Bank of England’s Haldane endorses concerns on bogus bank accounting

The Bank of England’s Executive Director Financial Stability, Andy Haldane, has set out the case for banks to be held to different accounting standards because the existing rules have may allowed banks to overstate their profits and exacerbate their losses. This is something I covered in a private members’ bill last year, with particular reference to derivatives.

As reported in the Guardian:

Accounting rules for banks have bent with the financial stability wind in ways which have amplified investor and regulatory uncertainty. To lean against the prevailing wind, accounting rules for banks may need to recognise more explicitly their differences…It is, after all, precisely these differences that justify separate regulatory and resolution regimes for banks. A distinct accounting regime for banks would be a radical departure from the past. But if we are to restore investor faith in banking sector balance sheets, nothing less than a radical rethink may be required.

And via The Telegraph:

Mr Haldane argued that “fair value” accounting systems, like the current International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), had contributed to other crises including the Wall Street Crash and Great Depression.

He said: “Accounting rules in general, and fair value principles in particular, appear to have played a role in both over-egging the financial upswing and elongating the financial downswing. They have tended to over-emphasise return in the boom and under-emphasise risk in the bust.”

and:

The rules have even hampered auditors’ abilities to determined whether a bank is bust. By failing to properly expose bank real liabilities, the system has made “assessments of going concern’ by the auditing profession problematic,” said Mr Haldane.

In December, I chaired an event with Gordon Kerr, launching his report The Law of Opposites, which showed that banks use accounting loopholes to inflate their profits and bolster staff bonuses. In response to Mr Haldane’s recent comments on the reform of accounting rules, Gordon said:

Andy Haldane is right that fair value accounting is being used by bankers to game taxpayer bailout funds. My recent report “The Law of Opposites”  supports this view, highlighting how RBS in particular paid staff “profit based bonuses” when the bank was in fact loss making under UK Company Law.  

But Mr Haldane deserves particular congratulations for having the courage to put his name and reputation behind this.  HM Treasury, the FSA and UKFI have stood passively by and watched the health of the bailed out RBS and LloydsHBOS deteriorate whilst their senior employees work on plundering, this month, bailout funds.  The prevalence of accounting devices such as underprovisioning for expected losses, booking profits based on the fall in value of banks’ own debt, and failing to deduct from profits and capital deferred but promised bonuses, exposes the abject failure, post bailout, of state regulation of the banking sector.

This kind of crony capitalism at taxpayer expense must be brought to an end through the reform of our institutions. One of those institutions in desperate need of reform is accounting, dry as that may seem. The Government should now make progress in this direction.

If this is capitalism, I am not a capitalist

I spoke last night in the general debate on the economy, saying*:

As I rise to speak I am reminded of a quotation from an economist who was a fierce critic of Keynes, a chap called Henry Hazlitt, who said:

“Today is already the tomorrow which the bad economist yesterday urged us to ignore.”

We have heard today some moving accounts of individual and collective suffering in different regions of the country and among different sections of the public. We should be asking ourselves why, oh why, have we been delivered into this misery, which looks as if it will extend over years. Much of the conversation we have heard has been along the lines of aggregates, coarse economic aggregates, and has tended to stray away from individual choices and consequences. We have talked about markets in the abstract, and it is a pity that we seem to have forgotten that markets are a social phenomenon, and that they are about people co-operating. When we talk about markets, we tend to imagine overpaid people, high-frequency trading and those who add nothing to society.

I am reminded of something a constituent said to me recently after hearing a Minister’s speech. He asked, “Why is it that everything always seems to get harder for the working man, whoever is in power?” Indeed, in my constituency unemployment is up by 6.3% among the over-50s, up by 9.5% among those aged 25 to 49 and, scandalously, up by 23% among the young. We have heard that child poverty increased by 200,000 under the previous Government and that it is likely to increase by up to 100,000 under this Government. In the 21st century, that should not be our economic position.

