The Kazakhs were definitely "in it to win it" at the Olympics. Out of eight Kazakh medals, seven were gold and the eighth was silver, but only just judging by this report from Caspio.net:
On the last day of the London Olympics Kazakhstan residents watched fights of Kazakhstan boxers online. The Mangistau region residents supported all boxers but they paid particular attention to their fellow countryman Adilbek Niyazymbetov. In the final fight Adilbek Niyazymbetov fought with Yegor Mekhontsev.
Adilbek showed all his best in this fight. The fight was head-to-head and finished in a draw. However, additional factors made the judges award victory to the Russian athlete. The honoured boxing coach of Kazakhstan Alexander Drach believes that Kazakhstan athlete lacked a stroke of luck.
Alexander Drach, Honoured Boxing Coach of Kazakhstan said «He is a very talented athlete; it’s a gift from god. At the same time he is a very modest guy and it was very pleasant to work with him. It was a truly spectacular fight and Adilbek should have been a little more active. The Russian athletes showed more attacks. Adilbek can work with such boxers and he should just be a bit more active.»
Sabit Niyazymbetov watched his son’s match with particular attention. Father is proud of his son and thinks that a silver medal is still a victory. Sabit Niyazymbetov, Father of Adilbek Niyazymbetov said «I am very happy for my son. His silver medal is like gold medal for me. I would have been happy even if he gained bronze. I would like to thank all Kazakhstan residents and residents of the Mangistau region for all their support for my son.»
Aktau fans of Adilbek are happy with his success in London. They believe that he will achieve a lot, since the Mangistau boxer is very promising sportsman.
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, 14 August 2012
Saturday, 11 August 2012
Congratulations to Ed McKeever
Probably the only part qualified accountant to win a gold medal at London 2012.
Mens 200m kayak, since you ask.
Mens 200m kayak, since you ask.
Thursday, 9 August 2012
Standard outburst in uncharted waters
So a US regulator in NY that you have probably never heard of is kicking up a fuss about Iranians, or rather about Standard Chartered, the London-based but Asian-focussed bank that operates in Iran. Now Iran isn't everybody's favourite nation, particularly Israel (which views Iran as the root of most if not all evil), and the United States (which for the last 33 years has waged an economic war on the state with a comprehensive range of economic sanctions). The US rules pretty much prohibit US citizens and corporations from doing any business with Iran, with limited humanitarian exceptions (medicines and the like).
But the rest of the world doesn't quite see it the same way. The EU is quite happy to permit business relations with Iran. The French designed and managed the construction of the Imam Khomenei International Airport. The Germans sell them machine tools, as do the Japanese and both countries sell their cars. The Chinese buy Iranian oil, but they also built the Tehran subway. Australia sells them wheat, New Zealand sells them lamb and Argentina sells them soya. Meanwhile Iran sells the rest of the world its oil, Persian carpets and .. pistachios. Chances are the next bag of pistachios you buy in the shops (assuming you are not reading this in the US) will be contributing to the Rafsanjani family fortune.
All of these goods and services have to be paid for, and in all likelihood the non-Iranian buyer or seller will want to pay or be paid in dollars. And that is where it gets tricky, because in theory all dollar denominated payments (unless they are between accounts at the same bank) would have to be made through the correspondent banking system in New York.
For those who don't know what correspondent banking is, instead of the tens of thousands of banks in the world maintaining accounts with each other on the off chance that the Third National Bank of Kurdistan should want to send $25,000 to Banco Comercial de Patagonia, smaller and even quite large banks keep accounts at a few large money centre banks and use those banks (correspondent banks) to operate payments to other coresspondent banks in the same country/city who forward the payment to the account of the recipient or his bank. Which means that if anybody is sending dollar payments to or from Iran, they are likely to go through New York at some point, at which point the US authorities might get a bit touchy.
Now arguably, nobody in the US is doing any business with Iran, simply with the people who are moving money to or from Iran, but that doesn't seem to cut much ice with Benjamin Lawsky, the Superintendent of Financial Services in New York. Mr Lawsky, who as you might expect from his name is a Friend of Israel, who thinks that such business transactions are just plain evil. "How much of this $285 billion has been used to fund terrorism?", he asks.
At a rough guess, I would say pretty much none of it. Terrorism doesn't require much funding, Mr Lawsky. Just ask your fellow citizens at Noraid. And most terrorist funding in Iran comes not from the government, but from the Islamic foundations ("bonyads") that own vast swathes of the Iranian economy. They don't need to send money to Hizbollah in dollars because I doubt Hizbollah has a checking account with Citi on 5th Avenue in NY. Wherever their terror cells are located, chances are the local currency will be dirhams, riyals, pounds or euros, not dollars, so no need to trouble Uncle Sam's end of the SWIFT network.
Meanwhile, Mr Lawsky's accusations may be rebounding on him. There have been reports that the censuring of Standard Chartered on Monday by the New York state regulator surprised not only the bank’s executives but also stunned officials at the federal agencies investigating the bank, the Treasury and Justice Departments and the Federal Reserve. Some of the Treasury officials had reportedly concluded that while Standard Chartered’s handling of Iranian transactions might have been questionable, they were not necessarily illegal. The trading with Iran occurred with non-US entities, which is why Mr Lawsky accusations have nothing to do with OFAC regulations, but the catch all charge of money laundering and false accounting. Whether or not these apply will depend on the facts, but since the money seems to have got through to the right place, it sounds as though any mention of an Iranian bank would have been superfluous, and the fact that a particular transfer was connected to Iranian business but that the Iranian business was not actually involved in a particular leg of a transaction suggests that the transactions were perfectly compliant under the law as it existed at the time.
And if SCB want to structure dollar payments so they don't pass through the US, it is so easy to avoid doing so: If Iranian client with $100 million on deposit at SCB wants to make a $100 million payments they buy $100 million of euros from SCB, and send that amount to the account of the intended recipient at their bank. The payment is cleared through the euro clearing system outside the US. Simultaneously SCB and the other bank enter into a $/€ FX deal for $100 million face value at the same rate and the other bank does the same with the end client. Net result, Iran moves $100 million to client, and the US is none the wiser because all they see is an FX deal between 2 non-US banks.
But the rest of the world doesn't quite see it the same way. The EU is quite happy to permit business relations with Iran. The French designed and managed the construction of the Imam Khomenei International Airport. The Germans sell them machine tools, as do the Japanese and both countries sell their cars. The Chinese buy Iranian oil, but they also built the Tehran subway. Australia sells them wheat, New Zealand sells them lamb and Argentina sells them soya. Meanwhile Iran sells the rest of the world its oil, Persian carpets and .. pistachios. Chances are the next bag of pistachios you buy in the shops (assuming you are not reading this in the US) will be contributing to the Rafsanjani family fortune.
All of these goods and services have to be paid for, and in all likelihood the non-Iranian buyer or seller will want to pay or be paid in dollars. And that is where it gets tricky, because in theory all dollar denominated payments (unless they are between accounts at the same bank) would have to be made through the correspondent banking system in New York.
