‘take back control’ we will have to bring offshore capital back onshore. That is the only way to restore order to the domestic economy, but also to the global economy. 
Second, monetary relationships must be carefully managed – by public, not private authority. Loans must primarily be deployed for productive employment and income-generating activity. Speculation leads to capital gains that can rise exponentially. But speculation can also lead to catastrophic losses. Loans for rent-seeking and speculation, gambling or betting, must be made inadmissible. 
Third, money lent must not be burdened by high, unpayable real rates of interest. Rates of interest for loans across the spectrum of lending – short- and long-term, in real terms, safe and risky – must, again, be managed by public, not private authority if they are to be sustainable and repayable, and if debt is not going to lead to systemic failure. Keynes explained how that could be done with his Liquidity Preference Theory, still profoundly relevant for policy-makers, & largely ignored by the economics profession.
This takes the pendulum in the other direction. I have a problem with this approach.

Removing the power of creating money from Banks 
It is a bad idea. The function of banks in a properly governed system is to create money where there is a potential for creating value. This distributed money creation helps create money at the point where it is most useful. And the same time if it is not useful a money incurs a cost that is interesting and expense on the bank's balance sheet. The core principles of this process have been undermined in the recent years. But that does not mean the principle is bad. 

Dr Pettifor suggests that a public body needs to take charge of this function. In fact, governments or public agencies are absolutely the worst agency to create money. If you imagine a bureaucratic agency like central bank to take it over then you will end up with delays. Further such bureaucratic institutions are open to regulatory capture by the same banks.

The alternative is the political system. Political systems are best geared to determine "policy direction" and not operations. Thus, without expertise, if you let politicians determine the money creations you will have a worse system than what you have.

The problem with the present system is not that it has failed. But it is that it does not fail enough. The regulatory mechanisms are mollycoddling the banking industry. Because of regulatory interventions, banks do not fear the losses from risk-taking. In my book, Subverting Capitalism & Democracy I call this failure of attribution. Regulation should make these losses more directly attributable to the banks. So no bailouts. Increase capital buffers - Anat Admati recommends 30%. There should also be an unlimited liability to shareholders to the extent of losses caused by their firm. 

The "bad" debt and capital issue
Dr Pettifor is right when she says that interest rates cannot be ridiculously high. Credit-card industry is a prime example. It is in a dire need for regulatory oversight. The Elizabeth Warren's initiative to reduce the credit-card agreement to readable short form is commendable.

She is also right to the extent that loans should not be made for non-productive uses. In effect, she implies we need to differentiate good debt from bad debt. This is absolutely critical and I have said so before. Productive debt creates an asset of higher value than the debt itself.

The question we need to ask is why banks were ready to lend for non-productive activities. The answer lies in the export-led growth model pursued by developing countries - first Japan, then South East Asia and then finally China. To hold their exchange rates low they created dollar reserves sending large amounts of capital into the US. The US has benefitted enormously from this available capital. It pushed the risk curve lower thereby sending funds (venture capital) into high-risk ventures. Without the return-lowering effect of this capital Google, Yahoo, Facebook none of this would be possible.

Another side of the problem, the expert central banks have kept interest rates too low for too long. This low-interest rate regime has caused some damage resulting in mal-investment. It has also pushed capital as an alternative to labour leading to lower quality employment.

In recent years the tide has turned. The new capital was generated by consumption overseas. This capital does not want to return to the US - because of taxes and other reasons. But more importantly, this capital does not want to finance bad investment (debt or equity). If you really think it through most of the low-hanging "productive" opportunities are in developing countries. In effect, what the capital is saying is that - on a post-tax level the capital cannot create a positive, real return in the US. If such returns were possible this capital would have flown back to the US.

The real problem
Dr Pettifor's line that "you need to cut out the bankers from the production of money" may be paraphrased for marketing reasons but it is not a solution. However simple we want life to be, the reality is it is quite complex. The solution to the 2008 financial crisis is fixing the various failed incentives structures created by public systems. The solution is not the let public systems go berserk in other areas. The solution is to reorient the incentives - one by one. It is not a glamorous solution but it is the only thing that will work.



Thursday, December 08, 2016

Demonetisation - What if deposits in banks are greater than 15 Lac Crores?

On November 28th the Reserve Bank of India stated that
Banks have since reported that such exchange/deposits effected from November 10, 2016 upto November 27, 2016 amounted to ₹ 8,44,982 crore (exchange amounted to ₹ 33,948 crore and deposits amounted to ₹ 8,11,033 crore). They have also reported that the public have withdrawn, during this period, ₹ 2,16,617 crore from their accounts either over the counter or through ATMs.

The expectation was that thereafter the RBI will release similar data every Monday. On Dec. 5th, when RBI did not release the data for the week past, speculation was rife that most of the money may have actually returned to the RBI. And further that it amounts to a failure of the policy and that there is no black money at all. 

The amount forecasted / estimated by sources of journalists is Rs. 12.6 Trillion. has been deposited in banks till Dec 6. Total bank notes in circulation as of Nov. 8 was about Rs. 15 Trn. We still have about 3 weeks to go. 

The correct way to establish how much money has returned is to look at this 8.44 Tr figure. That is the focus. 

So weekly average is about Rs. 2.8 Trn as per RBI and as per Moneycontrol it is about  Rs. 3.15 Trn per week. Going by the same run-rate estimates we can get at least Rs. 19.64 Trn to Rs. 22.46 Tr. If you understand the "last-minute" psyche of Indians, I think last week will get at least twice the weekly deposits. Then you will get between Rs. 22.4 Tr to Rs. 25.2 Tr. 

