Banks struggle with bail-in capital requirements; go with Glass-Steagall instead

The farce of bail-in is playing out in Australia right now, with the banks complaining to the regulator that they can no longer find suckers to buy the bail-in bonds that are supposed to be their buffer against a crash.

It’s the latest example of why the whole bail-in system should be scrapped, in favour of Glass-Steagall laws that keep deposit-taking banks safe by separating them from risky investment banking and other financial services.

Bail-in is the scheme concocted by the Bank of England following the 2008 banking crash, and implemented through the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and Financial Stability Board (FSB) based in Basel, Switzerland. Stripped of all of the confusing technicalities, their plan amounts to protecting banks from crashes by increasing their capital buffer against losses, instead of requiring them to stop the reckless financial gambling that causes crises in the first place. The buffer is called Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity (TLAC), at the centre of which are pernicious instruments known as “bail-in bonds”—hybrid securities that are sold as tempting, high-interest bonds, but which, when a bank runs into trouble, convert into effectively worthless shares in the bank.

Bail-in also includes deposits, which the FSB mandates can be written off or converted to shares to save a failing bank. The bail-in systems legislated in the USA, Europe, UK, New Zealand and Canada all include deposits in a bail-in; the Australian government snuck bail-in legislation through Parliament in February 2018, which they denied includes deposits, but which has loopholes big enough to drive a truck through that in an emergency can allow deposits to be bailed in. However, the government doesn’t deny that its legislation includes bail-in bonds.

TLAC

On 8 November 2018, the bank regulator, Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), issued a paper that said the banks should raise $75 billion in extra TLAC capital by selling more so-called “Tier II” bonds, a.k.a. bail-in bonds.

On 14 January, Jonathan Shapiro reported in the Australian Financial Review that in their responses to the paper the banks asked APRA to reconsider the plan, because it would be too difficult to sell bail-in bonds in the current market.

Shapiro reported: “Westpac treasurer Curt Zuber said he supported the APRA proposal to build a large buffer in the form of Tier II capital in principle but said the global fixed income market had moved away from buying Tier II bonds. ‘As we go through cycles, it is potentially problematic for the banks to get the volumes they need in an economic way for the system which allows for the balance we want to achieve,’ he said.”

This is a major admission, which reflects the growing concern that the financial system is in danger of another crash. With APRA’s encouragement, Australia’s banks were able to sell around $100 billion worth of bail-in bonds over the last 6-7 years. These bonds were very tempting to investors, for two reasons. First, they carried interest rates of up to 8 per cent, offering unbelievably good returns in the post-GFC low-interest environment.

Second, and more importantly, the investors assumed that because the bonds were being issued by Australia’s major banks, which were touted as the strongest in the world, there was no risk that they would be bailed in. That’s assuming they were even aware that these hybrid bonds could be bailed in. While the Bank of England, for instance, forbade British banks from selling bail-in bonds to retail investors, so-called mums and dads, on the basis that they might not understand their full risks, APRA allowed Australia’s banks to aggressively target mum-and-dad investors, to whom they sold bail-in bonds amounting to $43 billion.

The Citizens Electoral Council was the first to warn investors that, contrary to their propaganda, Australia’s banks weren’t safe, and that they were being set up to wear the banks’ losses. In an 8 July 2016 release headlined “Warning to Australian investors: Beware hybrid securities, a.k.a. ‘bail-in’ bonds!”, the CEC warned:

“Australia’s big banks are careening along a cliff’s edge at breakneck speeds with ordinary investors strapped to their bumpers as human shock absorbers. Bank regulator APRA is allowing the big banks to sell to unsuspecting Australian investors products that are illegal for banks in other countries to sell to anyone but other financial institutions.”

On 26 October 2017, Greg Medcraft, the outgoing boss of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), warned in testimony to the Senate that bail-in bonds sold to mum-and-dad investors were “a ticking time bomb”. Medcraft said most investors would not believe that they would be bailed in, but, he emphasised, “Yes, they’ll be bailed in. … Basically, they can be wiped out—there’s no default; just through the stroke of a pen they can be written off. For retail investors … these are very worrying. They are banned in the United Kingdom for sale to retail. I am very concerned that people don’t understand….”

Now, following the revelations of the Hayne Banking Royal Commission and with property prices plunging, the banks are effectively admitting that the market has less confidence in them—there aren’t as many suckers willing to be human shock absorbers. Investors are more aware that if they buy bail-in bonds, there is a very real danger they will be bailed in.

Glass-Steagall

It is past time that we end this farce of bail-in, which is nothing more than a scam to prop up banks’ gambling debts with their customers’ and investors’ savings, and instead impose real restrictions on financial gambling. And that means breaking up the banks along the Glass-Steagall division of commercial banks from investment banking and other financial services.