For those who don't know what correspondent banking is, instead of the tens of thousands of banks in the world maintaining accounts with each other on the off chance that the Third National Bank of Kurdistan should want to send $25,000 to Banco Comercial de Patagonia, smaller and even quite large banks keep accounts at a few large money centre banks and use those banks (correspondent banks) to operate payments to other coresspondent banks in the same country/city who forward the payment to the account of the recipient or his bank. Which means that if anybody is sending dollar payments to or from Iran, they are likely to go through New York at some point, at which point the US authorities might get a bit touchy.
Now arguably, nobody in the US is doing any business with Iran, simply with the people who are moving money to or from Iran, but that doesn't seem to cut much ice with Benjamin Lawsky, the Superintendent of Financial Services in New York. Mr Lawsky, who as you might expect from his name is a Friend of Israel, who thinks that such business transactions are just plain evil. "How much of this $285 billion has been used to fund terrorism?", he asks.
At a rough guess, I would say pretty much none of it. Terrorism doesn't require much funding, Mr Lawsky. Just ask your fellow citizens at Noraid. And most terrorist funding in Iran comes not from the government, but from the Islamic foundations ("bonyads") that own vast swathes of the Iranian economy. They don't need to send money to Hizbollah in dollars because I doubt Hizbollah has a checking account with Citi on 5th Avenue in NY. Wherever their terror cells are located, chances are the local currency will be dirhams, riyals, pounds or euros, not dollars, so no need to trouble Uncle Sam's end of the SWIFT network.
Meanwhile, Mr Lawsky's accusations may be rebounding on him. There have been reports that the censuring of Standard Chartered on Monday by the New York state regulator surprised not only the bank’s executives but also stunned officials at the federal agencies investigating the bank, the Treasury and Justice Departments and the Federal Reserve. Some of the Treasury officials had reportedly concluded that while Standard Chartered’s handling of Iranian transactions might have been questionable, they were not necessarily illegal. The trading with Iran occurred with non-US entities, which is why Mr Lawsky accusations have nothing to do with OFAC regulations, but the catch all charge of money laundering and false accounting. Whether or not these apply will depend on the facts, but since the money seems to have got through to the right place, it sounds as though any mention of an Iranian bank would have been superfluous, and the fact that a particular transfer was connected to Iranian business but that the Iranian business was not actually involved in a particular leg of a transaction suggests that the transactions were perfectly compliant under the law as it existed at the time.
And if SCB want to structure dollar payments so they don't pass through the US, it is so easy to avoid doing so: If Iranian client with $100 million on deposit at SCB wants to make a $100 million payments they buy $100 million of euros from SCB, and send that amount to the account of the intended recipient at their bank. The payment is cleared through the euro clearing system outside the US. Simultaneously SCB and the other bank enter into a $/€ FX deal for $100 million face value at the same rate and the other bank does the same with the end client. Net result, Iran moves $100 million to client, and the US is none the wiser because all they see is an FX deal between 2 non-US banks.
Saturday, 28 July 2012
Good on yer ma'am
After the trickery and fakery of the Beijing opening ceremony it was good to see some honest to goodness enterprise by Danny Boyle and his team.
I note however the churlishness of the Chinese media, who suggest that the Queen may not have performed all her own stunts.
Tuesday, 17 July 2012
You couldn't make it up #94
The Scottish government failed to meet its climate change targets in 2010, according the latest official figures.
They showed greenhouse gas emissions rose by 1.9% on 2009 figures, after taking emissions trading into account.
The government is attempting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 42% by 2020. Scottish Energy Minister Mr Stevenson said "Scotland faced its coldest winter temperatures in almost a century - and quite rightly people across Scotland needed to heat their homes to keep warm and safe".
The government is attempting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 42% by 2020. Scottish Energy Minister Mr Stevenson said "Scotland faced its coldest winter temperatures in almost a century - and quite rightly people across Scotland needed to heat their homes to keep warm and safe".
Sunday, 15 July 2012
What is the point of Andy Burnham?
Answer: to point out all the good things that the government is doing to the NHS.
If you think that the NHS is some sort of sacred cow into which endless amounts of tax payer's cash can be shovelled, then you might buy his line.
If on the other hand you think that it is a bureaucratic muddle, employing some of the most overpaid clinical staff in Europe, then his interventions are to be welcomed. Ah, some might say, but the UK spends about 8% of GDP on the NHS which is about the same as the rest of the world and less than the US. Not quite, that figure for health spending doesn't include the amount for private healthcare including dentistry, which is what you would need to put us on a direct comparison with the US, so make that figure about 9.5%, and then bear in mind that the GDP denominator is flattered by over £120 billion of deficit spending. Cut the GDP numbers to a more sustainable figure based on say £35 billion of net borrowing (call that a drop in GDP of £100 billion), then you can factor up that 9.5% of GDP figure up by about 7%, so let's say that in the real world without la-la land deficit spending UK healthcare costs would be about 10.5% of GDP, which is a lot.
The trouble is that while the private sector has been suffering from competition from India and China for years, the public sector has generally lavished itself with great riches at the expense of our grandchildren. Look at your neighbours and note how, apart from any hedge fund managers, if anybody over the age of 45 is taking home a large wodge of cash these days, they probably work in the public sector.
So the good news is that thousands of doctors and nurses may be sacked unless they agree to drastic changes to their pay and conditions as hospitals strive to make billions of pounds worth of savings, it has been claimed. NHS bosses have suggested terminating all staff contracts and reoffering them on different terms, according to a leaked document obtained by The Sunday Times.
New terms could include pay cuts of up to 5%, an end to overtime for nights, weekends and bank holidays, and reduced holiday leave, the newspaper said. These measures could affect up to 60,000 health professionals in the South West of England, where chief executives have acknowledged they would need to act "in unison", the paper reports.
The document was prepared by 19 NHS bosses to maintain patient services in the face of multimillion-pound budget cuts, The Sunday Times adds. The paper claims at least two other hospitals in Surrey and Manchester have considered the plans, but health chiefs in the South West suggest working together in order to prevent being "singled out" and unable to take on the unions. They believe that by co-operating they will be able to overcome an "extremely hostile" reaction to the steps, especially if they take the "last resort" of sacking all staff and re-engaging them on less favourable terms, The Sunday Times says.
And if you don't think some nurses are overpaid, find out the facts. The average nurse probably isn't, but in many trusts, once a nurse has specialist qualifications, they are straight out of the door and into agency from whence they are hired back to the same hospital at two and a half times the cost.
If you think that the NHS is some sort of sacred cow into which endless amounts of tax payer's cash can be shovelled, then you might buy his line.
If on the other hand you think that it is a bureaucratic muddle, employing some of the most overpaid clinical staff in Europe, then his interventions are to be welcomed. Ah, some might say, but the UK spends about 8% of GDP on the NHS which is about the same as the rest of the world and less than the US. Not quite, that figure for health spending doesn't include the amount for private healthcare including dentistry, which is what you would need to put us on a direct comparison with the US, so make that figure about 9.5%, and then bear in mind that the GDP denominator is flattered by over £120 billion of deficit spending. Cut the GDP numbers to a more sustainable figure based on say £35 billion of net borrowing (call that a drop in GDP of £100 billion), then you can factor up that 9.5% of GDP figure up by about 7%, so let's say that in the real world without la-la land deficit spending UK healthcare costs would be about 10.5% of GDP, which is a lot.
