The LIBOR Manipulation, Who’s To Blame: Bankers Or The Process?

The LIBOR (London Interbank Offer Rate) is currently the centre of attention after the City Regulator ordered its biggest ever fine – £290 million penalty – to Barclays for manipulating the LIBOR rate.

Indeed, the recent revelations of the alleged manipulation of the LIBOR by most of the major banks have made this interest rate the top topic in the news around the world. However for me, the ultimate question is (as it has always been since April 2008 when the LIBOR stopped being in line with the UK base rate) to know whether the issue was actually the operator (i.e. the bankers) or the way the LIBOR is calculated/consolidated (i.e. the process).

Since 2007 at the beginning of the global financial crisis , I have been following the LIBOR rate. In April 2008, I started questioning the way the LIBOR was calculated as it started falling dramatically (at 2.48% from 4.22% in January 2008 and 5.27% in September 2007) and was no longer in line with the UK base rate (which was at 5% in April 2008). Although it must be said that the LIBOR does not necessarily always have to be in line with the base rate, I am however increasingly vindicated in my concerns with regards to the way Thomson Reuters (on behalf of the BBA) gather and consolidate data in order to reveal the daily LIBOR rate. Source of data: http://www.bbalibor.com/bba  

In practice, Thomson Reuters calculates and distributes LIBOR on behalf of the BBA. The BBA names the panel banks that submit the rates to Thomson Reuters and also sets the methodology Thomson Reuters follows for the calculation. Every morning Thomson Reuters receives the contributions electronically from the panel banks. It performs a series of high-level validity checks following the criteria set and agreed with the BBA. The rates contributed by the panel banks are meant to answer the question: “At what rate could you borrow funds …?”

Not too bad as a method of calculation but could it be more accurate & transparent?

Indeed, instead of relying on a panel of surveyed banks that provide data on their prospects of borrowing along with their forecast of liquidity which later are consolidated by an agency, would it not be more sensible to have a system where the actual rates of borrowing between banks are automatically recorded as transactions take place? Banks / financial institutions lending to each other at different rates …, the consolidation would ultimately and automatically takes place when financial markets close, thereby producing a rate that would be the market’s opening price?

I can already hear some critics arguing that the LIBOR rate is different from other rates or index values as this is solidly linked to the level of liquidity in circulation. But wait a minute, the same principle applies: if the rate falls below its real value, this will mean that there was plenty of liquidity in such a way that it became cheap … the rate will progressively appreciate as liquidity will become rare and the cycle will start again.

I can hear some others arguing that not all banks will be on the automated electronic system, thus some transactions will be missed out and therefore jeopardise the accuracy of the LIBOR. Hang on; does the current method include all banks? Is it not just a panel of banks set by the BBA?

Other critics suggest that the separation of the retail and investment banking is the ultimate solution. I have to admit that, although this would be a giant step towards resolving the current banking crisis, it would not however help to strengthen the current system in terms of the calculation of the LIBOR. Indeed, most of the so called retail banking products such as mortgages rely on the LIBOR rate; thus being able to manipulate the LIBOR will definitely impact both investment banking as well as retail banking.

With the current system, banks have been manipulating the Libor so as to get funds at a cheaper rate and to lift up gains on trading positions they hold. At this defining moment where we are still in the economic & financial tornado started in 2007 and generated by banks / financial institutions and where there have been some financial scandals (the alleged mis-selling of PPI & Interest Rate Swaps), we cannot really expect bank professionals to suddenly change and no longer be greedy, no longer try to manipulate figures etc, can we? That would be very naïve. At the end of the day bankers are made to make money!  On top of all this, the recent IT issue that prevented millions of banks users (not only RBS/NatWest users – some other bank users could not receive payments as they were paid from a RBS/NatWest bank account) from accessing money has not helped to restore trust.

It is therefore pretty clear that bankers are not likely to deviate from their “raison d’être” that is “making money”. The only way to get this fixed is by making the process as robust as possible.

This paper is a first step of an article that I am preparing on the LIBOR System. This is a first thought aiming to raise questions. For example, is this the time to think about another process of calculating the LIBOR or should we stick to the current system expecting that the FSA (the first to blame in my opinion), the BBA and to some extent the Bank of England and the SFO would finally start doing their job properly?

Floating Regime: Myth or Reality?

