Many of our young will be without jobs, and will have to live in the basement of their parent’s houses, as a direct consequence of abominable bank regulations

Fact: The financing of house purchase is usually, with reason, perceived by bankers as much safer than financing entrepreneurs.

Fact: That means that, on their own, unregulated, banks would be expected to finance the purchase of houses more, and at lower risk adjusted interest rates, than financing entrepreneurs. 

Fact: But then bank regulators in 1988 doubled down on the same ex ante perceived risk and introduced risk weighted capital requirements. 

Fact: In those capital requirements (2004, Basel II) regulators assigned a much lower risk weight to the financing of houses (35%) than to the financing of entrepreneurs (100%).

This means regulators allow banks to hold less capital when financing the purchase of houses than when financing entrepreneurs. 

This means banks can now leverage their equity more when financing the purchase of houses than when financing entrepreneurs. 

This means banks can now obtain higher expected risk adjusted returns on equity when financing the purchase of houses than when financing entrepreneurs. 

This means that banks will even more prefer financing the purchase of houses, at even lower interest rates, than the financing of entrepreneurs.

This means easier, regulatory subsidized, access to house financing, causing higher house prices. How much of the easier  financing conditions when purchasing houses do we now have to finance when financing a house purchase?

This means a lesser, taxed by regulations, access to credit for entrepreneurs, causing less job creation and a slower growing real economy.

So, compared to what would be the case in the absence of these risk-weighted regulations this means:

For the young: Fewer possibilities of jobs and of buying their own houses. 

For house owners: They are sitting on assets that at current real valuations will not find buyers in the future.

For the aging: Lesser possibilities of taking care of their future needs.

For social peace: The young might revolt and shout: “Parents we’ve been cheated out of our future by crazy bank regulators, and you said nothing! So now you move down to the basements and we move upstairs!”

PS. Those more interested in providing our young affordable housing than in helping our young to afford the houses, which is of course not the same thing, are as I see it just some other vulgar redistribution profiteers.

PS. Here a brief aide memoire on the major mistakes with the risk weighted capital requirements

My insecurities about the social security debate

The following is extracted from my Noise and Voice of 2006, a book which reflects on what I discussed and opined during my two years as an Executive Director of the World Bank 2002-2004

About disseminating our knowledge

It really is not possible for the value of investment funds to grow, forever, at a higher rate than the underlying economy, unless they are just inflating it with air, or unless they are taking a chunk of the growth from someone else. Therefore when we observe how many Social Security System Reforms are based on the underlying assumption that they will be growing 5 to 7 percent, in real terms, for ever. I wonder when we are going to use our knowledge, and inform the world that this is just plain crazy.

When we speak of expected returns, let say a real 3%, this is just an average of a distribution curve where there are a lot of winners, with higher returns, and a lot of losers, taken to the cleaners. Knowing this, how come we allow the debate on Social Security reforms to use the averages? In systems where you are supposing to pay someone to manage the funds, you should expect the managers to produce different results. Yes of course the returns could be average, but for that you just buy a stock index, and pay no fees.

A question

Are there any real differences between a pay-as-you-go, governmentally backed pension system, and a pension fund that invests completely in government paper?

About the timing and the losers

Any individual Social Security accumulation system that has the luck to start when the markets are close to rock bottom will always perform better than those systems that start when the markets are at the top. This has been the real beginner luck of the Chilean system and future generations of Chilean accumulators might not be as happy with the results as the pioneers were. 

When we now read how investment funds publicly state that they do not wish to receive more funds since they do not know where to invest them and we also observe how many private pension schemes in the United States are running for public cover, we need perhaps to ask ourselves whether the timing for those Social Security reforms that might be en route is really that good.

Those who beat the market average will always love to be on their own, and therefore the problem does always reside with the losers. The difficult question is whether in an individual security accumulation system all of the future losers have truly surrendered their expectations of receiving official assistance and, even if they have, proudly preferring to starve than to ask for help, whether the governments could really get away from their social responsibilities by answering the losers with a “Hard luck, pal, you had a private plan.” 

And so, at the end of the day, to me it seems that you might just be substituting a pay-as-they-fall for a mean-based pay-as-you-go system. So, when we add it all up, it all boils down to the same—except of course for the fees.

On Social Security in Real Terms

In order for your savings and social security investments to be worth something when you need them, the real economy must be in a reasonable condition at the time of your selling your investments. When I hear the many discussions about the financial preparation needed to accommodate for the upcoming demographic changes, I find it truly amazing how little is being said about the economy in real terms. 

Considering that there will be many fewer young ones to drive people around and shovel snow, much of today’s beautiful real estate might drop in value when the elderly start selling their houses to live close to a metro, hospital, and more reasonable weather conditions. So, before putting the money away in a private accumulation trust I think we need to rethink the whole retirement strategy.

Also we should never forget that historically, through all economic cycles, there is nothing so valuable in terms of personal social security as having many well-educated loving children to take care of you, and that you can’t, in real terms, beat that with any social security reform.