The trouble is that while the private sector has been suffering from competition from India and China for years, the public sector has generally lavished itself with great riches at the expense of our grandchildren. Look at your neighbours and note how, apart from any hedge fund managers, if anybody over the age of 45 is taking home a large wodge of cash these days, they probably work in the public sector.
So the good news is that thousands of doctors and nurses may be sacked unless they agree to drastic changes to their pay and conditions as hospitals strive to make billions of pounds worth of savings, it has been claimed. NHS bosses have suggested terminating all staff contracts and reoffering them on different terms, according to a leaked document obtained by The Sunday Times.
New terms could include pay cuts of up to 5%, an end to overtime for nights, weekends and bank holidays, and reduced holiday leave, the newspaper said. These measures could affect up to 60,000 health professionals in the South West of England, where chief executives have acknowledged they would need to act "in unison", the paper reports.
The document was prepared by 19 NHS bosses to maintain patient services in the face of multimillion-pound budget cuts, The Sunday Times adds. The paper claims at least two other hospitals in Surrey and Manchester have considered the plans, but health chiefs in the South West suggest working together in order to prevent being "singled out" and unable to take on the unions. They believe that by co-operating they will be able to overcome an "extremely hostile" reaction to the steps, especially if they take the "last resort" of sacking all staff and re-engaging them on less favourable terms, The Sunday Times says.
And if you don't think some nurses are overpaid, find out the facts. The average nurse probably isn't, but in many trusts, once a nurse has specialist qualifications, they are straight out of the door and into agency from whence they are hired back to the same hospital at two and a half times the cost.
Saturday, 14 July 2012
I''ll have one from Group A and one from Group B
I have a theory. After the end of the second world war, and more so after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, it became clear that in the more prosperous half of the world, there were going to be few career prospects for the aspiring autocrat. Whereas many states still had capital punishment in the first half of the twentieth century, the practice was clearly on the way out, and there was clearly a trend where an educated middle class would resist the more oppressive measures from their political masters.
So what was the aspirng Robespierre, Pol Pot or Stalin do? Quite obviously they all went into sports administration. You get the same sense of power fuelled by proto-Nationalist fervour without the messy genocide. Plus as Joao Havelange has demonstrated there are great opportunities for personal enrichment, largely outside the contraints of national laws.
Bernie Ecclestone once said “No driver, no person, will ever be bigger than Formula One itself.”, but as he could have pointed it out, by making the sport as big as possible and bigger than it needs to, they massage their own egos. How much money do you really need to spend on a glorified school Sports Day? At £9 billion for competitions featuring 10,000 athletes, that works out at £900,000 per competitor, a lot for Usain Bolt to put in an appearance, let alone those athletes, no disrespect, we had never heard about from Kiribati and Guam.
Which is why we will be having apparatchiks-only lanes across the streets of London later this month (I may go for a bike ride). Or for to further antagonise the little people while pampering the unelected few, there are legal restrictions on the use of references to the Olympics
Unfortunately there will be no banners bearing the names of the biggest sponsor: the UK Tax Payer.
So what was the aspirng Robespierre, Pol Pot or Stalin do? Quite obviously they all went into sports administration. You get the same sense of power fuelled by proto-Nationalist fervour without the messy genocide. Plus as Joao Havelange has demonstrated there are great opportunities for personal enrichment, largely outside the contraints of national laws.
Bernie Ecclestone once said “No driver, no person, will ever be bigger than Formula One itself.”, but as he could have pointed it out, by making the sport as big as possible and bigger than it needs to, they massage their own egos. How much money do you really need to spend on a glorified school Sports Day? At £9 billion for competitions featuring 10,000 athletes, that works out at £900,000 per competitor, a lot for Usain Bolt to put in an appearance, let alone those athletes, no disrespect, we had never heard about from Kiribati and Guam.
Which is why we will be having apparatchiks-only lanes across the streets of London later this month (I may go for a bike ride). Or for to further antagonise the little people while pampering the unelected few, there are legal restrictions on the use of references to the Olympics
Use of two words in Group A, or one word in Group A and one in Group B, could see you falling foul of Olympics sponsorship rules:
Group A
- Games
- Two Thousand and Twelve
- 2012
- Twenty-Twelve
Group B
- London
- Medals
- Sponsors
- Summer
- Gold
- Silver
- Bronze
Unfortunately there will be no banners bearing the names of the biggest sponsor: the UK Tax Payer.
Friday, 13 July 2012
I am going to the Olympics
Not as a participant, but as a spectator. I wouldn't normally waste any money on a glorified sports day - who really cares about the trap shoot, taekwondo or women's archery, apart from their mums of course - but a kind soul has given me tickets to the tennis, so I shall be going along , but I shall resolve to do as much as I can to disrupt the ludicrous security arrangements.
First of all I will be smuggling in 101 ml of liquid, although I will be having a second go at the rules on liquids by taking in a bottle of frozen water inside a polystyrene container. Some dry ice should ensure that the contents of the bottle stay below freezing.
If that is foiled, then I shall be having a go at the rule that says you are not allowed to bring in "flags of countries not participating in the Games (this excludes the flags of nations under the umbrella of a participating country such as England, Scotland and Wales)".
OK, so which of the following are not coming to London 2012: Equatorial Guinea, Netherlands Antilles, Mauritania, Kiribati, São Tomé and PrÃncipe, Timor-Leste, Vatican City?
If I mosey up armed with my Dorling Kindersley World Flags Ultimate Sticker Book, are they really going to strip out the offending items?
First of all I will be smuggling in 101 ml of liquid, although I will be having a second go at the rules on liquids by taking in a bottle of frozen water inside a polystyrene container. Some dry ice should ensure that the contents of the bottle stay below freezing.
If that is foiled, then I shall be having a go at the rule that says you are not allowed to bring in "flags of countries not participating in the Games (this excludes the flags of nations under the umbrella of a participating country such as England, Scotland and Wales)".
OK, so which of the following are not coming to London 2012: Equatorial Guinea, Netherlands Antilles, Mauritania, Kiribati, São Tomé and PrÃncipe, Timor-Leste, Vatican City?
If I mosey up armed with my Dorling Kindersley World Flags Ultimate Sticker Book, are they really going to strip out the offending items?
Tuesday, 10 July 2012
Did I miss something?
"Barclays has a tendency continually to seek advantage from complex structures or favourable regulatory interpretations".
So say the FSA. But excuse me, what exactly is wrong. Only a few months ago the City was lauded for its ingenuity and creativity. Now I would be the first to criticise Barclays for its aggressive tax planning for itself and its clients, and I have mentioned some of its inconsistent accounting practices.
These things can be taken too far - witness Enron and a whole host of other examples - but there is good and bad complexity. Some "good examples" are the many flavours of leveraged financing and leveraged leasing, and another is project finance, both of which lead to enormous volumes of paperwork, but seem to work and have worked for years. But they have their own bastard children the collateralised asset pool and PFI/PPP. The difference is that it takes a good banker or a good regulator to understand the difference, and the FSA clearly does not.
