“Wake up, gentlemen”

That was Paul Volcker's message to the Future of Finance Initiative, delivered earlier this week. Responding to what he viewed as timid proposals from the private sector on how to go about their business, Volcker proceeded to lay out what he saw as the key priorities. I can't find a useful way to cut this down, so I will quote it as a whole:

Let me just suggest, if I may, the way that I would go about this. I am not alone in this, and in fact I think that I am probably going to win in the end.

First, let us agree that we have a problem with moral hazard. I do not think that there is any perfect answer in dealing with it, but I would suggest that we can approach an answer by recognizing that elements of finance have always been risky and that's certainly true of the commercial-banking system.

I think we need the commercial banking system for more than automatic teller machines. Commercial banks are still at the heart of the system. In a crisis, everybody runs back to the commercial banks. They, after all, run the payment system. We cannot have this global economy without commercial banks operating an efficient payment system globally as well as nationally. They provide a depository outlet for individuals and businesses, and they are still big credit providers for small and medium-size businesses, but they backstop most of the big borrowers as well. The commercial-paper market is totally dependent on the commercial banking market. They are an essential financial institution that has historically been protected. It has been protected on one side and regulated on the other side.

I think that fundamental is going to remain. People are going to think it is important, it is important, it needs regulation and in extremis it needs protection—deposit insurance, lender of last resort and so forth. I think that it is extraneous to that function that they do hedge funds, equity funds and that they trade in commodities and securities, and a lot of other stuff, which is secondary in terms of direct responsibilities for lenders, borrowers, depositors and all the rest.

There is nothing wrong with any of those activities, but let you nonbank people do it and you can provide fluidity in markets and flexibility. If you fail, you're going to fail, and I am not going to help you, and your stockholders are going to be gone, and your creditors will be at risk, and that is the way that it should be.

How can I be so blithe about making that statement? We need a new institutional arrangement which I believe has a lot of support. We need a resolution facility. What can that resolution facility do? If one of you fails and has systemic risk, then it steps in, takes you over and either liquidates or merges you, but it does not save you. That ought to be a kind of iron cross.

In other words: Old Man Volcker is back and he's handing out detentions to the unruly schoolchildren. This is the kind of ballsy speech that only someone with Volcker's authority and experience could pull off.

I find this vision very compelling. There is no obvious reason why "too big to fail" financial institutions should have the competitive advantage of government guarantees while at the same time being free to dive head-first into the riskiest types of financial tools that may or may not be beneficial to the economy. We've just seen what the downside looks like, and it is ugly.

As Simon Johnson explains, this could well be Volcker's moment. It's true that his vision is glossing over the challenging details that would need to be worked out, but so be it. If Volcker can shift the public consensus in his direction, he will have accomplished a great deal.

Monday Readables

- "We have not yet achieved self-reinforcing recovery... We are on a government support system, both in the financial markets and in the economy." Paul Volcker is interviewed by Der Speigel.

- The Catholic Church gets all up in Berlusconi's face. The Economist explains.

- The award for healthiest teeth in the OECD goes to the British. The British!?

- The rate of return on cancer research: looks good. Now if only we had some numbers like this for green technology...

The passing of Paul Samuelson

Paul Samuelson, Nobel Prize-winning economist and giant of the 20th century, has died aged 94.

Samuelson's impact on the economics profession, public policy and education is immeasurable. His Economics was the very first text book that I, and generations of students, read on the dismal science. His Stolper-Samuelson Theorem, theory of public goods and synthesis of Keynesian and neoclassical economics are hugely significant to my intellectual development.

Paul Krugman, a student and colleague of Samuelson, reflects here.

Sovereign Debt Woes: UFO edition

One of my favourite stories from the past week has been from the United Kingdom's Department of Defense: under pressure from Treasury to reign in expenditures, DoD has pulled the plug on their UFO hotline. This drastic measure will save a whopping 50,000 pounds a year.