Please note that these numbers are more than Rs. 5Tr  to Rs. 10 Tr more than what RBI has printed. 


So here are my thoughts on this:

  1. It is OK if all the money comes back to the RBI and either gets changed or deposited in the banks. It means there won't be any disinflation because of loss of currency. 
  2. If money is deposited in the bank that does not make it white money. It merely becomes visible black money as opposed to invisible black money. Knowledge of the quanta so revealed that itself is a benefit. Further, it is open for authorities to review and tax these proceeds accordingly. So it is ok if the deposits reach Rs. 15 Tr. 
  3. The problem is what happens when the total deposits/exchanged amount exceeds Rs. 15 Trn. Once it reaches 15 Trn can RBI tell banks now don't accept any more notes? Or it accepts and asks Government to pay (reverse of dividend)? [Please refer to my previous blog-post on Black money and demonetisation before demonizing me.]
  4. I would say, the fact that entire Rs. 15 Trn comes back itself means that the problem of Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN) was more potent than was admitted previously. If our run-rate calculations turn out correctly, FICN could be between 33% and 66% of legitimate Indian Notes. That is not a joke. It is also a success of the Demonetisation drive.
  5. I would say about 20-25% of the notes would have been definitely destroyed. But given the tax amnesty announced let us assume about 10-15% were destroyed. The black economy was estimated at 20-25%. Assuming some can be dissipated as white (through jan-dhan and other tricks) we can say at least 10% would be black. Still about 20% of the currency in circulation could be FICN. Compare this with estimates of about 2-5%. 
To top it all Modi did not ask for 50 days to clean up the black money he asked for 17 months. So there will be more action coming. This will be interesting, to say the least.

Friday, December 02, 2016

Idiotic debate on Demonetization

Since the announcement of demonetization we have quite a lot of noise but no analysis. I am on the look out for genuine criticism of the policy.

Semantics of false criticism
There is a lot of criticism of the government's policy. The international criticism is uninformed and disconnected from Indian ground realities. Quite a bit is a shallow analysis of Nigeria, USSR and some other countries which had demonetized previously. Generally, the criticism falls into the following buckets:
  1. Demonetization alone will not stop black money: That is not proper criticism. 
    1. The government never maintained that it will. 
    2. In fact, Finance ministry circular highlights various measures undertaken by the government till date. 
    3. Further, the prime minister indicated that this was just the beginning and more announcement will come.
  2. Removing 85% of the currency will cause a lot of pain to the people
    1. Well when you ask the people, most are happy with it. Some are very angry. In a country of 1.2 billion you will have voices. 
    2. The prime minister took a smart-phone based app poll which revealed 90% approve of the move. Media quickly jumped up stating the questions are biased. I myself took the poll. The questions were not as biased as media made them out to be. It is a fair poll - you CAN express dissent if you don't like the move.
    3. But the fact remains none of the media channels or anyone tried to do a sms-based poll. We can have a poll for Indian Idol or some crazy show, can media people not fashion a proper poll and report if people are indeed pro- or against.
    4. I tried to go through You-Tube videos about demonetisation uploaded after November 28. I suspected people will give proper reaction once they have been in ATM lines for a few days. I left out videos uploaded by news channels and focussed on videos uploaded by general people. Not many have uploaded but I found one by Roshini Ali & her friend exploring the poor of Kolkata informative. One other fellow explored Mumbai and Aurangabad but he wasn't as comprehensive as Roshini Ali.
  3. Economy will be hurt as currency is withdrawn from circulation
    1. This is the closest people have come to making rational arguments. I don't mind general public making this argument. But from experts, I expect more.
    2. Many experts confuse the measured part of the economy (GDP etc) with unmeasured part (black economy). In an extreme view, since the black economy is not measured its destruction won't affect measured economy. That is flawed as black and white economies intermingle often. Yet they are not quite as intermingled as people make it out to be.
    3. A substantial part of the black economy comes from tax evasion. For example, sales without bill are quite rampant in India. Over billing (for cold drinks) is also rampant. These are black transactions. With proper triggers, these transactions will come to the white economy. (Though demonetization is not that trigger).
  4. Only time will tell if it works:
    1. I understand general public expressing this sentiment. It is a healthy attitude to take.
    2. But when experts take this position, I don't like this. I expect the experts to define their goals for the policy - when will they say it worked. 
    3. And I want them to state it now not once results are out. Because once data is available the narrative will be tailored to the outcome.
    4. Further, be realistic as to what can be achieved by demonetization. I don't want people setting targets "I want black money to become zero".
    5. I want to see the goal post that is set out by all these experts.
  5. Bull-shit interviews/feedback:
    1. Many interviews of government officials and supporters of policy are quite brash. The interviewer does not want to know the policy but instead he wants to hammer the expert. Karan Thaper did that to Bibek Debroy (who I don't really admire - but he is most lucid in the lengthy Ashok Malik interview).
    2. Most media reporting is negative and most general people reporting is positive. One TV channel interviewed a Hindi Speaking shopkeeper in Chennai.
    3. If I watch TV channels interviews then I get different pictures. Pro-government channels say good things and anti-government channels always highlight bad things.
    4. Some channels have shown non-working ATMs quite a few times. And others have shown longer queues giving impression that the queues are that long all the time. People who are on the ground dont find that many long queues all the time.
    5. I have concluded that most of the people do not yet understand what exactly the possible strategy is. None have read the Arthakranti proposal even those who have interviewed the founder Anil Bokil.