Monday, 9 July 2012
Compare and contrast
BMW is to invest £250m in its UK factories over the next three years, the company has announced.
The money will be used to increase production of the Mini at its factories in Oxford, Birmingham and Swindon.
It comes on top of a £500m investment which was announced by BMW last June. More than 5,000 British workers are involved in the production of the Mini.
Which is nice, and a whole lot more effective than this:
The money will be used to increase production of the Mini at its factories in Oxford, Birmingham and Swindon.
It comes on top of a £500m investment which was announced by BMW last June. More than 5,000 British workers are involved in the production of the Mini.
Which is nice, and a whole lot more effective than this:
Bad bank ban beggars belief
The British Bankers' Association has said it will ban any member deliberately misquoting lending rates at daily money-market operations amid concern that some contributors are providing misleading quotes.
Or at least, that was what they said 4 years ago.
Or at least, that was what they said 4 years ago.
Cliche of the year/decade/century?
Googling the phrase "crashes out of Wimbledon" gives 1,670,000 results.
I haven't read them all, but looking at today's papers, it feels that way.
I haven't read them all, but looking at today's papers, it feels that way.
Sunday, 8 July 2012
Public good, private bad
... or so you would think if you read a report in the Guardian on Friday, also carried by the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation.
The gist of the story is that pupils at England's secondary schools are just half as likely to score highly on international maths tests than those in the average developed country, according to a report from the Sutton Trust. Just 1.7% of England's pupils achieved the top proficiency level in maths (level 6), compared to an average of 3.1% for countries within the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCED).
The study also shows that almost all of the English pupils achieving the highest marks are from independent and grammar schools, with "almost no pupils" achieving top levels from non-selective state schools.
But it gets worse when England's 1.7% is compared with areas in South East Asia. 26.6% of their peers in Shanghai municipality achieved a level 6, 15.6% in Singapore and 11.3% in Chinese Taipei.
Well we can probably dismiss the Shanghai figure as being highly selective and because the school system is specifically geared towards these tests, but well done nevertheless, but do we really do so badly compared to Singapore or Hong Kong?
Well parts of the English education system don't. The private and grammar schools actually make up 10% of the school population, so if the 1.7% success rate is almost entirely in the these schools, then this works out at a very respectable pass rate of 17%, higher than Singapore or Taiwan.
It is the rest of the educational system, stifled by bureaucracy and egalitarian ideology that lets down their brightest pupils. And don't try to tell me that independent schools somehow undermine the state system. they don't. With fewer pupils to teach in the state system there are more resources to go around.. And they don't cream off all the best teachers, and even if they did, having a teacher from only the second decile and below shouldn't penalise the brightest children. No, in order to have "almost no pupils" from the state system achieving the top grades tells you that it is the system that is messed up.
The gist of the story is that pupils at England's secondary schools are just half as likely to score highly on international maths tests than those in the average developed country, according to a report from the Sutton Trust. Just 1.7% of England's pupils achieved the top proficiency level in maths (level 6), compared to an average of 3.1% for countries within the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCED).
The study also shows that almost all of the English pupils achieving the highest marks are from independent and grammar schools, with "almost no pupils" achieving top levels from non-selective state schools.
But it gets worse when England's 1.7% is compared with areas in South East Asia. 26.6% of their peers in Shanghai municipality achieved a level 6, 15.6% in Singapore and 11.3% in Chinese Taipei.
Well we can probably dismiss the Shanghai figure as being highly selective and because the school system is specifically geared towards these tests, but well done nevertheless, but do we really do so badly compared to Singapore or Hong Kong?
Well parts of the English education system don't. The private and grammar schools actually make up 10% of the school population, so if the 1.7% success rate is almost entirely in the these schools, then this works out at a very respectable pass rate of 17%, higher than Singapore or Taiwan.
It is the rest of the educational system, stifled by bureaucracy and egalitarian ideology that lets down their brightest pupils. And don't try to tell me that independent schools somehow undermine the state system. they don't. With fewer pupils to teach in the state system there are more resources to go around.. And they don't cream off all the best teachers, and even if they did, having a teacher from only the second decile and below shouldn't penalise the brightest children. No, in order to have "almost no pupils" from the state system achieving the top grades tells you that it is the system that is messed up.
Nice story
In a world where sport, money and professionalism seem increasingly tawdry, there was a wonderful story yesterday, when two professionals from the bottom rung of the professional ladder pulled off one of the all time great smash and grabs of world tennis.
Jonny Marray and Freddy Nielsen, who spent the last few years on the Challenger circuit and look like they are the sort of players that have to buy their own shirts (the plain cotton T-Shirt not the woven V-neck collar style), walked away with the equivalent of Frank Lampard and John Terry's combined weekly wages by playing the sort of manic serve-and-volley crowd-the-net doubles normally seen on a municipal tennis court.
And very enjoyable it was too.
Wednesday, 4 July 2012
What a fool believes
During Commons questions to the Communities and Local Government Ministers the Shadow Housing Minister Jack Dromey said: "Under Labour, homlessness fell by 70%." There are many different definitions used, but the generally accepted one is of statutory homelessness. Those are households placed in temporary accommodation by local authorities who have accepted them as homeless under the 1996 Housing Act. In the second quarter of 1997 there were 43,720 such households. In the second quarter of 2010 there were 50,400 such households.
I make that a 15.33% increase.
Last month Dromey wrote a long letter to the UK Statistics Authority claiming that figures released by the Government were misleading. Among the queries from Mr Dromey was whether the number of social homes for rent hand fallen by 40,000 or 200,000 during Labour's term of office.
Neither, came the reply, it was 421,000.
The reply says: "There is a statistical series for the annual additions to this stock (which is quoted in Mr. Dromey’s letter) but these figures do not take account of losses, which would be much more difficult to record. Official estimates of net change are available for social rented dwellings, but not for the wider stock of ‘affordable’ housing beyond this category. They show an overall reduction of 421,000 in the stock of homes rented from local authorities and housing associations over the period 1997 to 2010."
Tuesday, 3 July 2012
Cut Diamond
Last week he said he wasn't going to resign.
Last night he said that if he was attacked by MPs on Wednesday he would come out fighting and tell all about his discussions with Paul Tucker of the BoE.
This morning he was gone, presumably to spend more time with his money.
So what happened Cap'n Bob? Sorry, that was someone else.
Sounds like it wasn't such a good idea to threaten the Bank of England, not when they are your regulator. And to talk about discussions with Paul Tucker, listing how and when LIBOR numbers were misreported downwards, would open himself up to prosecution with the SFO and CPS due to report next month. And it would look worse still when all the other manipulations going back as far as 2004 were considered, where the manipuilation was upward not down, and were not discussed with the BoE.
Much easier to lie low now, take a back seat and fend off a few tricky questions with "I don't know. I don't have access to the files.because I don't work there any more".
Still to give Diamond some credit. He says he is being hounded out of office by MPs. Maybe or maybe not, but when was the last time an MP resigned because of their culpability in some scandal.
Last night he said that if he was attacked by MPs on Wednesday he would come out fighting and tell all about his discussions with Paul Tucker of the BoE.