As you might be aware, The Swiss National Bank decided yesterday 06/09/2011 to peg the Swiss franc against the Euro (CHF 1.20 per Euro) in an attempt to weaken its currency and protect its economy. The SNB has also pledged to buy foreign currencies to force down the value of the Swiss franc and has warned that it would no longer allow 1 CHF to be worth more than € 0.83.

For me, this implies a high level of intervention into markets and thus raises a lot of questions: with American, China, and now Switzerland setting fixed values for their currencies by strictly monitoring it, are we still within the floating regime where market forces were supposed to determine currency values? We know that even in normal circumstances, Central Bank normally intervenes to stabilise its currency; but to this extent? Having a goal of a fixed rate set by a central bank?  Are we about to witness a currency war as Japan also recently revealed their plan of selling the yen and pledge to inject liquidity? Should we therefore rename the “floating regime” to a “managed float regime”?

To be continued …

Rencontre Chine – Etats-Unis: Monnaie Et Politique De Change Au Cœur Des Discussions

Ce matin donc commençait la visite officielle du président chinois Hu Jintao aux Etats-Unis où il a été reçu dans la journée par son homologue américain Barack Obama.

Comme de coutume, dans ce genre de rencontre, la conférence de presse est de mise avec ses courtoisies, le respect mutuel, des compliments partagés etc etc… Pourtant en toile de fond on dirait deux experts de la Finance Internationale : l’un prônant un système de change totalement décidé par les forces du marché et donc totalement flottant, Barack Obama pour ne las le citer ; et l’autre bien qu’implicitement, défendant un change relativement contrôlé avec une marge de fluctuation très étroite.

Alors pour mieux comprendre les enjeux sous-tendant les positions de l’un comme de l’autre, je me suis prêté au jeu « avantages & inconvénients » de chacun des systèmes.

Si les avantages d’un système de change flottant – correction automatique, moins de problèmes de liquidités internationales et de réserves, commerce international mieux équilibré, protection automatique vis-à-vis des chocs externes- font quasiment l’unanimité de nos jours ; les avantages attribués à un système de change fixe ou contrôlé ne seraient pas aussi nocifs à l’économie à en croire Hu Jintao.

Tout d’abord la politique chinoise de change…

Depuis le 1^er Janvier 1994, le Yuan chinois est ancré au Dollar américain sur la base d’une parité fixée à 8,277 yuan pour un dollar avec une marge de fluctuation très étroite (+/- 0,3%). Depuis 1994, la monnaie est convertible mais pas pleinement et les mesures de contrôle des changes sont extrêmement strictes avec pour objectif principal le maintien de la stabilité monétaire permettant de garantir une croissance élevée et une « prospérité sociale ». Entre autre mesures, la banque centrale chinoise est dans l’obligation d’acheter ou de vendre du dollar – fonction de la situation – pour maintenir la parité fixe yuan/dollar. Et bien sûr la maintenir à un niveau sous évalué.

Aussi, la chine par des lois taillées sur mesure, non seulement n’autorise pas les résidents étrangers, en particuliers les traders et banques américaines à investir des capitaux en chine, mais en plus rend l’action de ces derniers pratiquement  impossible sur les marchés des changes et de capitaux chinois. Car si ceux-ci parvenaient à placer librement leur dollars désormais bon marché (dollar américain) en chine comme ils le font au Brésil ou en Inde afin de percevoir des rémunérations relativement élevées que celles qu’ils percevraient en plaçant ces fonds aux Etats-Unis ; ceci aurait pour effet  à termes d’accroitre la demande du yuan chinois et si soumis à la loi de l’offre et de la demande, d’accroitre sa valeur.

Mais pour défendre ces mesures, Hu Jintao vous dira par exemple, qu’en maintenant son change sous-évalué et à parité quasiment fixe avec le dollar, entre autre bénéfices au delà des exportations bon marché, la chine offre pour les entreprises étrangères un cadre plus certain aux affaires. En effet, lorsque les taux de change sont moins volatiles, le commerce est beaucoup moins risqué dans la mesure où les profits, une fois rapatriés, ne sont pas altérés par les variations. Ceci justifierait donc entre autre raisons, la préférence chinoise de plusieurs multinationales occidentales lorsqu’il faut relocaliser (‘offshoring’). Et pour le président Obama, comme pour d’autres décideurs de par le monde, ceci serait une forme de concurrence déloyale.

