Where will all the new money come from?

THIS POST IS A YEAR IN THE MAKING.

Wipe our Debt
Wipe our Debt (Photo credit: Images_of_Money)

We discovered it unpublished in our web archive today and as the theme is still very relevant today, we decided to publish it:

Today’s brief analysis of US Treasury Yield curves and the Debt profiles of both the USA and Italy highlights the enduring question in the title of this post.

The first graphic highlights one important issue.  We chose 2 August 2011 versus 17 February 2012 as key dates to compare the US Treasury Yield curve.  If we cast our minds back to 2 August 2012 two key facts emerge:

  1. This was the D-Day of the US Debt Ceiling vote
  2. The US still had a Triple A credit rating

Image

The key take-away from the Yield Curve comparison is that even with a ratings downgrade, the US is actually able to borrow new capital at a lower rate of interest 6 months on.

However, to pour a bit of realism into the analysis, we highlight two interesting Debt profile graphics below.

Image

The first one is the USA Treasury Maturity curve (admittedly 6 months out of date), highlighting when the current debt will need to be redeemed or rolled over.  The second is the Italian Bond Maturity curve.  You will notice just how similar the USA and Italy Debt Maturity profiles are.

 Image

From this comparison, the critical question currently for us is:

Where will all the new money come from to roll over the debt maturing during the next 3 – 12 months?  QE is one option, but investors still need to be convinced that their capital is safe and relatively risk-free.  It is the Risk-free equation (or investor risk appetites) that needs to be explored in more detail.

theMarketSoul ©2012

PS. Off course QE was the option and still remains so, for the moment…

The Future is Collaboration

The future of work and engagement has already begun. That is stating the blatantly obvious, but are we really prepared for it, yet?

A Spinning Jenny, spinning machine which was s...
A Spinning Jenny, spinning machine which was significant in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Here is a little taster of what we think the future of work will look like for most individual participants in the labour and skills supply market.

The key is that the industrialised ‘factory’ and production line models are now slowly but surely falling apart. The expectation for grown up individuals to turn up 5 days a week and sit at ‘battery hen‘ cubicles and perform tasks a ‘production line’ manager allocates and oversees are numbered.

The slow revolution was unleashed in the third industrial revolution or rather the digital age revolution at least 20 years ago when personal computers become more prevalent. We wrote about this HERE.

This image was selected as a picture of the we...
Clusters (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The fundamental problem today is that no one has yet effectively resolved the ‘contracting’ and hence TRUST problem of delivery on a large scale. We can do it effectively on the micro level, with freelancers selling there individual skills on small tasks and projects, where the risk of failure or an adverse outcome is mitigated. However, we have not yet evolved far enough up the trust hierarchy to fully outsource mission critical projects to ‘clustered’ skills and solution provider hubs, in remote and distant locations, far removed from the core.

Some of the critical inhibitors are these:

  • Immigration policies
  • Commercial legal frameworks
  • Fiscal constraints

Some of the important contributors are:

  • Digitisation and speed of the Internet
  • Platforms where suppliers and demanders of services can be matched
  • A common global business Lingua Franca

These are only a few of the factors either contributing or detracting from moving the revolution on in significant leaps and bounds.

Therefore, to conclude this first stab at a look at the future world of work, we hypothesis that the future will have large groups (what we will call CLUSTERED SKILLS HUBS) of skills pools bidding for contracts to supply services and solutions to leaner and meaner multinationals in cross border transactions and flows that are worth trillions of dollars annually.

Right now, we can’t see any major G20 sovereign government dealing effectively with this challenge, to ensure that they contribute and facilitate the move towards the new future of COLLABORATION.

theMarketSoul ©2013

An Ownership Revolution is required

We have been following the G20 ‘get those naughty multinationals in the tax tent’ debates raging for a few months now, with amusement we have to add; here at theMarketSoul and have the following short thought piece to contribute to the debate.

We know the ‘outrage’ really is all about the what the OECD calls the ‘general erosion of the tax base’, which in our opinion is just a distraction for proper structural reforms in the western democracies contributing to the G20 and OECD coffers.

English: The logo of the Organisation for Econ...
English: The logo of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The real issue is the power of civil society structures, such as multinational corporations, versus nation states. We constantly get an earful on how undemocratic corporations are from a liberal social leftist media and how dangerous unfettered corporate power is.

Yet, multinationals are far more democratic, in both structure and performance, than any sovereign government will ever be. If the corporate governance structure is correctly set up, then every corporate entity has an annual AGM at which point the corporate leaders have to resign, on a rotational basis, depending on individual Articles of Association or Memorandum ofIincorporation provisions (depending in which jurisdiction the corporate entity ‘resides’). How often does a sovereign leader stand down, in comparison and leave it to the popular vote to be re-elected? Certainly not on an annual basis, as is the case for most corporate leaders.

Civitas Foundation for Civil Society logo
Civitas Foundation for Civil Society logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This leads us to the real thought piece of this article, namely the fact that corporate ownership and access to corporate ownership should really be extended to as wide a base as possible, rather than a few ‘monied’ or opportunist participants in the market.

Legislation around employee share ownership schemes are still very cumbersome and rules, rather than principles driven.

