Some days, there’s just nothing good to say about financial markets. Today is one of those days. But we’ll press on with the reckoning anyway. If the appetite for risk shrinks anymore, equity markets are going to starve, and national governments are going to be the spenders and lenders of last resort everywhere (those that survive, anyway).
Before we forget, drinks are confirmed for Tuesday, December 9th at the BLVD Bar, located at 6 Queensbridge Square on Southbank in Melbourne, from 6:30pm until (perhaps) midnight. Finger food will provided, and the first drink is on the DR. But after that, you’re on your own for food and beverages. Quite a few readers are eager to toast in the New Year, or say goodbye to the old one. Either way, see you then!
On to the markets. Australia’s biggest mortgage lender says its bad doubts could double this year. Commonwealth Bank said loans it made to now-defunct firms Lehman Brothers and Allco. Bad debts at CBA were nearly A$930 million in 2008, compared to $496 million the year before. Ouch.
The bad loans are still a small percentage of the total loan portfolio. You can see, though, that Aussie banks are trying to beef up their core capital to provide for future loan losses. NAB’s $3 billion institutional raise endeared it to investors. CBA may have to raise new capital as well, if only so its Tier 1 capital ratio matches that of its peers.
Tier 1 capital is a bank’s core capital-the amount of equity it has to withstand losses. It’s actually a ratio of core capital to risk-weighted assets. You might be surprised that, according to the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA, or the agency that regulates Aussie banks), the minimum capital adequacy ratio for Aussie banks is just 4%.
They prefer it to be much higher, though, around 8%. And you can see why. Unusually large and unplanned losses in a bank’s asset portfolio could wipe it out if it didn’t have sufficient high quality capital on the balance sheet. This, by the way, is the reason the Paulson TARP plan in the U.S. morphed from a plan to buy bad mortgage assets on bank balance sheets into a direct inject of capital. It was meant to bolster the core capital positions of banks with troubled assets (cross fingers, hope asset quality improves.
Australian banks-at least the big four-do not appear to require any of the major capital injections taking place in Europe in the U.S. The banks appear to have parked a lot of their residential mortgage backed securities with the RBA, though (for safekeeping of course). It goes to show you, though, that banking is an inherently risky business.
Meanwhile, on Wall Street, the Dow fell by nearly five percent and the Nasdaq broke its 2003 low. It’s likely that stocks all over the world are going to test the 2003 lows again, and probably crash right through them. But we honestly thought that wouldn’t come until the first or second quarter of next year, and would be preceded by a significantly rally in shares.
That’s still possible. But the drumbeat of hideous economic news is pulverising investor sentiment. What’s so alarming about this market is that the popping of the credit bubble is not just forcing all asset classes much lower. It’s bringing the government into play as the key economic actor of the next five years (or much longer, perhaps). It’s like a giant global Red Dawn. Yikes.
Yesterday we promised to talk more about Aussie resource juniors. We’re running out of space today, so we’ll save it tomorrow. However, picture a world in which your great grandchildren have no idea what a petrol station is…because there aren’t any. It’s a world where petroleum is a construction material, not a fuel for internal combustion engines. And it’s a world where the most valuable resource isn’t paper capital…but energy.
Some reader mail?
As always, a well-written and thought-provoking article. But no Bill of Rights for me thanks . The problem with such a Bill is that unelected Judges can have an absolute birthday… at our expense. I do not want Activist Judges to dictate my life. While parliaments can be composed of a bunch of boofheads… at least we can vote the bastards out. Activist Judges are far more frightening than an absence of a Bill of Rights. Besides, we appear to have got along pretty well without a Bill of Rights.
Ahh yes. What to do with the boofheads? Vote them out!
From what we can gather, the worry about a Bill of Rights is that it becomes a specific list of things which you as a citizen may not do. Or worse, it becomes a laundry list of so-called rights the government extends to special interest groups. It becomes a list of particular laws rather than general principles.
That doesn’t sound like a Bill of Rights we’d want either. But then, as we understand it, a Bill of Rights is a very general list of negative rights. Negative rights specify what the government is NOT permitted to do. Positive rights, like the ones a lot of readers seem to hear, specify what YOU are permitted to do.
You’d want a Bill of Rights that negates the government’s power to make laws to tell you what you can and can’t do. The whole point is to remove critical freedoms like freedom of speech and freedom of the press from courtrooms and legislatures and put them, in a constitutional sense, above judicial or legislative deliberation. The government can’t touch them because they are off legal limits.
Of course other countries have had Bills of Rights that didn’t succeed at all in guaranteeing liberty. Weimar Germany is a great example. But if you’ll forgive us for being a barbaric American, we’d suggest that one reason these Bills of Rights didn’t help in the practical defence of liberty is that they did not include the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The founders realised that having rights-freedom of speech, of the press, or religion-was no good if you didn’t also have the right to defend yourself from people who would deprive you of those right unjustly, including the government. What good is it having rights that can’t be taken away if you aren’t able to defend yourself from people who want to take them away?
Of course in a civilised and free society, a man wouldn’t generally have to worry about the State’s monopoly on violence infringing on his rights. None of us spend much time defending our rights to worship and speak freely because we enjoy them without challenge. For now.
Keep in mind the second amendment to the U.S. constitution-which clarifies that a man has the natural right to defend himself with arms-has its origin in British common law and not the violence of the American frontier, as is often suggested by people opposed to self-defence.
The 1689 English Declaration of Rights recognised the right of British people (although only Protestants) to bear arms in their own defence. A similar right to bear arms was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives by James Madison with two big changes. One, it applied to everyone, not just Protestants. And two, it was not an Act of Parliament but an amendment to the Constitution.
That means it was not a right that could simply be taken away by a future Act of Parliament. To modify or eliminate a Constitutional right requires a specific and fairly difficult process. But remember, we’re not talking about “rights” like health care, education, or other socially desirable outcomes.
Parliaments of elected men and women are free to pursue those policies inasmuch as they represent what people want their government to do with their tax dollars. That’s consensual government, after all. But a clearly defined bill of negative rights simply tells the government what it cannot do with respect to individual liberty. That seems pretty handy.