Un autre bénéfice de ces mesures serait que le yuan chinois fait moins l’objet de spéculations car les potentiels spéculateurs ne prévoient pas de variations significatives de la monnaie. Et du coup, parce que moins exposé, moins attaqué et donc plus stable, le yuan pourrait commencer à bénéficier de la confiance des traders et institutions financières. Ceci causerait de fait quelques petits soucis au dollar américain et aux autorités américaines qui depuis la fin de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale savourent bien les avantages que leur confère le status de monnaie de réserve internationale… [Je vais peut être un peu trop vite en besogne….mais bon !].

Donc, en plus de la compétitivité affichée que lui apportent la stabilité et la sous-évaluation de son change, la chine aurait bien d’autres raisons inavouées…

Et pourquoi d’autres Economies ne suivent-elles pas les méthodes chinoises ?

Si tout le monde venait à agir comme la Chine, les premières Economies à subir seraient probablement les grandes Economies elles mêmes (Eurozone, USA, GB …) et ensuite les pays très pauvres. Comment ? En ceci que pour soutenir une croissance mondiale, il faut qu’elle soit accompagnée par un niveau de liquidités internationales approprié (Euro, Dollars, Livres sterling, etc.). Alors si les pays émetteurs de ces devises internationales venaient soit à restreinte/ soit à trop émettre celles ci afin de satisfaire leurs besoins de compétitivité, cela conduirait indiscutablement soit à un ralentissement de l’activité économique mondiale dans son ensemble, soit à une inflation au niveau mondial.

Deuxièmement, si la politique compétitive chinoise était adoptée par tout le monde, cela conduirait inévitablement à des mesures protectionnistes du « chacun pour soi »  ce qui à son tour engendrait des crises généralisées, une limitation de la croissance mondiale et au pire à une récession mondiale.

Mais la chine pourra-t-elle indéfiniment poursuivre cette politique du contrôle de change ? Quels risques coure-t-elle ?

Je commencerais par le risque de l’incapacité de répondre aux chocs. En effet, avec un régime de change fixe, lorsque les prix et le taux de salaire sont rigides, les marges de manœuvres permettant de faire face à des crises soudaines de la balance des paiements – comme celles causées par une augmentation brutale des prix du pétrole, sont très étroites. Hu Jintao me répondra surement que pour le moment, la china à un excédent commercial avoisinant les 11% du PIB…no comment.

Mais à très long terme, cette politique du contrôle du taux de change pourrait entrer en conflit avec les intérêts du monde des affaires et même ceux de l’économie nationale : la chine dépendant en majorité de ses exportations, elle pourrait voir à la faveur d’un choc externe (par exemple, une récession dans les pays importateurs, donc une baisse de la demande des produits chinois, ou du simple fait du durcissement de la concurrence étrangère) apparaitre une détérioration de sa balance des paiements. Le taux de change étant fixe, le pays perd de fait sa compétitivité…

A mon avis, si la Chine souhaite un jour jouer un rôle plus important dans la sphère financière internationale, elle devrait pour cela peut être, commencer par revoir l’ancrage du Yuan au dollar avec une nouvelle valeur de parité, élargir les marges de fluctuation du yuan vis-à-vis du dollar (+/- 5 à 7% par ex.) et à termes laisser fluctuer le yuan au gré des forces du marché. Ce d’autant plus que selon les experts, le yuan serait sous évalué de 15-25% à 60-70%. Et peut être aussi, la chine devrait commencer à penser à l’ancrage du yuan à un panier de devises plus large (dollar, euro, yen par ex.).

Il faut tout de même avant de conclure, noter que d’autres grandes puissances y compris les Etats-Unis interviennent quoique qu’indirectement, sur les marchés des changes afin de positionner leur monnaie en harmonie avec les objectifs de politique économique nationale.

A lire aussi :

Towards a new global reserve currency…the end of the U.S. dollar?

2010 G20 Seoul Summit Preparations: A Blame Game Over Currency War?

Last week was held in Gyeongju, South Korea, the annual Meeting of the G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors aimed at preparing the next month G20 summit that will be held in Seoul, Korea on 11-12 November 2010.