Glass-Steagall works! It protected the USA’s banks from systemic crises while it was in force from 1933 to 1999, and it’s what Australia needs to protect the people from the risks building up in our banking system. Whether or not the Hayne royal commission’s final report due 1 February recommends it, the CEC has legislation in Parliament ready to go, the Banking System Reform (Separation of Banks) Bill 2018, that will do the job.

What you can do

Phone, email or write to your Member of Parliament to demand they:

Break up the banks, by passing Banking System Reform (Separation of Banks) Bill 2018.
Audit the Big Four banks, using the Auditor-General, to assess the risk of a banking crash. 
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6136

The Dangers of Overpersonalisation

Is Overpersonalisation Killing the Variety and Interest of Your User Experience?

One user even noted that because the content was boring she continued to scroll looking for something that was interesting, “I don’t find anything interesting on Facebook tonight but what’s funny is that I will keep scrolling until I do; it’s addicting.” This behavior is related to the Vortex phenomenon, which refers to people feeling sucked into the online world almost against their will through sticky design techniques (like continuous content feeds). Users seek the emotional payoff they get from a good piece of content. In these cases, the phone turns into a mini slot machine: they keep pulling the lever coming across dozens of losers in hopes of finally getting a winner.

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/overpersonalization/

Salem Witch Trial

Salem Witch Trial

One of my friends told me about a powerful lesson in her daughter’s high school class this winter. They’re learning about the Salem Witch Trials, and their teacher told them they were going to play a game.

“I’m going to come around and whisper to each of you whether you’re a witch or a normal person. Your goal is to build the largest group possible that does NOT have a witch in it. At the end, any group found to include a witch gets a failing grade.”

The teens dove into grilling each other. One fairly large group formed, but most of the students broke into small, exclusive groups, turning away anyone they thought gave off even a hint of guilt.

“Okay,” the teacher said. “You’ve got your groups. Time to find out which ones fail. All witches, please raise your hands.”

No one raised a hand.

The kids were confused and told him he’d messed up the game.

“Did I? Was anyone in Salem an actual witch? Or did everyone just believe what they’d been told?”

And that is how you teach kids how easy it is to divide a community.

Keep being welcoming, beautiful people. Shunning, scapegoating and dividing destroy far more than they protect. We’re all in this together.

Chemicals used to fight BP spill were ineffective and toxic, study says

Oil Spill

The undersea use of chemical dispersants during the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil disaster likely did more harm than good, a new study says.

A University of Miami-led study indicates that the massive amounts of dispersants BP applied directly at the spewing wellhead – about a mile below the Gulf of Mexico’s surface – failed to curb the oil’s spread, and may have increased the disaster’s ecological damage.

The study is one of several in recent months that have questioned whether dispersant should be used at all. Other research cited in the UM study noted that dispersant appears to fight nature’s ability to clean-up after oil spills. A study by the University of Georgia indicates that dispersant kills or inhibits the growth of oil-eating microbes, including naturally-occurring bacteria that rapidly consume oil that dispersants only break apart.

Dispersant has also been linked to illnesses in humans and several types of marine life. The Gulf’s deep sea coral were found to suffer more from a dispersant-oil mix than oil alone.

“There is no upside in using ineffective measures that can only worsen environmental disasters,” said Claire Paris, a marine scientist and the UM study’s lead author.

BP declined to comment on the study. In the past, BP has said the use of dispersants was approved by federal environmental agencies and the Coast Guard.

University of Georgia marine scientist Samantha Joye said the study raises questions about whether dispersants should be used on future oil spills.

“These findings should change the way we think about spill response (and the) reprioritization of response measures,” said Joye, who assisted with the study.

The oil industry’s drilling in deeper water in the Gulf underscores the need for alternative measures for dealing with blowouts and spills, UM scientists said. The “capping stack” method BP used to plug the well nearly three months after the explosion might be a better first response strategy. The study’s authors also suggested more research into “bio-surfactants,” a less toxic and biodegradable option for breaking up spills.

https://www.nola.com/environment/2018/11/chemicals-used-to-fight-bp-spill-were-ineffective-and-toxic-study-says.html

BP claims an oil spill off Australia’s coast would be a ‘welcome boost’ to local economies

Oil Spill Fire

Coastal towns would benefit from an oil spill in the pristine Great Australian Bight because the clean up would boost their economies, energy giant BP has claimed as part of its controversial bid to drill in the sensitive marine zone.

This is ethically bankrupt and environmentally insane!

They should never be allowed near our oil reserves! Or anyone else’s for that matter!

https://www.watoday.com.au/politics/federal/bp-claims-an-oil-spill-off-australia-s-coast-would-be-a-welcome-boost-to-local-economies-20180406-p4z867.html