Basic framework
Just wanted to clarify one thing here.

Tackling Black money requires a repository of measures. Yes many measures together will help reduce black money. Black money cannot be eliminated completely, it can be reduced drastically.

Demonetisation results in many things out of which one is hurting black money transactions. It freezes the black money transactions and not the assets created out of black money. It also results in other effects - anti-counterfeiting, promoting cash-less transactions etc.

The two are only slightly overlapping. Government hasn't claimed that demonetisation is only aimed at black money. It has correctly stated the what demonetisation can achieve. To confuse the two only shows your ignorance.


Policy Details - possible and others
For interested readers who want to know what is the possible logic behind Government's measures, you can parse some of the links here:
  1. Amithabh Kant on CNN (focusses on going cash-less)
  2. Anil Bokil on ABPMaza (in Marathi) in Anil Bokil in Hindi
  3. Arthakranti Proposal (click here for benefits, benefits to individuals, objections)
  4. Bibek Debroy on Demonetisation and other issues
  5. Ken Rogoff author of The curse of Cash advises gradual demonetisation of high-value notes.
  6. James Henry's article calling for surprise currency recall (from Ken Rogoff)


Setting Goalposts
It is important to set out clear goals when we announce the success of a measure. My goalpost is thus:
  1. I want to evaluate current demonetisation on following parameters:
    1. Total amount deposited with banks / total currency in circulation: I suspect we will get close to entire currency in circulation back into the bank accounts/exchanged. This is because I suspect counterfeit currency in the system is to the tune of 40% i.e. ~ Rs. 6 Trillion making total currency in circulation at ~Rs. 20Trillion.
    2. GDP in Q3 and Q4 of FY 2017 should not reduce more than 1.5%. Thus I expect Q3 and Q4 to be at least 5.8%
    3. Net bank deposits gain: After stabilization, i.e. say by Sep 2017, bank deposits should appreciate by at least 40% of currency in circulation i.e. Rs. 6 Trillion. This is figure after deposits and withdrawals have stabilized.
    4. Share of E-transactions: As per Mastercard data 2% of transactions (number) are cash-less. I would like this number to be around 33% ~ 1 of every 3 transactions should be cashless. 
  2. With respect to Black Money targeting, there should be a continuous targeting of black money holders and black economy.
  3. Tax simplification and rationalization proposal in Union Budget 2017 (which will be in January). I think we should try Banking Transaction Tax once 2 out of 3 transactions are cashless.



Monday, November 14, 2016

Black Money & Demonetization


The Government of India announced that the Rs 500 and Rs. 1000 denominated currency notes will cease to be legal tender. The move was targeted towards tackling black money, corruption and terrorism. After initial euphoria, questions began to emerge. What are the costs of this demonetization? Will it be effective if people can still create new black money thereafter? Will it increase the GDP? Will it increase inflation? What about tax revenues? We look for answers.

Black money and demonetisation
To start off, black money is a wider societal ill and demonetisation is but one step in the war against black money.

Black money and black economy are also two different constructs. The terms shadow economy and underground economy are also used as synonyms for black economy. 

Black money is the currency of black economy. It refers to illegal money earned from illegal sources which has not been disclosed to the government. The advantage of black money is that it links into the legitimate economy, uses the advantages of the legitimate economy but does not pay the costs.
Research on tackling black money

The issue of black money has been well-explored. The National Institute of Public Finance and Policy has been active in research about black money. Their 1983 survey of estimates of Black Money[1] led to a report on Aspects of Black Money[2] in 1985. The Report of 2012 titled Measures to tackle Black Money in India and Abroad[3] and the 2012 White Paper on Black Money[4] by Ministry of Finance covers the various research studies and updates them. These studies however have not been able to determine a consistent estimation of the black economy. The estimates, including from other sources, vary from 15% to 45% of the total economy. The papers, however, give a broad spectrum of mechanisms to deal with black money.

Apart from the above Indian initiatives, there have been global initiatives to tackle “underground economy” or “shadow economy”. Primarily, the principles remain the same. Internationally, I find, they focus more on facilitating voluntary compliance than enforcement. Maintaining trust and confidence in tax system takes precedence[5]. They also recommend risk based monitoring mechanisms, coordination amongst revenue departments and education among other things[6].

Principles of tackling black money
The first principle is that remove the systemic pain that leads to creation of black money in the first place. Blame lies with the tax department. Black money is nothing but money generated in legitimate transactions which are hidden from government so as to avoid paying the transaction cost (usually tax) in the legitimate economy[7]. This is usually done by using physical cash. This cash thereafter must be processed to convert into consumption or investment. Black economy refers to various activities, transactions etc. that help process this physical cash, create returns on this cash, facilitate consumption using this cash etc. 

The second principle has two parts. First, not all cash transactions are necessarily black money transaction. They become black money transactions only if they are hidden from the legitimate economy. Thus, a shop-keeper who does not give receipt but declares the sale (it’s only hypothetical) does not create black money. Conversely, a shop-keeper who gives a receipt but discloses other receipt book to the tax authorities (happens all the time) creates black money transaction. Second, the black money must at some time or other be plugged into legitimate economy. Thus, it cannot be done using user-created currency that cannot be exchanged with local currency. So it depends on legal tender. It means somewhere down the chain there must exist a person for whom part of this black money is legal cash income which he can use for his own consumption in legitimate channels. Usually, this is the construction worker, or other poorest of the poor who will give certain services and his income will remain under the government radar. It can also be illegal traders in gold or diamonds etc. who can convert this into precious items that have quasi-legal tender status. 