The real revolution we require is not around a new tax base or recapitalizing democratic bankrupt nation states; however we require a revolution of democratic corporate ownership to sweep the length and breadth of the land, in order to spread the risk, add additional wealth creation opportunities (and hence a widened wealth tax base) for smaller, leaner and meaner governments to address. This a cry from civil society to the inner ‘goodness’ of political society to sit up, take serious stock and work on longer-term solutions to the erosion of their tax bases, rather than the usual headline grabbing short-termist market distorting interventions the G20 governments are so infamous.

theMarketSoul ©2013

Behavioural Consequences – The UK Bond Market Rigging Scandal

Health Warning: The UK Bond Market rigging issue is all behaviourally driven. We express a personal opinion in this post and do not endorse or condone breaking any jurisdiction’s sovereign laws.

We would like to contribute a very short thought piece on this issue. Our premise basically goes like this and is grounded in behavioural theory:

2012 Behaviour Matrix copy
2012 Behaviour Matrix copy (Photo credit: Robin Hutton)

Take away any sensible incentive (by over regulating the market participants) and you create the disincentive for cheating behaviour to manifest. Simple.

It is a natural competitive behaviour to ‘cheat’ or try to cheat a system that becomes ‘badly’ designed, as in the case of the highly over regulated bond market and an environment of very low yields.

We find is amazing that the popular press only tend to focus on one side of the equation and distort the real issue and underlying drivers that lead tot cheating behaviour.

Illustration for Cheating Français : Illustrat...
Illustration for Cheating Français : Illustration d’une antisèche Español: Ilustración de una chuleta Deutsch: Illustration zum Schummeln (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The rule of law should be the overriding guiding principle and helping to design markets and market participant behaviours based on properly incentivised interactions is part of any regulatory system. In the recent past, we have forgotten to bear this in mind…

…and then we act surprised when market actors (participants) misbehave?

theMarketSoul ©2013

Related articles

Hidden ‘cost’ of Opportunity Cost

As economists (assuming that most of our readers have a vague interest in the subject matter we keep on harping on about most of the time) we should all be aware of, if not au fait with Opportunity Cost.

English: A production possibility frontier sho...
A production possibility frontier showing opportunity costs of moving between two of the points. (Photo: Wikipedia)

As a one line refresher: Opportunity Cost is the cost or value forgone by choice. Choosing one option or outcome over another, automatically leads to an alternative opportunity forgone, hence the cost element.

So the real challenge is to extract the ‘right’ amount of value or benefit from the chosen option versus the forgone option. This is the real difficulty when the counter-party does not share the same or a similar risk profile.

What is the answer then?

Well as vaguely competent economists our stock answer is: It depends!

Wieser coined the terms marginal utility and o...
Wieser coined the terms marginal utility and opportunity cost. (Photo: Wikipedia)

Lets peal this back one level and start with the this position: the very fact that you had a choice in the first place is a very good thing. A lot or market participants are never really afforded the luxury of this or any choice. They just have to lump it and get on with whatever activity keeps them sustained. Therefore, from this extreme position an answer might be that we should count our blessings and just accept the inevitable and get on with choosing and working through the consequences.

However, in a world driven by value maximisation, the fact that we have to make the optimum choice does become more significant and important. What tools can we employ in a world of Information overload, yet still Information Asymmetry to come up with the optimal solution?

Choices
Choices (Photo: Scarygami)

Answer on the back of a postcard please…

Hiatus over!

Yes, we apologise further lack of service and posts on the forum over the last 13 months.

XXX
(Photo credit: Frank Kehren)

Today, we can declare the the hiatus is over and that regular(ly) services will be restored.

Hence, to kick-off, we will focus on recent discussions with ‘causal economists’ we have reached out to.

The key message is this:

Forget the Kondratiev wave, we are back in a Kuznets swing, with a clearly defined down tick in the cycle.

There ride will inevitably not be smooth, they never are, with significant volatility in between. However, the Kuznets swing has as an average a run time structure of 15 – 25 years.  [Out of interest, the last Kuznets swing lasted 21 years, depending on whether your started counting from “Big Bang“]

Are we prepared for it?

Yes and No might be the correct answer.

No, because we just don’t have the data for it currently.

Yes, possibly, because the effects of a digitised economy is the new unknown. This points us back to our own ‘philosophy‘ page on this site.

More in depth analysis and discussion on the new cycle will follow soon.

theMarketSoul ©2013 

Where will all the new money come from?

Seal of the United States Department of the Tr...
Image via Wikipedia

Today’s brief analysis of US Treasury Yield curves and the Debt profiles of both the USA and Italy highlights the enduring question in the title of this post.

The first graphic highlights one important issue.  We chose 2 August 2011 versus 17 February 2012 as key dates to compare the US Treasury Yield curve.  If we cast our minds back to 2 August 2012 two key facts emerge:

  1. This was the D-Day of the US Debt Ceiling vote
  2. The US still had a Triple A credit rating

Image

The key take-away from the Yield Curve comparison is that even with a ratings downgrade, the US is actually able to borrow new capital at a lower rate of interest 6 months on.

However, to pour a bit of realism into the analysis, we highlight two interesting Debt profile graphics below.

Image

The first one is the USA Treasury Maturity curve (admittedly 6 months out of date), highlighting when the current debt will need to be redeemed or rolled over.  The second is the Italian Bond Maturity curve.  You will notice just how similar the USA and Italy Debt Maturity profiles are.

 Image

From this comparison, the critical question currently for us is:

Where will all the new money come from to roll over the debt maturing during the next 3 – 12 months?  QE is one option, but investors still need to be convinced that their capital is safe and relatively risk-free.  It is the Risk-free equation (or investor risk appetites) that needs to be explored in more detail.

theMarketSoul ©2012