sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Tuesday's Top 10 with NZ Mint: Cullen is wrong; Too big to jail; 'The drug war is a joke'; White collar penalties; Banking fast track; Dilbert

Tuesday's Top 10 with NZ Mint: Cullen is wrong; Too big to jail; 'The drug war is a joke'; White collar penalties; Banking fast track; Dilbert

Here's my Top 10 links from around the Internet at 10:00 am today in association with NZ Mint.

Bernard is on his summer break and will be back in late January 2013, probably from Wellington.

As always, we welcome your additions in the comments below or via email to david.chaston@interest.co.nz.

See all previous Top 10s here.

1. Why cyclical KiwiSaver would be an awful tool 
Matt Nolan doesn't think much of Michael Cullen's idea to allow policymakers to adjust the employee portion of KiwiSaver, instead of using the OCR. Exporters who want policy to apply to everyone else, just not them, like it. But not Nolan. He has four reasons which he lays out on TVHE:

There is little evidence Kiwisaver increases national savings – and when it does, it is because of the “credit constrained”.

It isn’t savings that is the monetary policy issue – it is investment/consumption demand.

It is not politically independent.

It is even blunter than interest rates.

2. Too big to jail
The Economist has a revealing graphic, and another story here. Notice how all the banks in this list have most of their operations outside their home countries (except perhaps Lloyds) - sort of suggests a corporate sociopathic personality - behave at home for the reputational branding, misbehave abroad for the profits.

3. Allowances and entitlements
What if families operated like governments ...

4. Today's raw market data ...
A quick holiday update:

as at 9:00am Today Yesterday
11:10 am
Four
weeks ago
One
year ago
         
NZ$1 = US$ 0.8440 0.8463 0.8067 0.7607
NZ$1 = AU$ 0.7994 0.8025 0.7750 0.7639
TWI 75.20 75.46 72.92 68.30
    Friday 14 Dec    
Gold, US$/oz 1695.75 1,696.25 1,614.75 1,594.00
Dow 13,208.13 13,135.01 12,795.96 11,766.26
Copper, US$/tonne 8,001.00 8,047.50 7,396.00 7,340.00
Volatility Index 16.82 17.06 13.45 24.92

5. A euro-less Union?
Barry Eichengreen wonders out loud ...

Europe’s crisis has entered a quiet phase, which is no accident. The current period of relative calm coincides with the approach of Germany’s federal election in 2013, in which the incumbent chancellor, Angela Merkel, will be running as the woman who saved the euro.

But the crisis will be back, if not before Germany’s upcoming election, then after. Southern Europe has not done enough to enhance its competitiveness, while northern Europe has not done enough to boost demand. Debt burdens remain crushing, and Europe’s economy remains unable to grow. Across the continent, political divisions are deepening.

For all of these reasons, the specter of a eurozone collapse has not been dispatched. Would the European Union survive? The answer depends on what one means by the EU. If one means its political organs – the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the European Court of Justice, then the answer is yes. These institutions are now a half-century old; they are not going away. As for the single market, the EU’s landmark achievement, there is no question that a eurozone breakup would severely disrupt its operation in the short run. Trucks would be halted at national borders. Banking and financial systems would be balkanized. Workers would be prevented from moving. But what would happen then?

There has always been a debate about whether it is possible to have a single market without a single currency. Critics of the euro have always asked: Why not? Under this scenario, the Single European Act, signed in 1986, would remain in place. Member states would be obliged to restore free movement of goods, capital, services, and people – the EU’s “four freedoms” – as quickly as possible. Given the clear benefits that Europe has derived from the single market, they would have every incentive to do so. Proponents of the single currency object that if Europe has separate national currencies, it will have separate banking systems, each with its own lender of last resort. So much, then, for a single market in financial services, or for harmonizing regulation and removing trade barriers behind the border. Free trade in goods and free movement of capital and labor would not survive the euro’s collapse, these diehard Europhiles warn. We may yet find out if they are right.