The third insight is that black economy is continuously fed by parts of white economy that go underground. Quite a few people who do not want to promote black money contribute to it. They are either coerced – say developer forcing buyer to pay him in cash or government officer seeking bribes in cash. Therefore, preventing white money from becoming black the starting point. The recommendations of Report titled Measures to tackle Black Money in India and Abroad describe some strategies. The core principle is to increase the cost of converting legitimate money into cash (wherein government loses ability to track it) and reducing the cost of electronic transfer also promotes electronic transactions. 

Black money flows through a separate channel. Such channel has infrastructure to handle black money. The fact is black money seldom remains in cash. It moves into high value items like real estate, diamonds, gold, films etc. The people involved in these sectors have well-evolved mechanisms to absorb black money. One way is to create entire value chains that use only cash. It is easy in sectors where workers/suppliers are unorganised, contract workers – e.g. Construction, films production etc. Bringing systematic regulations that make it easy for the participants in the value chain to accept electronic payments will curb black money.

Black economy depends on black money financiers. These are money lenders earning like 2% per month on their investments for financing the activities in black money friendly sectors. Film financing, construction financing, financing retailers, dance bars, alcohol, etc. These financiers also need enforcement mechanism to ensure their money is safe. Naturally they ally with criminal elements. Al Capone, the famous Chicago mobster, was previously an enforcer but later a financier. 

Black money faces the same invest or consume choice as legitimate money. On the investment side, it seeks sectors that are friendly for black money. So those people who buy many apartments from developers and developer later sells these for profit, are contributing to investment side when their agreements are not registered and do not pay stamp duty. Jewellers and traders of precious stones also contribute helpfully in this area.

On the consumption side, black money seeks to buy three things legitimate goods that can be consumed openly (i.e. normal things in abnormal amounts – say many shoes, many suits etc.), illegitimate goods that can be consumed secretly (banned or imported exclusive foods – caviar or expensive wines, expensive furnishings, home decorations etc.) or stored secretly (high-end safes, etc.). Within these sectors there exists trails that lead to the people hoarding the money.

Black money is also used in legitimate investments. Foreign channels play critical role. Quite substantial investments in P-Notes is actually round-tripped black money. The key aspect of these instruments is create anonymity by being away from arms of the laws of the country from where income can be fed into the legitimate hands. In such cases, the source of income is illegal. Thus, many businesses in tax-havens such as Mauritius, Cayman Islands etc. exist to convert illegal money into legal money. Many of these investments come under the purview of money laundering.

Incentives for electronic transactions help prevent use of cash. Income tax deductions on credit cards or e-payments up to a certain limit can incentivise electronic transfers. South Korea used credit card income deduction experiment has been hailed as a success by OECD.

Strategies for tackling Black Money
The distillation of various approaches can be summarised as under:
  1. Establish identity of persons (through PAN Card, Aadhar Card etc.) operating in the country – citizens and foreigners.
  2. Enable low the cost direct bank transfers (Implementation of NEFT/IMPS/RTGS and other formats) including direct transfers of subsidies to the beneficiaries under the Aadhar scheme.
  3. Enable electronic register of assets (Underway through electronic land records, digitisation of revenue records)
  4. Reform tax system so that cost of compliance is lower than cost of tax evasion. (through initiatives such as Saral forms, e-filing, self-declaration etc.) Indirect tax system through simplification (GST).
  5. Widen the net for disclosure by filing Income Tax return. (auto-processing returns for tax refunds)
  6. Regulations that increase costs for black money creating activities. (Prevention of Corruption Act etc.)
  7. Create attribution chain for funds entering and exiting the country (such as through P-Notes, FDI, Prevention of Money Laundering Act etc.)
  8. Create e-trails of both incomes and expenditure.
  9. Control on holding of cash and physical money including Indian and foreign money. (FEMA, recent demonetisation)
It is clear that black money clean up is underway on many fronts. Many of the pieces of puzzle have been put in place.

Semantics of the current demonetisation
Demonetisation is the mechanism by which the government states to withdraw the money which is current legal tender. The government being sovereign can take such decision. The effect of this announcement is that the currency notes in circulation will now cease to be valid tender and can only be exchanged at the banks. Demonetisation of higher denomination notes as an idea has been around[8].

There are two important issues with respect to the present demonetization. First, that the notes ceased to be legal tender from midnight of 8th November just 4 hours after announcement. So in effect the only places where they will be accepted will be banks. Second, even the banks have been given time until when they can accept the notes – 30th December. Third, the cash swap carries restriction. Thus, in effect the announcement forces these notes into the banks deposits within a short period of time.

As per RBI estimates[9], 15billion notes of 500 denomination (approx. Rs. 7853.75 billion) and 6 billion notes of 1000 denominations (approx. Rs. 6325.68 billion) exist. In addition, RBI estimates that fake 0.2 million notes of Rs. 500 and 0.15million notes of Rs. 1000 were discovered. The actual number of fake notes in circulation will be higher. These will be worthless from 09 November 2016 but you can get the credit for the money held as these notes in the form of bank deposit. Naturally, those who can disclose deposits equal to the amount they hold in cash will have no problem.

Hasn’t it been done before?
Indeed, it has. The first demonetization took place in 1946 and Rs 1000 and Rs 10,000 notes were demonetized. Later in 1978, Rs. 1000, Rs. 5000 and Rs. 10,000 were demonetized. This is the third time demonetization has taken place. 

