|
"...Risk has been abolished - a concept even the TV news anchors can grasp..."
"IF YOU UNDERSTOOD a business perfectly and the future of the business,
you would need very little in the way of a margin of safety," said Warren Buffett
at Berkshire Hathaway's annual meeting in 1997.
He had first issued his famous dictum twenty years earlier. Buffett referred
to it again in 2005.
"We [only] borrow money against portfolios of interest-bearing receivables
whose risk characteristics we understand," he told his shareholders...and the
BRK faithful just loved it.
Understanding where you're putting your money - knowing how it will be used,
and knowing the likelihood of getting it back - reduces your risk, in short.
If you don't understand an investment, then the "unknown unknowns" threaten
to eat you alive.
Appears sound in theory, right? But does anyone outside of Gorat's steakhouse
today even begin to care if it's true?
"Although the dislocations, especially to short-term funding markets, have
been large and in some cases unexpected," the International Monetary Fund just
reported, "the event [of the world credit crunch] hit during a period of above-average
global growth."
Moreover, added Rodrigo Rato, the IMF's managing director, in a Moscow press
conference Tuesday, "the evolution of recent days is moving towards normalization."
"The most important financial institutions have enough capital to withstand
the shock," Rato explained. And amid the crisis in confidence and "state of
turbulence" hitting the financial sector, "we welcome the actions of central
banks to maximize liquidity," he announced.
Trouble is, maximizing liquidity - the availability of money - is what created
this mess in the first place. Failing to understand this plain fact is what
led the United Kingdom, the world's fourth largest economy, to suffer its first
genuine banking run in more than a century. Here in London, all progress in
finance since 1878 just got wiped out.
Yes, the City and its regulators have swapped whiskery chops and black stove-pipe
hats for ShockWave hair gel and pink gingham shirts. But they're no more "sophisticated" than
were their Victorian forebears. And as the IMF report proves, it's not only
London that's failed to grasp the risks facing global finance today.
The run on Northern Rock (NRK) came thanks to the very "liquidity" that Rodrigo
Rato of the IMF says he's glad to see pouring out of central banks once again.
NRK was a top-five mortgage lender that gathered £24 billion in saving
deposits but lent out £113 billion. It raised the difference by borrowing
short-term funds in the money markets.
Did anyone inside Northern Rock understand the risks inherent in "maximizing
liquidity" so aggressively? Didn't the Bank of England or Financial Services
Authority grasp the dangers this high-profile bank was storing up on its balancesheet?
Evidently not - and why would they?
By the end of June, NRK's total exposure to subprime US home-loans represented
only 0.24% of its total assets. Hot on the heels of the Bear Stearns' hedge-fund
collapse at the start of the summer, this meant NRK was deemed safe from the
chaos of failing mortgage-backed bonds relying on low-income US home-buyers
for repayment.
Not that London's financial leaders were alone in their error. The mass of
British investors also mistook NRK's tiny subprime exposure for evidence that
it was safe. NRK was one of the five most popular shares bought by private
UK investors in the last week of August. Since then, however, NRK's stock has
sunk by 75%.
Pictures of anxious savers queuing outside NRK's branches on the High Street
also destroyed confidence in the Bank of England and Financial Services Authority
- the government-mandated watchdogs supposed to understand, monitor and cap
its risky behavior. The media's panic, shocked at the very idea that a financial
firm might ever go under, then forced London's government of amateur financial
idiots to guarantee all savings for all savers wherever they bank.
Risk has been abolished, in short - a concept even the TV news anchors can
grasp. So who cares that it's not true?
"Whatever system is put in place to safeguard [UK bank] deposits following
the run on Northern Rock," says a letter to the Financial Times, "it
is important that it is understandable to savers. I wonder how many savers
understood the workings of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme before
its recent coverage in the press?"
The British equivalent of the FDIC, this Compensation Scheme - it was revealed
Tuesday - now holds funds of just £4.4 million. Total UK bank deposits,
on the other hand, total some £1.6 trillion. It doesn't matter that,
in the wholly unlikely event of a total collapse in British banking, the fund
could offer only 0.00002% in compensation. Forget the fact, too, that the US
insurance scheme by comparison holds 5,000 times as much cash for a population
only five times the size.
The point is that the FSCS in London was allowed to promise insurance worth £31,700
to each of Britain's cash savers (just less than $64,000) - and to continue
making this promise - without anyone bothering to even imagine that the policy
might ever needed.
The United Kingdom also has the Banking Code, a 36-page document setting out
standards of behavior agreed by the vast majority of retail banks and building
societies. But the state-owned monopoly Post Office has yet to sign up to the
Code. And the Code itself does not mention the word "risk" once. Nor does it
talk about "safety". The sole preoccupation, as with today's bubble-friendly
banking regulations everywhere, is with honesty in marketing.
Honesty about the raw fact of banking deposits - that your money is at risk
the moment you let someone else lend it out for a profit - just doesn't figure.
In the United States too, the very concept of "risk" has been long forgotten
as a warning. Indeed, for Bank of America's current marketeers, it's now just
a tool...a branding technique to prop up tired advertising exec's when they're
all out of ideas.
The biggest bank in the US currently offers what it calls the "Risk Free CD".
Never paying less than 4.75% during its 11-month term, the Risk Free cash deposit
actually comes with no more, or less, risk than any other US savings account.
It's only claim to safety is that you can "count on the security of FDIC insurance
up to $100,000 on your accounts," says the marketing blurb.
Yes, that's it! Beyond the FDIC promise, the risks to your money are no different
to the risks incurred by holding your cash anywhere else. The "risk free" sticker
on BoA's "Risk Free CD" is simply there to make 4.75% interest sound unique,
intriguing, perhaps even attractive.
But who outside Wall Street, the City, Frankfurt's glass towers or Tokyo's
Kabutocho district can understand that? Who on the inside even cares?
|