And what about the acquis communautaire, the body of law that enshrines member states’ obligations not just in terms of economic policies, but also in terms of democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental human rights? The intent of the acquis is not simply to make Europe more prosperous, but to make it more civilized. Spain, Portugal, and Greece had to establish functioning democracies before applying for EU membership. Even now, Hungary and Romania feel peer pressure and face sanctions from their EU partners when they engage in dubious electoral practices, compromise their courts’ independence, or discriminate against minorities.

6. 'The drug war is a joke' - Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi says America's decision to settle with HSBC over its drug money laundering problems exposes a troubling double standard. The detail about the drug dealers boxes being designed to fit HSBC's tellers' windows is stunning. Watch the video - and you thought this was fiction?

If you've ever been arrested on a drug charge, if you've ever spent even a day in jail for having a stem of marijuana in your pocket or "drug paraphernalia" in your gym bag, Assistant Attorney General and longtime Bill Clinton pal Lanny Breuer has a message for you: Bite me.

Breuer this week signed off on a settlement deal with the British banking giant HSBC that is the ultimate insult to every ordinary person who's ever had his life altered by a narcotics charge. Despite the fact that HSBC admitted to laundering billions of dollars for Colombian and Mexican drug cartels (among others) and violating a host of important banking laws (from the Bank Secrecy Act to the Trading With the Enemy Act), Breuer and his Justice Department elected not to pursue criminal prosecutions of the bank, opting instead for a "record" financial settlement of $1.9 billion, which as one analyst noted is about five weeks of income for the bank.

Breuer admitted that drug dealers would sometimes come to HSBC's Mexican branches and "deposit hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, in a single day, into a single account, using boxes designed to fit the precise dimensions of the teller windows."

This bears repeating: in order to more efficiently move as much illegal money as possible into the "legitimate" banking institution HSBC, drug dealers specifically designed boxes to fit through the bank's teller windows. Tony Montana's henchmen marching dufflebags of cash into the fictional "American City Bank" in Miami was actually more subtle than what the cartels were doing when they washed their cash through one of Britain's most storied financial institutions.

7. Another white collar criminal gets home detention, lawyer gets even less
If you think 9 months "home detention" is light for a crime of defrauding others by inventing $10 mln in bogus loans, then what about the masterminds? Matt Nippert has the latest update of something that actually happened in 2002.

Robert Hucker, acting for Friedlander, said his client was not the mastermind of the false loans scheme, “which was designed by solicitors assisting Mr Friedlander at the time”. The law firm at the centre of the SFO investigation is subject to a permanent suppression order.

8. Is the future 76 year old politicians?
It is one thing to announce a come-back, but will the voters want him? And if they do, what will that say about Italy and its citizens? The one thing about an ageing population might be that we get politicians well past their prime too. (Winston will be 69½ at the end of this Parliament.)

9. Banking fast track
George F. gets his man. Well before he got the top job at St George Bank, an unemployed man in Australia managed to exploit a bad case on internal oversight gone wrong. I wonder what happened to the bank employee who was supposed to be managing this customer? Heck, that is about a third of George's salary. More from the Goulburn Post:

It's called the ''Complete Freedom account'', but St George Bank probably didn't have in mind the same kind of latitude as Luke Brett Moore. The unemployed 25-year-old allegedly defrauded the financial institution to the tune of more than A$2.1 million over 18 months, simply by overdrawing his account. 

10. Certainty: the enemy of science, the reason for politics
Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. André Gide

No chart with that title exists.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

17 Comments

#2 - Too Big To Jail - Headline: Biggest settlements with the US authorities.

 

What is noticeable is the US authorities have only gone after and fined Non-US Banks with operations inside the US. I guess all the US domiciled banks are either lilly white with clean hands, or they are too smart to get caught, or their Washington DC lobbyists have earnt their money.

Up
0

Congratulations to Matt Taibbi @ #6.