Two current updates on the social-security issue

Sir, Delphi’s (a company that supplies General Motors) problems do indeed pose a threat to public-pension institutions, but it also evidences the structural weakness of the alternative of accumulations in private-investment accounts. The fact is that when the old retire and might need to sell their stocks, the young might not be willing to buy them. 

Sir, With respect to GM’s pension woes, you claim that the company recorded a return of 5 per cent in the first half of the year, putting it on track for its assumed annual return of 9% but also that if GM’s pension funds produced the same poor returns as the equity and bond markets, this would of course have a dramatic negative impact. What is thereby implied makes a case for developing a formula that calculates how much arrogance it must take to promise to pay 9% on funds over a life span, and/or to beat the markets continuously.

PS. First, they discount future pension liabilities at high rates. Then they impose bank capital requirements which much favors refinancing the safer present than financing the riskier future. And so the squeeze is on, the squeeze is on.

PS. OpenAI ChatGPT: 

 "Would you be able to implement a system that continuously monitors and informs us whether social security and pension funds have sufficient reserves to reasonably meet their expected future obligations?"

The taxes we have to pay

It is time for payment of income taxes and I have just complied with my duty as a citizen. I must admit that compared to what I would have paid elsewhere, I personally did not have to pay an exaggerated amount of tax. Why is it then, that I am not satisfied? Could it be that it is because I am being eaten away inside by a suspicion, already bordering on certainty, that my country would be better off had I not paid taxes at all?

On the same day I finished struggling through my tax forms, I read in the press about PDVSA´s fiscal contribution for 1997. This contribution amounted to all the Bolivares in the world. Upon cranking the numbers on my calculator which went into an exponential mode, I found that this boils down to a contribution per capita of Bs. 200,000 for every Venezuelan citizen, rich and poor, young and old.

I imagine that in the international world of taxation, these Bs. 200,000, which translate to US$ 400 per year, don’t qualify for a position at the top of the list. If, however, they are expressed in terms of some of the public services offered, these figures are numbing.

Every retired Venezuelan, those we hold dear to our hearts and affectionately refer to as “los viejitos”, is due to receive Bs. 50,000 per month in retirement pay. Using the technology provided for by modern accounting, i.e. re-expression, we can affirm that every Venezuelan, rich and poor, young and old have contributed, via the cession of his or her portion of oil income, an equivalent of 4 months of retirement pay to the nation’s coffers. These figures would undoubtedly qualify us, as taxpayers, for mention in the Guinness World Book of Records.

All of this is before we even get into what we all pay in sales tax, (VAT) which by law must not be specified in the final sales price of any product. This only hides even further the magnitude of the buyer’s contribution to the above mentioned coffers. Is this restriction due simply to bad conscience or to outright hooliganism? I will let others decide.

And all of this before we include the other hidden taxes such as the sky high telephone rates we must pay because the nation has sold concessions at elevated prices in order to raise fresh resources. Authorities (in this case Conatel) have already gone on record as stating that during the next bid for a concession of a cellular phone system, we “must not commit the same mistake of selling it cheaply, in obvious detriment of the interests of the State. We must try to get more than US$ 100 million for it”. Obviously, those US$ 100 million must be repaid by the end user, by way of higher tariffs. Obviously, nobody has considered the right of the common citizen to be able to communicate economically. One of these days it will occur to someone to announce the letting of a concession for pure air.

And all of this before we include the hidden taxes represented by the abominable public services we receive.

And all of this before we include the immense contribution of a healthy portion of the physicians, professors, teachers and other professionals that work and comply with their obligations, earning pay that is well below what it should be.

And all of this before the contribution of companies in the form of taxes on assets, which must be paid whether the company is in the black or in the red and which ultimately find their way to the final consumer.

And all this before we consider the astronomic taxes incurred due to a string of devaluations, the impact of which is proven when we see that never, before or after Columbus, has the public sector been so large in comparison to the private sector. The essence of any neo-liberal model is the reduction of the influence of the public sector on the economy. The tropicalized interpretation of this model by our government officials has allowed them to get rid of all that has become obsolete, that is causing them problems or even worse, that requires investment. It seems that their dream is to keep all fiscal income but without any of the corresponding obligations.

This series of inexhaustible fiscal contributions, voluntary and involuntary, evident and occult, is justified by the threat that, should we not pay up, we will have a monster deficit, inflation will eat us alive, and along with these two specters the big bad wolf will get us as well. Ladies and Gentlemen, inflation has been around for many years and the wolf has been here for some time. It seems to me he is dressed up as the taxman.

Venezuela’s problem cannot be found on the fiscal contribution side of the coin. Venezuela’s problem is found, with crystal clarity, on the fiscal spending side. This is why, by paying my income tax, I could be causing damage to my country. Something like giving drugs to an addict. Something like giving an alcoholic a bottle of rum. Something like treason.

The next time you see a dirty, tattered and hungry child abandoned in the streets without hope, remember that he has also contributed Bs. 200,000 to the Venezuelan State in 1997

PS. Fast forward: My tax paradise (nothing as powerful against tax havens than tax heavens)