The critical difference is in the quantum however. The first and second demonetisations effected really high value notes which formed a small part of notes in circulation. We can arrive at the estimates by comparing the denomination of the note with the annual per capital GDP. In 1960, India’s per-capita GDP was Rs. 400 (then currency), in 1978 per capita GDP was Rs. 1722/- whereas today it is Rs. 103,000/- (today’s currency). [10]Thus in 1960, a 1000 Rupee note was 2.5X and in 1978 it was 0.5X per capita GDP, considerably easy to withdraw. The second aspect is that today the 500/- and 1000/- currency notes represents ~85% of physical money in circulation. At that time, it was considerable less[11].

RBI earlier removed pre-2005 notes of all denominations from circulation as they have fewer security features compared with subsequent notes. The process of removing the older notes from circulation continued for nearly one year. The deadline was extended till December 2015 and those notes continued to remain legal tender till November 8. This was not exactly demonetisation but removing from circulation and has now subsumed into the present demonetisation.

Why attack the cash?
First, who holds black money in cash? Mostly corrupt people. Their pay-offs are in suitcases and hoarded in their houses. These are balances held till they find their target investments. A lot of black money itself is mainly held in gold and land. 

As explained earlier, cash, i.e. black money is the currency of black economy. The government cannot do much about black money that remain stagnant if it remains a legal tender. But remove the legality of it and the government is able to alter the cost-benefits equation of corruption. Demonetisation attacks the currency supply of the black economy. But removing the cash available to buy these gold and you affect the supply chains in black economy. When the flow gets interrupted the cost of corruption increases and payoff reduces dramatically. Such action attacks the chain that processes black money.

It is possible that as a result land prices and gold prices will fall. If land prices fall, middle class will be able to purchase land. If gold purchases are reduced, the forex pressure on INR will ease a bit. Thus, legitimate money which was being priced out of the economy gets an opportunity. Further, it prevents the black money processing chains from forcing white money into black.

Inflationary or Deflationary 
Firstly, part of the actual money in circulation is never recovered. Depending on various conditions, at least 20% of this paper money will never reach banks. This stock of money is lost. Many believe this to be deflationary. It isn’t. Since this money was never within the legal purview it was meaningless anyways. From government’s point of view, it was like the money we forgot in an old diary and the diary was lost. This money did contribute to the economy but to smaller extent.

Some say “but this money was being used to buy Audis and other luxury goods”. This is weak argument. Audi as a company does not receive unaccounted money (if they do that is criminal as well). The black money chain in such cases effectively starts with the dealers who game the system by discounting the vehicle or by making the vehicle pre-owned, prior owner being the dummy person. In either of these cases the black money is circulating to other illegal users. If such deals are curtailed it is good – not bad. In any case a black money purchaser who pays Rs. 2.5 million to buy Rs. 4 million Audi then can buy a Skoda legitimately. 

Will it work?
One argument is we tried it in 1978 and failed. Of course we failed. First the notes demonetized were too large for the size of the economy. Second, we can fairly estimate that the black economy may not have used the super high value notes as much too. The present action has better chance of success as it proceeds logically. First, people across India were given an Identity card (Aadhar), then bank accounts were opened for them (Jan-Dhan), and people across India can transfer money using SMS today. No strategy can succeed without proper systems in place. This time there are better mechanisms that people can switch to.

Another argument is that people can deposit the money now and withdraw cash five months later for black money transactions. Of course they can. But there are various laws in place that track the cash withdrawer. These guidelines were framed for Prevention of Money Laundering Act. As per RBI rules under that, every withdrawal needs a PAN card reference. Further, every branch manager is required to file detailed statement of weekly/monthly cash transactions. The cost-benefit for legitimate fellows becomes high. It is easier to monitor for the tax authorities. One person claims to have sent his 200 or so employees to convert old currency into new currency. Thus, per day at Rs. 4000/- per person he is converting Rs. 0.8million into cash. So has the system failed? The answer is no. It appears from the logical approach followed by the government that this is merely the beginning of effort against black money. I suspect these two mechanisms will be taken care of in subsequent actions. 

The more fundamental answer is that black money is not a pool but a chain. Break the chain or make the chain costly and you inconvenience the poor who did not have access to bank systems. But with Jan-Dhan accounts, poor have ready access to banking channels (though not credit). So if you are law-abiding citizen then you can sail through mostly unscathed no matter how poor you are.

Black money in real estate gold etc. 
Usually, black money is used to purchase the following items – gold, precious metals, precious stones, real estate, high end consumer goods, high-end liquor, drugs, and entertainment. The total quantity of Gold, precious metals, precious stones, liquor and certain high end consumer goods in the market that is disclosed and purchasable is unknown. Their price is reasonably known. The quantity of real estate, entertainment etc. is known but their prices are not known to the government. For high-end alcohol, drugs and other items, both quantity and price are unknown to the government. 

This sort of black-money driven consumption is out of purview of the legitimate formal economy. The effect of demonetization on such consumption will be positive. Either this spending will cease thus reducing illegal imports of gold, precious metals, stones, liquor, drugs, entertainment of certain types (dance bars for example) etc. Other parts will integrate into the formal system thus prices of real estate, entertainment will generate legitimate revenue for government.

In short, the demand for these items will not be affected that much in short term and definitely not in long term. There is no denying that the contours of demand will shift from shadow economy to formal economy.