This morning he was gone, presumably to spend more time with his money.
So what happened Cap'n Bob? Sorry, that was someone else.
Sounds like it wasn't such a good idea to threaten the Bank of England, not when they are your regulator. And to talk about discussions with Paul Tucker, listing how and when LIBOR numbers were misreported downwards, would open himself up to prosecution with the SFO and CPS due to report next month. And it would look worse still when all the other manipulations going back as far as 2004 were considered, where the manipuilation was upward not down, and were not discussed with the BoE.
Much easier to lie low now, take a back seat and fend off a few tricky questions with "I don't know. I don't have access to the files.because I don't work there any more".
Still to give Diamond some credit. He says he is being hounded out of office by MPs. Maybe or maybe not, but when was the last time an MP resigned because of their culpability in some scandal.
Sunday, 1 July 2012
Systemic manipulation
According to papers released by the US department of Justice, Barclays admitted that it submitted low values for its LIBOR reporting between 2007 and May 2009 because it wanted to con investors and depositors of its financial strength. It believed other banks were doing the same.
It also admitted that its traders improperly influenced the rate submissions from 2005 to 2008 to make money on derivatives.
The statement of facts released by the US Department of Justice says that a senior Barclays official and a senior central bank official talked on October 29 2008 and the Bank of England official asked why Barclays’& LIBOR submissions were higher than those of other banks.
Although the individuals are not identified in the documents, it seams they were Bob Diamond and Paul Tucker, head of the Bank of England's financial stability unit.
Lo and behold, after the call, the problem was fixed, but Mr Diamond claims he knew nothing about any misreporting.
"I am not a tax avoider" says Tony Blair:
"We spend a fortune every year on lawyers and accountants in order to make sure everything is completely [compliant with the law]."
Umm no. That is what tax avoiders do. Tax evaders do a runner to Switzerland. Tax avoiders go in for schemes or pay lawyers and accountants a fortune to assemble the necessary smoke and mirrors needed for tax avoidance. The rest of us just pay the tax.
Umm no. That is what tax avoiders do. Tax evaders do a runner to Switzerland. Tax avoiders go in for schemes or pay lawyers and accountants a fortune to assemble the necessary smoke and mirrors needed for tax avoidance. The rest of us just pay the tax.
Friday, 29 June 2012
UK banking needs a culture change
.. says the Governor of the Bank of England who was paid £400,000 last year without taking any risk.
Go ahead Sir Mervyn, tell us how much you are going to cut your pay.
Go ahead Sir Mervyn, tell us how much you are going to cut your pay.
Situation vacant
You have to read right to the bottom of the article and beyond.
Click on the picture to enlarge
Misbuying
Now, I would be the first to admit that the difference between a derivatives salesman and a 3 card Monte dealer is that one of them works in an airconditioned office, but I have to take exception to the FSA's charge that interest rate swaps or cap and collar swaps have been mis-sold. A contract is a contract, freely entered into a by willing participants, or so you would like to think. Maybe the contracts were mis-bought.
What happened was that banks salesmen offered customers the ability to protect themselves against a rise in interest rates. This would give them an advantage over their customers who didn't hedge. Instead of asking for an option premium to provide this interest rate insurance, the bank offered them a cap (limiting the most they could pay) and a collar (so that they paid something to the bank if the rate fell below the collar. In some cases the cap and collar were the same, giving an effective fixed rate of interest when the cost of the swap and the loan are taken together. The bank makes its money on the cap and collar because with the cap and collar in place it can do a bit extra of volatility trading (a bit complicated that, but don't worry).
The downside for the customer is that if interest rates fall (which they did), then the customers start paying the banks quite a lot. But their interest rate costs fall so they should end up paying about as much as they were on interest alone, or maybe a little less. The trouble is those pesky competitors who did not hedge who get the full benefit of the interest rate reduction. terminating the swap agreement would even things up, but to do that the bank needs to be paid all its discounted future profits, which is quite a lot. Better to stay in the deal.
Oh, and squeal to the FSA that the nasty man from the bank tricked you into getting out your pen and signing his application form.
What happened was that banks salesmen offered customers the ability to protect themselves against a rise in interest rates. This would give them an advantage over their customers who didn't hedge. Instead of asking for an option premium to provide this interest rate insurance, the bank offered them a cap (limiting the most they could pay) and a collar (so that they paid something to the bank if the rate fell below the collar. In some cases the cap and collar were the same, giving an effective fixed rate of interest when the cost of the swap and the loan are taken together. The bank makes its money on the cap and collar because with the cap and collar in place it can do a bit extra of volatility trading (a bit complicated that, but don't worry).
The downside for the customer is that if interest rates fall (which they did), then the customers start paying the banks quite a lot. But their interest rate costs fall so they should end up paying about as much as they were on interest alone, or maybe a little less. The trouble is those pesky competitors who did not hedge who get the full benefit of the interest rate reduction. terminating the swap agreement would even things up, but to do that the bank needs to be paid all its discounted future profits, which is quite a lot. Better to stay in the deal.
Oh, and squeal to the FSA that the nasty man from the bank tricked you into getting out your pen and signing his application form.
A few rogue traders
According to Bob Diamond, it was a big boy wot dunnit and he ran away.
The trouble is it is always somebody else's fault and they are too far down the organisation for it to be the responsibility of the CEO. But if Mr Diamond is not responsible for their actions, why does he trouser part of the profits they generate as his bonus.
The problem, as many are beginning to realise is not just one of risk, but also of culture.
Three years ago I wrote a blog blaming the entire financial crisis on Tie Rack. OK, it was a bit tongue in cheek, but the underlying message, that traders (who like to call themselves investment bankers) have taken over the previously sleepy and conservative banks and get to play all day with your government guaranteed deposits. The solution is to change the banks by separating out trading activities and to remove CEO's like Mr Diamond who in their entire banking lives have not lent a penny to a corner shop or engineering start up (unless their loans were wrapped up in securitised packaged of bankers acceptances and short term receivables), and replace them with honest lenders who at a minimum don't try to mess with regulators, statutory reporting, tax avoidance or rate reporting and fixings.
Three years ago I wrote a blog blaming the entire financial crisis on Tie Rack. OK, it was a bit tongue in cheek, but the underlying message, that traders (who like to call themselves investment bankers) have taken over the previously sleepy and conservative banks and get to play all day with your government guaranteed deposits. The solution is to change the banks by separating out trading activities and to remove CEO's like Mr Diamond who in their entire banking lives have not lent a penny to a corner shop or engineering start up (unless their loans were wrapped up in securitised packaged of bankers acceptances and short term receivables), and replace them with honest lenders who at a minimum don't try to mess with regulators, statutory reporting, tax avoidance or rate reporting and fixings.
Thursday, 28 June 2012
Done .... for you bigboy
There was a time when big banks didn't let traders near the senior executive washroom. The fear was that traders are natural predators, risk-takers, rule-benders who would stop at nothing to make a buck. Shame was that in the nineties and noughties, trading edged out and subsumed the rest of every bank. Here is why the earlier bankers' instincts were right (taken from the FSA report into Barclays):
We have another big fixing tom[orrow] and with the market move I was hoping we could set [certain] Libors as high as possible.