Are the US authorities that captured by the Big Banks and Global Corporations they can't see where this is going? The rule of law and the constitutional basis of the country is now, officially, a fiction - the US has become a Corporate Fascist state.

And John Key is sucking up to these criminals. Mind you, what would you expect from a parasite "earning" a living as a currency speculator. He'd probably think this sort of thing perfectly OK. 

Up
0

Can't accuse the US of not harbouring a festering grudge for a long time. This is the Boston Tea Party in reverse. Pay Back time.

 

The British were nearly bankrupt because of their costly wars against France and India (commonly coined the Seven Years’ War). Upon realizing that Britain was technically on its knees even after a victory, King George III decided to regain the money by taxing their American colonies. It was in a way, a move that hit two birds with one stone. The other goal was to reinstate their authority to a territory which they had neglected because of war.

 

Now the Americans having fought 3 costly wars are broke. Solution: The Americans have sent their colonisers out around the world, (Google, Amazon, Starbucks, MacDonalds, Coke, IBM, Microsoft, Apple) extracting profits without paying taxes, eroding the financial stability of those lemming countries, while at home the Americans are usuriously ripping the hearts out of any non-american businesses. Look at British Petroleum (BP) - charged $50 billion capitation fees, now the non-US banks. Next will be the Libor Banks for the next tranche of funds. Then there will be the sucker punch below the belt. TPP. It's all a transfer of wealth from the rest of the world to United States of America

 

Up
0

An interesting article in The Guardian

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/high-house-prices-i…

Along with many many comments including this one.

 

LinRichardson

17 December 2012 5:17 PMLink to this comment

Recommend

8

To borrow the model of the queen-as-ultimate-landlady, consider the following scenario:

Imagine I owned a block of flats from which to one could leave or enter, only instead of charging rent, i instead taxed my tenants incomes. Quickly, the situation would descend into chaos: the wealthier tenants would end up buying the flats of the poorer tenants, and then sublet them back them at extorionate rates. Quickly, I the ultimate landlord would find myself having to pay back money to the poor tenants, just to stop them from falling into arrears and keep the whole edifice from collapsing. The living space would never expand, because the wealthy individuals charging the rents would have an incentive to restrict supply: the lower the supply, the more valuable their assets and the more they could charge.

This would be a ridiculous way to run a block of flats, but it is exactly how the country "works," when the government taxes incomes instead of charging rent (ie, a land value tax payable by those who want to own land). The amount of land with development consent is effectively small and finite, and if landowners face no ongoing, fixed costs for owning the land, they have no incentive to use land efficiently.

 

Up
0

If we all pay taxes (including google etc), and we all get a government pension, then we all retire in reasonable equality.

If we all have our own pension schemes, and no government one, then we are just making sure  that the in-equality remains with us in retirement.

 

Some people argue against inequality, then the next day argue for it in retirement.

 

What a confused lot

Up
0

Paying for retirement with taxes is no different from paying your money to a private company.

The private company can loose your money just as easily as the government.

Either way it is still a gamble

Up
0

Not necessarily - government can print money; private company should not.....

Up
0

#8 - Winston Churchill was 76 when he was re-elected as Prime Minister in 1951, and he is regarded as one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century.

Up
0

I'll be thrilled if Silvio gets back in in Italy. He is hilarious. He is also a leathery old sex-pest who probably wants to re PM again to hold up the various prosecutions against him.

 

In terms of morality though, he is probably not far from Key, Cameron etc, its just that he parades his sociopathic lack of morality while wearing a leopard-print thong.

Up
0

And he was alledgedly drunk most of the time. Jolly Old Chap he was!