No magical government windfall gain
One argument goes that if a certain portion of the cash does not get deposited then RBI will no longer have to be liable for those notes. That reduced liability will be transferred to Government. If you estimate that about 30% of the currency notes will not come back, Government could be receiving about 30% of Rs. 14 Trillion is more than Rs. 4 Trillion. Such gains will be a game changer. Such arguments are naïve as they come from misunderstanding of how central bank balance sheet works[12] and also how money is created. 

One must remember that Balance sheet is an accounting construct to understand the capital deployment. Destruction of soiled notes, removal of older notes and other activities also do not create any income for government. Such activities merely adjust the balance-sheet on the liability side only. Simply put, there will be no gain to the government if RBI’s liabilities are written off. 

The issue in present case is the quantum of readjustment. If RBI balance sheet shrinks by 30% one fine day, there will be panic. But this effect can also be muted by writing down in phased manner while keeping the liability alive on paper. If this was possible you could have seen demonetization every 5 years. The only effect is that it will improve the quality of RBI balance sheet but no further.

The second part of the argument is that such a windfall need not wait for demonetization. The windfall is nothing but quantitative easing. That has consequences and is a well debated concept. 

Do Terrorists carry money in trunks?
One of the stated aims of the demonetization was to tackle terrorism. It has met with lot of ridicule. People are asking if terrorist do carry money in suit cases while coming across the borders. Again these people are missing the point. 

In fact, money laundering is one of the most important financing mechanism for terrorists. It was after 9/11 that the US initiated substantial push towards enacting of anti-money laundering laws to prevent financing of terrorists. The anti-money laundering investigations fails when the money trail leads to cash. In India the terror-finance trail starts and ends with cash making it impossible to get early alerts of terrorist active in the country. Demonetisation will upset the financing chain for the terrorists.

As noted, black money is the currency of black economy. It is the black economy, including financiers that need extra-judicial enforcement mechanisms. The terror groups are at the apex of criminal elements that provide this enforcement mechanism. If film producers do not pay their financiers, they get call from D-company – in effect an enforcement call. The black economy is also as innovative as any other. The criminal elements then seeking alternative revenue streams indulge in various terror activities. The terror finance chain comprises gold, diamonds and counterfeit currency. The counterfeiters don’t keep the money in cash but quickly convert it into legitimate, legal bank accounts through SMEs and other small businesses. Using these fronts these terrorists use this money to buy information and access. The actual terror attack is only the “last-mile” effect. The ultimate “attackers” are usually pawns without any knowledge of systems.

Yet, the main effect of demonetisation and subsequent introduction of new notes will be to increase the costs of the counterfeiters. It will serve to shock this supply chain.

The unscrupulous SMEs
The biggest elements in the black money creation chain are the SMEs. SMEs are flexible entities like sponges when it comes to cash. The question of scale of SMEs in the black money chain is mind boggling. Over years I come to believe that at least 30% of SMEs exist solely for serving the black money chains and about 80% contribute to the black money chain (many don’t have a choice). 

Their modus operandi is thus. SMEs themselves exist so as to help tax management. I refrain from using tax evasion because many of these acts are in fact legal and encouraged by law. Next, using a complicit banker the SME’s get loans. Their auditors are complicit in the process too. Now, unscrupulous promoters siphon cash away from these entities and fund private gains/marriages etc. Banks lending to SMEs are left holding the bag. This has also caused substantial stress in the bank balance sheets. Many of these SMEs are quite lax about filing financial statements with the authorities.

Thanks to the demonetization, some of these SMEs will be used to convert the black money from promoters’ holdings into the SMEs holdings. Conversely, those having illegal cash can push it into the SME balance sheet and “make it legal”. Readers may have guessed that banks will benefit from this when their bad loans suddenly start turning good. The net effect, I suspect, will be positive. 

It is clear that the next element in the fight against black money should be SMEs. These entities are critical elements and cannot be missed for this fight to succeed.

Other black money creators
There are other critical elements in black money chain or black economy. These elements represent turning smaller amount of white money into black by aggregation and misrepresentation.

For example, take NGOs. Some of the NGOs existing only on paper. Their model is thus. These NGOs collect legitimate amounts from citizens and push it into causes like animal shelters, girl child, medical aid to needy etc. The main problem is that the costs of these NGOs is unreasonably high. They also commit fraud by misrepresenting number of animals and kind of facilities etc. creating a source of black money for the promoters who get salary and or benefits like cars and drivers from the NGOs.

Cooperative banks are another piece of the puzzle. These accept smaller deposits from individuals and loan to founders and directors. The process is illegal and escapes the law only because it is not regulated by the RBI but by Politicians who are themselves directors in such institutes.

Government aided/recognized schools, colleges and institutions which look innocuous and have no actual teachers, students or infrastructure but simply using approvals from complicit education officers create a chain wherein legitimate money turns into black money. Others institutes have proper systems but use management quota to pool students’ money into black money pools for the founders. Some use both mechanisms.

Such entities are inherently different from SMEs which exist to service the needs of a wealthy black money holder or create black money through banks. These elements will be hit substantially by the demonetization and their promoters will be forced to declare these amounts or destroy them. However, the issue is that they can continue to create black money sources since their model has not been dismantled.

Role of Religious and other public trusts
The model of trusts is a little different but they are as important elements in processing black money as SMEs and others listed above. The trusts are both receptacles and users of black money. They are not creators.