Requests to move Libor rates were frequently accepted by Barclays’ submitters, who emailed responses such as this, written in response to a swaps trader's request for a high one-month and low three-month US Dollar Libor on March 16, 2006:
Other responses included the phrases: “always happy to help” and “Done…for you big boy”.
For you ... anything. I am going to go 78 and 92.5. It is difficult to go lower than that in threes. looking at where cash is trading. In fact, if you did not want a low one I would have gone 93 at least.March 16, 2006, submitter's response to swaps trader's request for a high one-month and low three-month US Dollar Libor
[Senior trader] owes me! February 7, 2006, submitter's response when swaps trader called him a "superstar" for moving Barclays' US Dollar Libor submission up a basis point more than the submitter wanted and for making a submission with the intent to get "kicked out"According to the CFTC senior managers even coined the phrase “head above the parapet” to describe putting in high Libor submissions relative to other banks.
Sometimes, the traders asked the submitters to try to have Barclays excluded from the Libor calculation altogether by deliberately falling into the top or bottom quartile, in an attempt to influence the official fixing. Sometimes the requests covered several days or even weeks of submissions at a time.
WE HAVE TO GET KICKED OUT OF THE FIXINGS TOMORROW!! We need a 4.17 fix in 1m (low fix) We need a 4.41 fix in 3m (high fix) November 22, 2005, senior trader in New York to trader in London
You need to take a close look at the reset ladder. We need 3M to stay low for the next 3 sets and then I think that we will be completely out of our 3M position. Then its on. [Submitter] has to go crazy with raising 3M Libor. February 1, 2006, trader in New York to trader in London
Your annoying colleague again ... Would love to get a high 1m Also if poss a low 3m... ifposs ... thanks February 3, 2006, trader in London to submitter
This is the [book's] risk. We need low 1M and 3M libor. PIs ask [submitter] to get 1M set to 82. That would help a lot March 27,2006, trader in New York to trader in London
Hi Guys, We got a big position in 3m libor for the next 3 days. Can we please keep the libor fixing at 5.39 for the next few days. It would really help. We do not want it to fix any higher than that. Tks a lot. September 13, 2006, senior trader in New York to submitter
For Monday we are very long 3m cash here in NY and would like the setting to be set as low as possible ... thanksDecember 14, 2006, trader in New York to submitter
PIs. go for 5.36 Libor again tomorrow, very long and would be hurt by a higher setting ... thanks. May 23, 2007, trader in New York to submitter
The following are just some of the numerous examples of the communications between the traders and submitters:
June 1, 2006: Senior euro swaps trader: "Hi [Euribor Submitter], is it too late to ask for a low 3m?"
Euribor submitter: "Just about to put them in ..... so no."
September 7, 2006: Senior euro swaps trader: "I have a huge 1m fixing today and it would really help to have a low 1m tx a lot."
Euribor submitter: "I'll do my best."
Senior euro swaps trader: "because I am aware some other banle need a very high one ... .if you could push it very low it would help. I have 50bn fixing."
October 13, 2006: Senior euro swaps trader: "I have a huge fixing on Monday ... something like 30bn 1m fixing ... and I would like it to be very very very high ..... Can you do something to help? I know a big clearer will be against us ... and don't want to lose money on that one."
Euribor submitter forwarded the request to another Euribor submitter, advising: "We always try and do our best to help out. .... "
Senior euribor submitter to senior euro swaps trader: "By the way [euribor submitter] tells me that it would be good to see a high lmth fix on Monday, we will pay for some cash that morning so hopefully that will help."
January 12, 2007: Senior euro swaps trader: "hi [Euribor submitter]. we need a low 1m in the coming days if u can .... "
Senior euribor submitter: "hi [senior euro swaps trader], we will keep the 1mth low for a few days."
April 2, 2007: Euro swaps trader: "hello [Senior Euribor Submitter], could you please put in a high 6 month euribor today?"
Senior Euribor submitter: "will do."
July 29, 2008: Euro swaps trader to senior euro swaps trader: "I was discussing the strategy [to get a high fixing] with [Senior Euribor Submitter] earlier this morning - today he will stay bid in the mkt and put a high fixing but without lifting any offer, and then he will be really paying up for cash tomorrow and Thursday which is when the big positive resets are."
We have another big fixing tom[orrow] and with the market move I was hoping we could set [certain] Libors as high as possible.
Requests to move Libor rates were frequently accepted by Barclays’ submitters, who emailed responses such as this, written in response to a swaps trader's request for a high one-month and low three-month US Dollar Libor on March 16, 2006:
Other responses included the phrases: “always happy to help” and “Done…for you big boy”.
For you ... anything. I am going to go 78 and 92.5. It is difficult to go lower than that in threes. looking at where cash is trading. In fact, if you did not want a low one I would have gone 93 at least.March 16, 2006, submitter's response to swaps trader's request for a high one-month and low three-month US Dollar Libor
[Senior trader] owes me! February 7, 2006, submitter's response when swaps trader called him a "superstar" for moving Barclays' US Dollar Libor submission up a basis point more than the submitter wanted and for making a submission with the intent to get "kicked out"According to the CFTC senior managers even coined the phrase “head above the parapet” to describe putting in high Libor submissions relative to other banks.
Sometimes, the traders asked the submitters to try to have Barclays excluded from the Libor calculation altogether by deliberately falling into the top or bottom quartile, in an attempt to influence the official fixing. Sometimes the requests covered several days or even weeks of submissions at a time.
WE HAVE TO GET KICKED OUT OF THE FIXINGS TOMORROW!! We need a 4.17 fix in 1m (low fix) We need a 4.41 fix in 3m (high fix) November 22, 2005, senior trader in New York to trader in London
You need to take a close look at the reset ladder. We need 3M to stay low for the next 3 sets and then I think that we will be completely out of our 3M position. Then its on. [Submitter] has to go crazy with raising 3M Libor. February 1, 2006, trader in New York to trader in London
Your annoying colleague again ... Would love to get a high 1m Also if poss a low 3m... ifposs ... thanks February 3, 2006, trader in London to submitter
This is the [book's] risk. We need low 1M and 3M libor. PIs ask [submitter] to get 1M set to 82. That would help a lot March 27,2006, trader in New York to trader in London
Hi Guys, We got a big position in 3m libor for the next 3 days. Can we please keep the libor fixing at 5.39 for the next few days. It would really help. We do not want it to fix any higher than that. Tks a lot. September 13, 2006, senior trader in New York to submitter
For Monday we are very long 3m cash here in NY and would like the setting to be set as low as possible ... thanksDecember 14, 2006, trader in New York to submitter
PIs. go for 5.36 Libor again tomorrow, very long and would be hurt by a higher setting ... thanks. May 23, 2007, trader in New York to submitter
The following are just some of the numerous examples of the communications between the traders and submitters:
June 1, 2006: Senior euro swaps trader: "Hi [Euribor Submitter], is it too late to ask for a low 3m?"
Euribor submitter: "Just about to put them in ..... so no."
September 7, 2006: Senior euro swaps trader: "I have a huge 1m fixing today and it would really help to have a low 1m tx a lot."