Why are we in this debt crisis? I have just checked the M4 money supply figures—I am sorry to return to aggregates, but needs must. When Labour came to power the money supply was about £700 billion and it is now about £2.1 trillion, so it has tripled over the past 14 years. Unfortunately, most economists talk about money flowing into the economy as if it were water poured into a tank that found its own level immediately, but what if it is like treacle or honey? What if it builds up in piles when poured into the economy and takes a while to spread out? What if that money was loaned into existence in response to individual choices led by the excessively low interest rates pushed by the central bank? What if it was loaned into existence in particular sectors, such as the housing sector, where prices have more than doubled over the same period, and what if it was the financial sector that received the benefit of that new money first? Would that not explain why financiers and bankers are so much wealthier than everyone else, and why economic activity and wealth has been reorientated towards the south-east?

Unfortunately, the idea that money takes some time to move around the economy is lost on most economists, which I very much regret. Why did most economists not see the crisis coming? I put it to the House that it is because their theories of credit are mistaken. They make fundamental errors. Unfortunately I do not have time to go into that, but the fundamental point is that credit is a choice to consume more now and less later. It is about the exchange of present goods for future goods, and co-ordinating the economy through time, and I am afraid that the current intellectual mainstream in economics has dropped us into this desperate mess.

Opposition Members criticise the Thatcher and Reagan years. I think that there was much to applaud in those years, but unfortunately their intellectual underpinning was monetarism, which, like Keynesianism, is infected with those dreadful mistakes. People in the Occupy movement, and our constituents, are right to question the justice of our economic processes. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) said earlier that the system cannot endure, and I am inclined to agree. I agree that the current debt-based and—I am afraid to say—statist system cannot endure. However, if this system is not to endure, which way should it fall? [Humanity] tried the statist direction in the past and it led to misery and murder. I stand for free markets and free co-operation, but I say this to the House: if this is capitalism, I am not a capitalist.

* (I have made a small correction to the quote and a clarification in [], both of which I have requested from Hansard)

Related reading can be found here:

  • Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson (buy, PDF), chapters 1, 6 and 23 in particular.
  • Mises, Human Action (buy, online), especially chapter 20 “Interest, Credit Expansion, and the Trade Cycle”
  • Hulsmann, The Ethics of Money Production (buy, PDF).

The Bank of England’s money supply measure M4, which I referred to, may be found here. I used M4 in this context because it is the conventional mainstream measure, but I prefer Kaleidic Economics’ MA for reasons explained on that site (Notes and Coins is too narrow and M4 too broad). MA tells a clear story of where jobs and growth came from and where they went – money supply growth created the illusion of prosperity, broke the banking system and collapsed, taking the illusion with it:

Year on year change in Kaleidic Economics' MA - click for source

Update: Video here. My delivery picked up after about the first minute.

More QE? Hold tight for a worse crisis later

From Mises’  Human Action:

The wavelike movement affecting the economic system, the recurrence of periods of boom which are followed by periods of depression, is the unavoidable outcome of the attempts, repeated again and again, to lower the gross market rate of interest by means of credit expansion. There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.

A paradigm shift in economics is necessary, in the sense meant by Thomas Kuhn, if we are to get out of this sustainably.

Bank warns lenders over bad loans – FT.com

As I have been saying about IFRS:

The FPC said it was most concerned that banks had not set aside adequate provisions for this potential new crop of troubled loans.

“If provisioning is inadequate, banks’ reported profits and levels of capital may provide a misleading picture of their financial health,” said Sir Mervyn King, Bank governor and chairman of the FPC.

via Bank warns lenders over bad loans – FT.com. In the lastest Financial Stability Report, the Bank of England indicates various other flaws arising out of bank accounting standards. More analysis later but see also Bank profits distorted by IFRS accounting rules, says Bank of England Governor.

The Cobden Centre: What is money?

Writing for The Cobden Centre, I ask “What is money?“:

In their working paper “Assessing UK money supply measures in the light of the credit crunch”, Toby Baxendale and Anthony J. Evans provide a better measure of the money supply. In this article, Steven Baker explores the background to the paper and indicates some key findings.

Many people know the Bank of England is creating new money through quantitative easing but if the quantity of money is being increased, how is that quantity being measured? What is counted as money?