It's a sad day for skywatchers, alienophiles, crop-pattern-investigators and attention-seeking nutjobs of all stripes. According to the Guardian, this is also a sad day for science. Nobody said recessions were going to be easy.

Copenhagen in 'disarray'

That's according to The Guardian, after the draft agreement world leaders will be asked to sign next week leaked. Developing countries have reportedly 'reacted furiously' to the so-called 'Danish text.'

You can read it here.

Sovereign debt woes: Fitch downgrades Greece

Fitch ratings has downgraded Greece to BBB+. See FT Alphaville for their reasoning.

Obama's big climate play

Everyone knows that the prospect of a binding international agreement to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases rests in part on the potential for ratification by the US Congress. The failure to ratify Kyoto gave the Bush administration the opening to pull out of the agreement, while the inability of the Obama administration to get a cap-and-trade bill through a Senate absorbed by the health care debate is a big reason why a 'political agreement' is being debated today in Copenhagen.

In fact, given the political capital expended by Obama in the health care fight, and heading into an election year dogged by stubbornly high unemployment, its unlikely that Senate Democrats will risk being labeled 'job-killers' in tight reelection battles.

But what if Obama could take the global lead on climate change by skirting the US Congress all together? What if he was unable to get an international agreement ratified after the Bonn summit next year, but implemented a regulatory policy that in practice reduced emissions just as much? Cap-and-trade is needed, but saving the planet is necessary, and the Obama administration might have found a way to do its a part in achieving this goal.

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an executive branch agency under the authority of the US president, issued an historic finding that carbon-dioxide emissions are a 'public threat,' which paves the way for the EPA to directly regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act. This would require neither congressional approval nor enforcement, and the finding follows the 2007 Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases fit the Clean Air Act's definition of air pollutants, which means that a legal challenge to the EPA's authority is all but impossible. The EPA says it will now issue technical guidelines and work with the states to implement them.

This is a really big deal in the United States, and strengthens Obama's hand in Copenhagen. For the first time in over a decade, a US president can credibly claim that he is actively fighting the emission of greenhouse gases. And until the political will forms in Congress to ratify an international, legally-binding agreement, the US president can do the dirty work of cleaning up the environment.

Who knew that the biggest headline on the first day of the conference would come out of Washington and not Copenhagen?

The call of history: Copenhagen Climate Change Conference

The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference opens today in the Danish capital, with expectations raised after progress from the US and China in announcing hard targets and the revelation that US President Obama will now attend the final days of the summit, a sign the White House believes a real political framework is achievable. We will do our best to cover the developments over the next two weeks and start by highlighting a remarkable editorial run by 56 of the world's leading newspapers this morning in support of real reform, of inspired collective action, of 'the better angels of our nature.'

You can find it in The Guardian here.

I can only speak for myself, but I endorse their message.

How Soccer Explains the World

That is the title of a pretty good book by Franklin Foer, editor at The New Republic, an American magazine. It analyzes globalization and modernization through the prism of the world's great football clubs and rivalries. It is a fun and light read- you could finish it in a weekend- even if it a little too geared towards the American reader (hence 'soccer').

With the World Cup draw set for South Africa 2010, it is time to start analyzing the subtext of next summer's matches, preferably of the geopolitical variety.

Check out FP Passport for an introduction.

Friday fun: Probably a bad idea

To investigate the cocaine trade and drug prevention efforts aimed at Britain's youth, members of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee will head to the front lines of the war on drugs. Columbia? No. Guinea? Not a chance.

Clubbing in Camden? You bet.

This is fantastic idea that has no chance of ending in resignations.

Have a nice weekend.

Sovereign Debt Woes: the Mexican example

As an addendum to Dave's post below, if you are interested in learning about the current debate/questions surrounding sovereign ratings, have a look at the case of Mexico.

Fitch downgraded Mexico on November 23rd following the Congress' approval of the 2010 budget, which relied too heavily on borrowing and higher oil exports. Mexico's medium-term outlook is under scrutiny, in part, due to the country's over-reliance on a collapsing oil sector (output has declined by about a quarter since 2004, while the sector accounts for almost 40% of state revenue) and failure to sufficiently address the root causes of a widening fiscal deficit, including over-reliance of oil revenues and a small non-oil tax base. JPMorgan has estimated the budget deficit will swell to its widest margin in two decades.