Although the official agenda was to discuss how to tackle the financial and economic crisis that spread across the globe in 2008 and ensuring global economic recovery with strong, sustainable, and balanced global growth, the meeting ended up being a “blame game” on currencies and exchange rate manipulation: The USA accusing China of administratively maintaining their currency low to boost exports … asking them to let markets set foreign-exchange values. Germany, through its Economy Minister Rainer Bruederle, criticising the USA’s monetary policy of indirectly manipulating the US dollar by printing out and issuing money in order to lift growth. Indeed, for Rainer Bruederle, and I quote: “Excessive, permanent money creation in my opinion is an indirect manipulation of an exchange rate.”  But the “blame game” did not end there. The USA hit back by diverting the focus from currency manipulation to countries’ current account imbalances. Indeed, for Timothy F. Geithner, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, the world economic & financial instability is not only due to currency manipulation but also to current account imbalances with some countries having excessive current account surpluses. The US treasury secretary went on by saying:  “We need to work to achieve more balance in the pattern of global growth … this requires a shift in growth strategies by countries that have traditionally run large trade and current account surpluses, away from export dependence and toward stronger domestic demand led growth.” . Clearly, this was deliberately directed to countries like Germany and China whose current account surpluses are respectively around 5% and 11% of GDP but the Germans stood up for themselves and fought back. The German Central Bank governor, Axel Weber, responded straight away and said: “Germany shouldn’t be blamed for having a current account surplus”. The German economic minister went one step further and even brought back the currency manipulation issue as according to him and I quote: “It’s the wrong way to try to prevent or solve problems by adding more liquidity,”. Timothy F. Geithner, the U.S. Treasury Secretary insisted however on his proposition for current account targets, calling for no more than 4% of GDP surpluses or deficits on current account…

With this proposal, the question that popped up immediately in my mind was to know the applicability of this. In other words, how would this work?

Well, in theory, when an economy has a current account surplus, its exchange rate should appreciate and thus make the exports expensive and the imports cheaper. This will in turn reduce the volume of exports, which will consequently balance the current account and also lead to the depreciation of the currency and the cycle will start again with the help of markets adjustment. Curiously, this is not happening with China. Indeed, China has a huge current account surplus (11% of GDP) but still manage to keep a very low currency… so my questions, would the 4 percent gap proposed by the USA help to adjust exchange rates? If yes, how? Would countries like China or Germany be forced to stop trading? And if so, how? Also, would it not be contrary to the USA’s criticism to China about setting values instead of letting markets adjusting values? What about developing countries or countries like Turkey that have current account deficits bigger than 4% of their GDP? Would they be punished?

Enough with the “blame game”! At least, by trading real goods, a country is not using artificial measures to maintain its economy …so let’s just be real, real and real. No more fiduciary money printed out for bailout, no more treasury bonds without real counterpart in the economy and no more living beyond our means and the world economy would be better.

Related Article:

GOLD STANDARD: YES OR NO?

We Live Longer…Should We Work Longer?

With increasing public debt and budget deficit across countries, governments around the world have been under serious pressure to simultaneously reduce public debt and not jeopardize global recovery.

This tricky situation has led to many debates, among them the one about the average pension age.

Having followed discussions & arguments on the topic, I would summarise the issue as follows: should there be a default age or an arbitrary age limit to work? Should all workers be treated in the same way, regardless of the nature of their job?

Before going into details with arguments, I should point out that my answers to these questions would be motivated by the sense of freedom that I believe everybody should be entitled to.

In the UK, the coalition is proposing to increase the average pension age to 66 by 2016. In France, public sector workers were recently on strike again (not big news) because the government is proposing to increase the average pension age from 60 to 63. In Greece, the government was forced to acknowledge that the country was living beyond its means and that people were expecting everything without working hard; therefore among some harsh measures that were imposed on the Greek government by the EU & IMF, was the increase of the average state-pension age from 60 to 63. But the Greek labour minister Andreas Loverdos has been facing tough industrial actions from civil service organisations and trade unions.

My question to those strikers and protesters would be: what is the point of living longer with no money or a miserable pension?

In France for example, the official average retirement age is currently 60. If in past decades, the life expectancy was around 72 years old and the government could thus take care of retired people without creating a big hole in the state budget, this is no longer the case. Nowadays, with people living up to 80-85 years, how can we expect the same funds to cover, not 10 years of retirement but 20 years?!!!