Euribor submitter: "I'll do my best."
Senior euro swaps trader: "because I am aware some other banle need a very high one ... .if you could push it very low it would help. I have 50bn fixing."
October 13, 2006: Senior euro swaps trader: "I have a huge fixing on Monday ... something like 30bn 1m fixing ... and I would like it to be very very very high ..... Can you do something to help? I know a big clearer will be against us ... and don't want to lose money on that one."
Euribor submitter forwarded the request to another Euribor submitter, advising: "We always try and do our best to help out. .... "
Senior euribor submitter to senior euro swaps trader: "By the way [euribor submitter] tells me that it would be good to see a high lmth fix on Monday, we will pay for some cash that morning so hopefully that will help."
January 12, 2007: Senior euro swaps trader: "hi [Euribor submitter]. we need a low 1m in the coming days if u can .... "
Senior euribor submitter: "hi [senior euro swaps trader], we will keep the 1mth low for a few days."
April 2, 2007: Euro swaps trader: "hello [Senior Euribor Submitter], could you please put in a high 6 month euribor today?"
Senior Euribor submitter: "will do."
July 29, 2008: Euro swaps trader to senior euro swaps trader: "I was discussing the strategy [to get a high fixing] with [Senior Euribor Submitter] earlier this morning - today he will stay bid in the mkt and put a high fixing but without lifting any offer, and then he will be really paying up for cash tomorrow and Thursday which is when the big positive resets are."
It could only be Barclays
If I ever met a dishonest banker, chances are they had probably worked at Barclays, or maybe Lehman or some other second tier investment bank, but it was always Barclays that seemed to have a culture of dishonesty, in the same way that Arthur Andersen or Enron had that extra spiviness that set them apart from the rest. Barclays, as we know, used to make most of their money either from tax scams using their own tax position or by taking deals to other banks to use theirs. As a bank, they were never any good
And so it would seem from the reports of their alleged manipulation of the LIBOR and EURIBOR rates. What is that all about? Well if you have ever signed a floating rate loan or swap agreement with a bank (standard practice for companies), then you will see a clause explaining how the floating rate of interest is calculated. For a loan it is the LIBOR rate at 11 am on the fixing date, and that value is calculated as the average value as reported by a panel of banks as the rate at which they offered to take deposits at that time.
The theory being that by taking an average of several large banks, any blips in the market would be smoothed out, and because the rates at which they were offering to take deposits would be a matter of public record, any misreporting would eventually be discovered, so any bank that did so would not only be dishonest, but also stupid. Barclays, it appears, were both.
By reporting a higher LIBOR than they were offering, a bank would push up the marginal cost to floating rate borrowers. There could well be other instances when a big derivatives play might be "helped" by a lower reporting of LIBOR. The FSA reports don't go into detail of any losses but they do record emails demonstrating collusion. If the bank made money from it, then their customers and counterparties lost. Shame then that the government pockets the £290 million fine and doesn't pass it back to the customers.
Bob Diamond will forego his bonus for this year, but since the FSA has known about the problem since 2004, is there any chance he will be handing back his bonuses for the last 10 years? Fat chance.
And probably fat chance of any fraud prosecutions.In a world where you can get a long prison sentence for stealing a bag of rice, organising a demo to which know one turns up or assisting US Customs to break their own rules to export weapon components that don't exist, it seems that the punishment for systematic long term financial fraud by the chief executive of a bank is to have to settle for a £5 million salary, well £17 million when you count share scheme payouts, or make that £100 million since 2006.
In a statement Diamond said: "Nothing is more important to me than having a strong culture at Barclays. I am sorry that some people acted in a manner not consistent with our culture and values." Given Barclays, internal culture, it is easy to see Diamond's point. Barclays' "culture and values" have made him a lot of money over the years.
And so it would seem from the reports of their alleged manipulation of the LIBOR and EURIBOR rates. What is that all about? Well if you have ever signed a floating rate loan or swap agreement with a bank (standard practice for companies), then you will see a clause explaining how the floating rate of interest is calculated. For a loan it is the LIBOR rate at 11 am on the fixing date, and that value is calculated as the average value as reported by a panel of banks as the rate at which they offered to take deposits at that time.
The theory being that by taking an average of several large banks, any blips in the market would be smoothed out, and because the rates at which they were offering to take deposits would be a matter of public record, any misreporting would eventually be discovered, so any bank that did so would not only be dishonest, but also stupid. Barclays, it appears, were both.
By reporting a higher LIBOR than they were offering, a bank would push up the marginal cost to floating rate borrowers. There could well be other instances when a big derivatives play might be "helped" by a lower reporting of LIBOR. The FSA reports don't go into detail of any losses but they do record emails demonstrating collusion. If the bank made money from it, then their customers and counterparties lost. Shame then that the government pockets the £290 million fine and doesn't pass it back to the customers.
Bob Diamond will forego his bonus for this year, but since the FSA has known about the problem since 2004, is there any chance he will be handing back his bonuses for the last 10 years? Fat chance.
And probably fat chance of any fraud prosecutions.In a world where you can get a long prison sentence for stealing a bag of rice, organising a demo to which know one turns up or assisting US Customs to break their own rules to export weapon components that don't exist, it seems that the punishment for systematic long term financial fraud by the chief executive of a bank is to have to settle for a £5 million salary, well £17 million when you count share scheme payouts, or make that £100 million since 2006.
In a statement Diamond said: "Nothing is more important to me than having a strong culture at Barclays. I am sorry that some people acted in a manner not consistent with our culture and values." Given Barclays, internal culture, it is easy to see Diamond's point. Barclays' "culture and values" have made him a lot of money over the years.
Wednesday, 27 June 2012
Pay peanuts, get monkeys
Back during the last few years of the last millennium, the more enterprising or devious consulting companies made a small fortune by telling their clients that unless they were careful their computer systems could fall apart when the first digit of the year switched from a 1 to a 2.
As it turned out, although dates are widely used in computer programs, either all the developers figured out this once in a thousand year event when they were writing the code, or it was very easy to track down where dates were used and make sure there were no foul-ups. Net, net there were no great disasters on 1.1.2000.
But come the next century, those consultants had to find something to do, and that turned out to be outsourcing. For £250 an hour a big consulting firm could tell a big bank how it could save money in the long term by firing its staff in the UK and replacing them with Indians who would be paid about the same as the UK minimum wage. A UK IT worker might be costing about £60-70k once all the NI, pension rights and the rest were factored in, plus the overhead, whereas an Indian graduate with 5-8 years experience would cost about 10k (see above).
Which is all a shame when the system goes tits up because some junior operator in India, unsupervised by anyone in the UK, screws up a system update, places the same update on the live and the back up machines and then messes up the back out of those updates.
The outcome: a fall in the value of the shares owned by you (as a tax payer) of £1.7 billion, which dwarves any costs or losses due to the Millennium bug.
Tuesday, 26 June 2012
What we can learn from Sarf Lundun
Recently the Parliamentary Treasury Select Committee found that ""PFI should be brought on balance sheet. The Treasury should remove any perverse incentives unrelated to value for money by ensuring that PFI is not used to circumvent departmental budget limits. It should also ask the OBR to include PFI liabilities in future assessments of the fiscal rules".