Some allow devotees to make small but numerous donations while spending substantial amounts on expenditures related to their promoters. Others are created out of anonymous black money donations with specific beneficiaries. Their nature makes them a hot-potato issue where they seem to be untouchable by any government, religious entities being protected by constitution. 

These trusts will die over time as their feeder mechanisms are constrained. Yet, the reason they are highlighted here is because within the next two months we will see a lot of trusts being formed with weird articles of constitution that violate the basic premise of laws on public trusts. 

So will demonetisation eliminate black money?
Not by itself. It is just one move of one piece in the chess board of black money. To check-mate the black money king, you have to win the board. There are various steps required as detailed above. Government can play all these moves and still fail if they play improperly. All we can say is that Government is playing well. But will it succeed? The efforts will bring massive amounts of cash into the banking system – a benefit in itself. Once the money is in the legitimate channels, it should be better utilized and revenue will be generated from its use. If that is success enough then yes. 

Then again the government has tackled GST which represents 2/3rd of its revenues. It has tried to increase the size of the pie on which taxes are imposed by forcing the transactions into formal economy. The next part is reform of Income Tax which will tackle the remain 1/3rd of the revenue. Then will come loophole plugging. There seems to be well thought out method to this madness. Rest time will tell.


Notes and links
[1] http://www.nipfp.org.in/publications/working-papers/1509/ 
[2] http://www.nipfp.org.in/book/927/ 
[3] http://dor.gov.in/sites/upload_files/revenue/files/Measures_Tackle_BlackMoney.pdf 
[4] http://finmin.nic.in/reports/whitepaper_backmoney2012.pdf 
[5] Comparing how some tax authorities tackle the hidden economy by UK National Audit Office Rand Europe 2009 
[6] Reducing opportunities for tax non-compliance in the underground economy – Information Note dated January 2012 
[7] The Shadow Economy Friedrich Schneider & Colin C. Williams, Institute of Economic Affairs, 2013 
[8] Proposed by various people such as Arthakranti and also by Peter Sands in essay titled Making It Harder for the Bad Guys: The Case for Eliminating High Denomination Notes, M-RCBG Associate Working Paper Series | No. 52 in February 2016 and later discussed by Lawrence Summers and others. 
[9] https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/AnnualReportPublications.aspx?Id=1181 
[10] World Bank data in currency of respective year. Earliest data available is 1960 so we have used 1960 data. Devaluation was in 1946 which was way before this year. 
[11] The numbers based on estimates by various agencies. 
[12] For basics refer to Centre for Central Banking Studies Handbook – No. 32 Understanding the central bank balance sheet by Garreth Rule.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Why is QE — ZIRP/NIRP not working?

Most people wonder as to why Quantitative Easing (QE) along with low interest rate policy is not making their life easier. John Mauldin and Neil Jensen in their letters are wondering where the road to recovery is? Where is the inflation? Where are the corporate profits? Where is the growth? QE and low interest rate policy were the response of FED to the crisis of 2008. Some central banks have already gone Negative interest rate policy. But as yet, they are not working. Why? Because they are not supposed to work.

The crisis of 2008 was the result of few forces striking together — an over leveraged borrower, inflated prices of collateral and banking system with management’s hand in the cookie jar (lower provisioning and accounting gimmicks to announce record profits), resultant working capital -denied supplier and a proprietary money-desk betting on failure of the main street engineered by bank runs. When the crisis unfolded the prop-bets made a X amount of money, main-streets bets lost a 10X amount of money and banks ended up in trouble. FED’s response — lowering interest rates and priming the pump through QE was designed to recapitalize the banks and not rebalance the economy. When viewed through this lens the action of the FED makes more sense.

With low-yield funds from the FED, banks bet in the markets and earn capital gains to buffer their balance-sheets. With the balance-sheets bolstered with excess capital, the banks may, if they take fancy to it, then start lending to the main street thereby kickstarting the main-street which will hire more, jobs will come back, incomes will rise and debt will be repaid and world will be glorious once again.

This lens also tells us that FED is not going to raise interest rates any time soon. Not yet. The reason is that banking system is ever more skewed. The banks figured out way to make money for the management and shareholders without going through all that trouble. Just bet on the markets — inflate the asset prices (we are at upper end of the PE multiple band for stocks, Housing prices are recovering when quality of jobs is declining) make the bets, earn the money, keep provisioning low but DON’T announce record result as some costs have gone up. If you are wondering which costs are going up when inflation seems to have losts its mojo — don’t ask me. “The math dont add up mate!” Since provisioning is not adequate, if asset prices were to correct, banks will be in ever more trouble. The “Too big to fail” have become “If I fail you really get fucked” big. They need high asset prices and INCREASING asset prices to justify and unwind this shit.

Oh and if you want a way to fix the banking for real — fix the main street and banks will fix themselves.


Thursday, August 18, 2016

Should banks create money?

Bloomberg has a post about centralizing money supply - whole money, as they call it. It is not a very good idea. This is not the first time such suggestions have come up. As mentioned in the article, Irving Fisher first proposed a similar plan in the wake of the great depression. Since then many have proposed this idea but not many understand money creation.