Unquestionably, the standard of living is changing & improving around the world, people are living longer and better. So, should we amend labour legislation accordingly or should we stick to old rules and expect some kind of magic to happen in order to prevent budget deficit? Also, from a business standpoint, would it not be good to keep this experienced labour force active? To illustrate my thoughts, I will quote the British Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan Smith, who recently said: “people are living longer and healthier lives than ever, and the last thing we want is to lose their skills and experience from the workplace due to an arbitrary age limit” I would add to this quote “particularly when they are willing to work”.

To be honest and fair, if someone, regardless of whether he has worked as a farmer or a banker, would like to carry on working in order to contribute more and then have a better retirement, why shouldn’t he /she be allowed to do so? On the other hand, it should be clear that, if someone chooses to retire earlier – just because he/she does not want to work anymore- then he/she must not expect to receive the same money as people who used to retire at 60 then live up to 75, especially as he/she might live up to 85 years, if not longer.

I can hear some critics saying that, instead of asking older people to work longer, we should be giving those jobs to young jobseekers. Well, this raises the question on how we perceive “labour”. For me, work & the labour market are more likely to be infinitely elastic than like a fixed entity that would be divided among the available labour force. In other words, the more you work, the more it creates other jobs. So, stopping the elderly from working would not necessarily make the jobs available for younger jobseekers…it might even have a contrary effect.

So, let’s all adapt to this new challenge and stop limiting people due to their age…by the way, can someone check the average retirement age in the USA? 67 years old and 5% of the active population is over 70 years old!

“[Forced retirement] makes you feel pretty rotten, 

as if you’re stuck on the shelf and put to one side”

John White, 70 retired postman.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business

BP’s Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill: The Warning Signal?

The Gulf of Mexico oil spill has been raising lot of questions with regards to offshore drilling. Much has already been said and unquestionably, many still have to be said. However, I would like to focus on one point: the lesson that developing countries should be learning from this, and the dilemma that they will probably soon be facing between, on one hand, the need for foreign direct investments and on the other hand the concern for their ecosystems; given that oil companies do not feel the same pressure when such accidents occur in third world countries and worldwide media do not really pay attention.

A Nigerian writer, Ben Ikari, recently said, while talking about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, that “If this Gulf accident had happened in Nigeria, neither the government nor the company would have paid much attention … this kind of spill happens all the time in the delta.”

To back up Ben Ikari’s words, let me start by mentioning some oil spill accidents that happened quite recently in some third world countries. The most recent examples are the spill that happened in Singapore, Singapore Strait on the 25^th May 2010 (oil company: MT BUNGA KELENA 3), or the one in Nigeria, Niger Delta on the 1^st May 2010 (oil company: EXXONMOBIL). These oil spills did not cause any worldwide headlines whereas in these countries, people depend completely on the environment for their basic life needs such as drinking water, food, source of income and other basic daily life needs. So for these people, seeing Obama, the US president making daily speeches about the BP oil disaster; watching worldwide media such as BBC, CNN, Euronews, France24 talking about this minute after minute in their headlines; seeing BP oil using all their new technology and even deciding to stop paying dividends in order to ensure compensation for damage caused; is more than a surreal thing.

Referring to oil spills in developing countries, Ben Ikari carried on by saying that “The oil companies just ignore it. The lawmakers do not care and people must live with pollution daily. ..When I see the efforts that are being made in the US I feel a great sense of sadness at the double standards. What they do in the US or in Europe is very different.”

Well…

Coming back to my main point, namely the dilemma between on one hand the need for Foreign Direct Investments in developing countries and on the other hand the concern for their ecosystems: Undoubtedly, with this gulf of Mexico oil spill, big crude oil companies in the world will probably be forced to intensify offshore interests in developing countries such as the Gulf of Guinea, the Gulf of Aden -Yemen, the Niger Delta or the Angola’s offshore oil, where an incident like the Gulf of Mexico one will not probably retain world attention, obliging these companies to stop paying dividends. Indeed, with more potential offshore drilling restrictions / regulations coming in the USA, oil companies would have to explore new territories and this would indisputably lead them to countries with less regulation … Guess where I’m looking…

So, FDI at all costs?

Should oil companies abuse poverty in third world countries and put their governments in a situation where they would have to choose between FDI Vs damaging the ecosystem, FDI Vs sacrificing future generations or FDI Vs risking daily life?

Will developing country governments be able to strike a balance between attracting foreign investments and strict regulations that would protect not only their own peoples and ecosystems, but also be a guarantee for a sustainable development?

The debate is open, watch out!