Highlighting the current debate over sovereign ratings, however, is the fact that not everyone agreed with the downgrade. Goldman Sachs' chief Latin American economist Paulo Leme has called the downgrade 'unnecessary roughness' because it overlooks what is still a deficit equivalent to just under 2% of GDP in a recessionary economy. While each country's conditions are different, as a generic measurement a deficit under 4-5% of GDP is widely considered sustainable, especially within the context of a 7.5% annual decline in GDP. I can think of a few countries who would welcome such a small gap. Further, while Leme concedes the Congress could have done far more with the 2010 budget, he feels the downgrade overlooks the value of tax increases included in the bill. The political environment in Mexico is hardly conducive to reform, as Fitch cited as a major factor in its decision, so in this context the tax increases should be viewed as a positive development.

In my opinion, the medium-term concerns centered on the inability of the Calderon government to win Congress' approval for the restructuring of the oil sector are valid, and until this is achieved the country will remain under just scrutiny. But with respect to Mexico's ratings, this assessment places too great an emphasis on medium-term policy considerations, while overlooking the fairly stable near-term profile. Fitch correctly highlights Mexico's vulnerability to future oil-price shocks- relative to its peers Mexico's external debt-to-GDP and debt-to-revenue ratios are high- and limited room for counter-cyclical expansion. But when judged independent of its peers, a downgrade is likely a step too harsh given Mexico's 'healthy banking sector, resilient external accounts, the sovereign's manageable external debt amortization profile, as well as its ability to tap the IMF Flexible Credit Line (FCL) in case of a significant worsening of external financial conditions.' In fact, both the peso and Mexico's bonds rallied following the downgrade, perhaps reflecting a general skepticism amongst market participants.

The case of Mexico illustrates the tricky business of rating sovereign debt and fiscal sustainability, particularly in the post-crisis environment (i.e. widening fiscal deficits amidst tighter borrowing conditions.) While any credit rating agency will tell you that ratings criteria, however objective, are measured within a local context, it seems that in the current environment countries are being painted with rather broad strokes. The spike in CDS spreads for Gulf states following Dubai's announcement is one such example that wholly ignored the unique characteristics of the Dubai situation. The expansionary response of many governments to the crisis has been almost universally credited with averting a total collapse of the global economy. In fact, both the IMF and UN have recently warned against withdrawing this stimulus too soon, lest we manufacture a double-dip recession. While these policies ultimately raise important questions over the medium-term sustainability of imbalances, a clear assessment of a country's ability to exit this response and address larger deficits in the medium-term should control the outlook for a country when, like Mexico, that country is comfortably financing their deficits in the near-term. That picture isn't always clear in the current environment and ratings agencies should thus reserve their judgement until government's are sufficiently confident that growth is sustainable (which they aren't) and have been able to clearly outline their exit strategies (which they haven't.)

Sovereign Debt Woes: an ongoing series

As explained earlier, the freespendin' ways of governments to address the economic crisis has led to some serious sovereign debt concerns for the near future. This applies to both the developing and developed economies of the world. Want to learn more? We've got you covered:

- Morgan Stanley predicts that the United Kingdom (and sterling) is in for a messy year ahead (the Telegraph)

- Deutche Bank's 2010 Outlook also predicts that sovereign debt land mines may sabotage economic recovery somewhat. I will take their four "probable scenario" forecasts with a large grain of salt, but the core point rings true: that deficit levels in some countries may prove unsustainable for the market, and that some of the most difficult economic decisions still lie ahead of us (FT Alphaville)

- Those of you who have been following the events in Dubai may have seen several references to the problems in Greece. The Financial Times summarizes the situation well, and Wolfgang Munchau describes the awkward dance being performed by the EU to deal with its fiscally irresponsible member state.