HGW

Up
0

Taibbi is always worth a look: and now the Squid is about to envelope the BoE, it's Interesting Times out there.  For another view of the 'let's tar and feather the lot of 'em' riff/meme, try JHK

Up
0

Europe is the epicentre of phase II of the credit crunch, from which waves of financial contagion can be expected to emanate for the next several years. Several member states are effectively at, or near, sovereign debt default, with the potential to trigger credit events in the credit default swap market. Banks are over-leveraged, often highly disproportionate in comparison with their host economies and intertwined with the sovereign debt issue.

http://theautomaticearth.com/Finance/impotence-leverage-and-central-ban…

all is well...honest....pass the deck chair.

"When we start running out of x-ray films, we have to decide who needs to be examined first; we trade with other hospitals or ask the patients to pay for the film,”

That isnt vaible long term ....

Coming to NZ I guess.

regards

 

Up
0

Spain's rise and fall.

What if (when) spain is forced out of the EU?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldu8X_UQPRA&feature=player_embedded

regards

Up
0

Re #9: "He was charged with knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime and dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception."

 

It would be nice to see those at the investment banks that packaged up MBS's charged with a similar offence wherein they knowingly deceived rating agencies and even their own clients as to the true level of manure contained in the CDO's they were hawking.  Dreaming...

Up
0

#2 The New York Times editorial puts it well.

"It is a dark day for the rule of law. Federal and state authorities have chosen not to indict HSBC, the London-based bank, on charges of vast and prolonged money laundering, for fear that criminal prosecution would topple the bank and, in the process, endanger the financial system. They also have not charged any top HSBC banker in the case, though it boggles the mind that a bank could launder money as HSBC did without anyone in a position of authority making culpable decisions."

But endangering the financail system with a prosecution? Really? How would they know? Surely the DOJ talked to Treasury, right?

More from NYT;

" “We did not believe we were in a position to offer any meaningful assessment. The decision of how the Justice Department exercises its prosecutorial discretion is solely theirs and Treasury had no role.” David S. Cohen, the Treasury’s under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, said in a statement."

So the Justice Department decides even though "...a Congressional committee outlined how the bank, between 2001 and 2010, “exposed the U.S. financial system to money laundering and terrorist financing risks.”" Noteably Iran and Mexican drug cartels.

From The Guardian ;

"John Coffee, a professor of law at Columbia Law School in New York, said
the fine was consistent with how US regulators have been treating bank infractions in recent years. "These days they rarely sue individuals in any meaningful way when the entity will settle. This is largely a function of resource constraints, but also risk aversion, and a willingness[by DOJ] to take the course of least resistance." "

From the DOJ

Assistant attorney general Lanny Breuer said "HSBC has admitted that it violated the Bank Secrecy Act, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Trading With the Enemy Act, and it has agreed to forfeit over $1.25 billion – by far the largest forfeiture ever in a case involving a bank.  HSBC has also agreed to pay $665 million in civil penalties, bringing the total cost of this resolution to the bank to nearly $2 billion."

Again The Guardian ;

"Despite the size of the fine, HSBC's shares on the London stock exchange rose by 2.8p to 644p. Last month HSBC announced third-quarter pre-tax profits to $3.5bn."

So less than a quarters profits for good ol' HSBC, but don't $2B sound big?

The right to prosucute in the case of future wrong doing is reserved by DOJ.

The lesson here is very simple. Just like lying if you're going to do commit a crime do it big enough for long enough and the people will except it.

Don't rob a dairy, fleece an entire population.

 

Up
0

The HSBC scandal should shed plenty of light on the falacy that terrorist groups, hidden deep in the jungle of LatAm, control the global drug trade. 

The reason we have an ilegal drug trade, is profit. Big profits, for very important people, as it is now evidently clear.

The reason the US has a war on drugs, is profit and jobs. Big profits and jobs, for very important companies, and people, respectively. 

It is not the 'banksters' that are being protected here, but the political gansters (polisters...?) that these banksters know, and would turn in, if they had to do hard time.

Unless, of course, they could somehow droned them to oblivion as alledged terrorist masterminds!

It stinks to high heaven, mate!

HGW

 

Up
0