Taxonomy of centralized money creation idea
The money creation ideas are varied:
  1. Gold money: This is natural money creation. No one has any control over the money creation. Previously, gold, silver, diamonds, precious stones and other valuables (and sometimes sea shells too) were used. Many serendipitous discoveries of valuables created havoc with the money supply. Discovery of Potosi in South America and thereafter further discoveries of gold and silver had the effect of expanding Spanish money supply. 
      1. Not under any control: Neither governments nor banks, no one has any control over the money creation process.
      2. But Non-Arbitrary: It depends on the amount of gold you have. If you want more gold, you better import more gold by giving some valuable service to the other countries  who have gold. Over time as the total amount of gold available starts reducing you need to offer more and more to the countries that have gold.
      3. Though subject to Nature: If by chance you discover a gold mine, you will be filthy rich, though if you discover too much then it may unleash inflation. Spain is believed to have faced such inflation on the discovery of silver mines in the South American colonies.
      4. Deflationary and restrictive: As economic activity grows it becomes too high compared to the total amount of gold available to back it. Thus it tends to slow the economic growth pace. (Don't know if that is good or bad).
      5. Favours status quo, old money and advantageous to miserly: Since total value of gold you have increases with time, people tend to postpone purchases and hold on to gold. Spending happens when absolutely necessary.
      6. Exploitation and Theft prone: A doctor can charge atrocious fees from a rich person because of bargaining power equations. Gold can also be stolen. Stealing credit cards is less useful.
  2. Gold-backed money: Introduced to circumvent the deflationary gold currency, countries peg the value of their currency to the gold they can back it with. When people talk of gold standard they are referring to this type of money creation. 
    1. Partly Government controlled: Government issues currency and states the total amount of gold they back it with. So a gold-to-dollar exchange rate is established. The government can improve its reserves and thus improve money creation. 
    2. Non-arbitrary: In its pure form it is non-arbitrary and similar to gold-money.
    3. Not purely nature driven but subject to shocks: Since the government has control over the amount of money and amount of gold, the money creation is not as whimsical as simply discovering a gold mountain. Governments can reset the exchange rate to compensate for some changes. But arbitrary government intervention results in shocks and disruptions.
    4. Mostly deflationary: Governments cannot measure economic activity easily (yes GDP calculations are guess-work and there is no Santa Claus just in case you were wondering). That leaves money creation open to political whims and fancies and invites tampering of measurement of the economic health. Mostly governments are slow to acknowledge the real growth in economy since it is always backward looking. It realises the growth till the growth results in deflationary pressures then increases money supply and causes a spike.
    5. Perception of money losing value as government reset gold rate: As total amount of product and services of value in the economy rise more than amount of gold to back it up, the government is forced to alter the gold-dollar exchange rate downward leading to people feeling that each dollar is worth lesser in terms of gold though purchasing power may be higher.
  3. Government-created money: This is non-gold standard money. Simply speaking the government issues money and backs it with a promise. This is what people wrongly believe is the current regime. 
    1. Full government control: The government has effective control over the process. This is a mixed bag. It depends on the government. 
    2. Some central bank control: The exact control depends on how money is created, is it by using government bonds then bought to a certain extent by central banks or some other way (simply printing).
    3. Depends on confidence in Government: Prudent governments enjoy advantages but if you are Zimbabwe then you will end up in trouble.
    4. Inflation/deflation depends on policy: If a government print too much then it stokes inflation and too little results in deflation. Prudently executed (Milton Friedman's about 3% money supply growth) works fine.
    5. Value of money depends on inflation: If the government is able to deal with money creation effectively then a mild inflation - say 2% may result. There is not too much loss in value and it can be notices only over long time frames when quality of life changes are also noticeable.
  4. Money created by banks: Mostly commercial banks create money by giving loans. These loans do not exist as money. This is the most misunderstood money creation mechanism. It is distributed money creation, without extreme control. Bankers and regulators forget that its success depends on devising proper incentives. 
    1. Less government control:No country uses this method exclusively. Both Government-created and bank-created money is deployed. Thus there is always government control of some sort. Also since government is also a borrower (a big one at that), it has control.
    2. Part central bank control: Central bank exercises additional kind of controls in this mechanism. First, it can partner with government in its money creation process by buying government bonds etc. Second, it controls the lending to the banks and thus influences at what levels of risk do banks create money. The key word is influences and not dictates. Thus this process is often likened to "pushing at a string" (which is difficult, you can pull at a string pushing does nothing unless there is pulling at other end by the banks).
    3. Control to banks: In this scenario, Banks can ALSO determine whether to create money or not. That decision is based on whether the person demanding the money will be able to repay it or not. If he can, it means he is creating value with this money and thus able to repay it. 
    4. Decision at the point of demand of debt: The decision to create money is forward looking. It is made at the point the person makes a demand for the debt. That borrower is expecting to create future value. If by banks assessment that value can be generated ONLY then money is created.
    5. Depends on incentives: After reading this if you wonder why banks lend for consumption goods or lend to uncreditworthy borrowers - it is because of incentives. The power to create money is substantial power and with bad incentives, it can cause systemic harm as seen in 2008 crisis.
    6. Central bank oversight: Central banks have oversight duty to watch what kind of money is created by the banks. The nature of lending is supposed to be value-focussed. Some consumer lending at the time economy is entering a pro-longed boom phase can be advantageous. But in an economy which cannot sustain a prolonged growth phase, these are risky loans and their proportion needs to be limited.


My suggestion
Out of the options, I prefer the last one - a combination of bank created and government created money. It is quite forward looking and takes place at the point of demand. It needs a lot of oversight and decentralisation. I have argued that IT systems have in fact centralized the loan decision making than allow the front-line managers to make them. This has resulted in an inaccurate assessment of borrowers and partly responsible for the 2008 crises. Amar Bhide also makes a case for intelligent decision making in his book "A call for judgement".