By October 2007 the total capital value of PFI contracts signed throughout the UK was £68bn, committing the British taxpayer to future spending of £215 bn over the life of the contracts. The global financial crisis which began in 2007 presented PFI with difficulties because many sources of private capital had dried up. Nevertheless PFI remained the UK government's preferred method for public sector procurement under both Labour and the present coalition. In January 2009 the Labour Secretary of State for Health, Alan Johnson, reaffirmed this commitment with regard to the health sector, stating that “PFIs have always been the NHS’s ‘plan A’ for building new hospitals … There was never a ‘plan B’".
However, because of banks' unwillingness to lend money for PFI projects, the UK government now had to fund the so-called 'private' finance initiative itself. In March 2009 it was announced that the Treasury would lend £2bn of public money to private firms building schools and other projects under PFI.
Labour's Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Yvette Cooper, claimed the loans should ensure that projects worth £13bn — including waste treatment projects, environmental schemes and schools — would not be delayed or cancelled. She also promised that the loans would be temporary and would be repaid at a commercial rate. But, at the time, Vince Cable of the Liberal Democrats, subsequently Secretary of State for Business in the coalition, argued in favour of traditional public financing structures instead of propping up PFI with public money:
The whole thing has become terribly opaque and dishonest and it's a way of hiding obligations. PFI has now largely broken down and we are in the ludicrous situation where the government is having to provide the funds for the private finance initiative.
In opposition at the time, even the Conservative Party considered that, with the taxpayer now funding it directly, PFI had become "ridiculous". Philip Hammond, subsequently Secretary of State for Transport in the coalition, said:
If you take the private finance out of PFI, you haven’t got much left . . . if you transfer the financial risk back to the public sector, then that has to be reflected in the structure of the contracts. The public sector cannot simply step in and lend the money to itself, taking more risk so that the PFI structure can be maintained while leaving the private sector with the high returns these projects can bring. That seems to us fairly ridiculous.
In an interview in November 2009, Conservative George Osborne, subsequently Chancellor of the Exchequer in the coalition, sought to distance his party from the excesses of PFI by blaming Labour for its misuse, despite it still bearing all the hallmarks of the policy devised by his own party. At the time, Osborne proposed a modified PFI which would preserve the arrangement of private sector investment for public infrastructure projects in return for part-privatisation, but would ensure proper risk transfer to the private sector along with transparent accounting:
Labour's PFI model is flawed and must be replaced. We need a new system that doesn't pretend that risks have been transferred to the private sector when they can't be, and that genuinely transfers risks when they can be . . . On PFI, we are drawing up alternative models that are more transparent and better value for taxpayers. The first step is transparent accounting, to remove the perverse incentives that result in PFI simply being used to keep liabilities off the balance sheet. The government has been using the same approach as the banks did, with disastrous consequences. We need a more honest and flexible approach to building the hospitals and schools the country needs. For projects such as major transport infrastructure we are developing alternative models that shift risk on to the private sector. The current system – heads the contractor wins, tails the taxpayer loses – will end.
Despite being so critical of PFI while in opposition and promising reform, once in power George Osborne progressed 61 PFI schemes worth a total of £6.9bn in his first year as Chancellor. The truth is the coalition government have made a decision that they want to expand PFI at a time when the value for money credentials of the system have never been weaker. The government is very concerned to keep the headline rates of deficit and debt down, so it's looking to use an increasingly expensive form of borrowing through an intermediary knowing the investment costs won't immediately show up on their budgets.
So what do we learn from South London NHS? First of all that PFI is expensive, cripplingly expensive. Second that it doesn't transfer any risk At all. None, whatsoever. A private sector gopher may be replacing all the light bulbs at £200 a pop, if you'll pardon the expression, but there is no real transfer of risk because the public sector always needs the service, so when the public sector service recipient goes tits up, who steps in? Answer: you the tax payer, because the contingent liability loses its tingency (making the con very visible).
So why does the government persist in keeping PFI liabilities off the government balance sheet?
Monday, 25 June 2012
Reasons not to join the Euro
1. Staying out probably means that Blair won't be President of Europe.
I think that's enough
I think that's enough
Hester, Hester, Hester, Out, Out, Out
A NatWest Spokesman tells us:
Glad to know it is technical, not biological, but 'technical' carriues the implication, that they don't know what the problem is. However, the problem is believed to have arisen following a software update to the payment processing systems of Natwest's parent company RBS.
According to a spokesman from Compuware, whoever they may be:
Train A goes something like:
We employ 1,000 IT staff and, because of this, all our systems run smoothly.
Train B, however, goes:
All our systems run smoothly, why do we need 1,000 IT staff?
Unfortunately, it's standing room only on Train B, while Train A has been cancelled due to lack of demand and a bus replacement service is now in operation.
On the plus-side, all RBS Group employees are forced to have an RBS/Natwest account into which their salary will be paid. This happens around the 24th of each month, which this month falls on a Sunday, so payments would be made the following working day. Which would be today.
How's your bank balance looking today Mr Hester?
We are continuing to experience technical issues with our systems, which is impacting a large number of our customers. As a result, money credited to accounts overnight may not be appearing on balances today.Which is a great way to tell us about our relationship with our money, and how it is handled, but there is more. NatWest re-iterated that the problem is “strictly of a technical nature”, although it declined to provide further detail on the issues it faces.
Glad to know it is technical, not biological, but 'technical' carriues the implication, that they don't know what the problem is. However, the problem is believed to have arisen following a software update to the payment processing systems of Natwest's parent company RBS.
According to a spokesman from Compuware, whoever they may be:
The problem is that IT systems have become vastly more complex. Delivering an e-banking service could be reliant on 20 different IT systems. If even a small change is made to one of these systems, it can cause major problems for the whole banking service, which could be what’s happened at NatWest. Finding the root cause of the problem is probably something NatWest is struggling with because of the complexity of the IT systems in any bank.All the more reason then to keep the IT department in house. However that is not how it works. NatWest/RBS have fired thousands of back room staff and outsourced their jobs to India. In modern business there are two trains of thought that exist in management.
Train A goes something like:
We employ 1,000 IT staff and, because of this, all our systems run smoothly.
Train B, however, goes:
All our systems run smoothly, why do we need 1,000 IT staff?
Unfortunately, it's standing room only on Train B, while Train A has been cancelled due to lack of demand and a bus replacement service is now in operation.
On the plus-side, all RBS Group employees are forced to have an RBS/Natwest account into which their salary will be paid. This happens around the 24th of each month, which this month falls on a Sunday, so payments would be made the following working day. Which would be today.
How's your bank balance looking today Mr Hester?
Friday, 15 June 2012
Let's play a game
So the president of Argentina, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has demanded that Britain enter negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. Funny name for an Argentinian, Kirchner. Sounds almost German. Well actually it is, but let us leave that aside for the moment.
Let's play a game. Charades. I'll start. Well known phrase. Two words. Second word: off.
The British know all about Argentinians and Germans who want to help themselves to bits of other people's countries. We are on a 3 match winning streak and I think we would look to be favourites in this game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)