Déficit Public Annuel Inférieur À 3% du PIB, Un Luxe Pour La Zone Euro ?

1^ier janvier 1999, c’était parti, la zone euro était lancée ! Et pour faire comme les grands, elle s’était dotée d’un parterre de conditions spécifiées dans ce qui convient d’appeler le « Protocole sur les critères de convergence ». Critères de convergence dont l’un des piliers centraux est le rapport entre le déficit public annuel et le produit intérieur brut (PIB) qui ne doit pas dépasser 3 % à la fin du précédent exercice budgétaire.

Vous avez dit 3% ? Bien !

Alors, comment expliquer les chiffres ci-dessous ?

Grèce, déficit public 2009, 12,7% du PIB

Espagne, déficit public 2009, 11,2% du PIB

Portugal, déficit public 2009, 8% du PIB

France, déficit public 2009, 7,9% du PIB ….

………. Belgique, déficit public 2009, 5,9% du PIB; Italie, déficit public 2009, 5,3% du PIB et Allemagne, déficit public 2009, 3,4% du PIB.

Source : Commission européenne

http://www.touteleurope.fr/fr/actions/economie/euro/presentation/comparatif-le-deficit-public-dans-la-zone-euro.html

Plus grave, des révélations récentes font état des chiffres truqués publiés par le gouvernement grec sur la situation de ses finances publiques. En effet,  et je me prononce avec réserve, il semblerait que les chiffres officiels avancés jusqu’à présent par le gouvernement grec étaient tous faux. L’exemple le plus patent est le déficit public qu’il avait annoncé être à 6% du PIB pour 2009, alors qu’en réalité il se trouvait à 12,7%. Un ancien dirigeant de la banque centrale grecque, Mr Panayotis Thomopoulos pour ne pas le citer, déclarait même récemment et je le cite : « Ici, la fraude est un sport national » bon, au moins un qui est honnête !

C’est à se demander à quoi servent les institutions statistiques européennes en l’occurrence Eurostat, la Banque centrale européenne et la direction générale des affaires économiques et financières de la commission européenne ?

Mais par-dessous tout, ce qui a surtout retenu mon attention dans cette affaire euro-européenne,  c’est la prétendue solidarité bilatérale et / ou institutionnelle  (française et allemande) promise lors du sommet qui s’est tenu très récemment le 11 février 2010 à Bruxelles et dont l’objectif était de sauver la Grèce. Franchement, la France ? Parle t- on du pays dont le déficit public devrait s’envoler à 8,3% du PIB en 2010 ? Non seulement donc bien au delà des 3% requis, mais pire que 2009 !

Franchement, ne faut-il pas plutôt pour l’euro-zone penser à une dévaluation de leur monnaie? Vous me répondriez sans doute qu’il ne s’agit pas du Peso de l’Amérique latine ou du franc CFA de l’Afrique francophone dont les déficits publics atteignent les 30, 40, voire souvent 50% du PIB. Je vous le concède !

Bien que comparaison ne soit pas raison, et toute proportion gardée, admettons quand même que les situations sont similaires : déficit budgétaire, endettement public, taux de chômage élevé, balance commerciale déficitaire, mauvaise gestion des finances publiques, avec comme cerise sur le gâteau,  fricotage des données publiques !!!

Sérieux, si c’avait été le Mexique, l’Argentine ou le Burkina-Faso qui présentait de tels manquements, Monseigneur  FMI (dont les décideurs ne sont autres que princesse zone-euro et Prince USA) préconiserait déjà une dévaluation « compétitive » et des programmes d’ajustement structurel afin de rétablir les finances publiques.

Alors Sa Séniorité FMI, qu’en est-il du cas grec ? Ou mieux encore du cas zone-euro ?

J’entends parler qui de souveraineté européenne, qui d’interventionnisme américain si le FMI venait à s’y impliquer… alors on préfère ne pas faire appel à ses services.

Oh chère Europe, « ce qui arrive aux autres commence déjà à nous arriver » !

GOLD STANDARD: YES OR NO?

Well, before answering this question, let me start by confessing something. This question has been on my mind for a while now; and to be honest, for me, there has never been a second of doubt with regards to the answer to this. Thus, there was no need for a debate or an article about the question. But, considering the number of papers and commentaries from economists, businesses, politicians and civil society organisations, calling for or rejecting the idea of a return to a Gold Standard system, I felt the need to write something.

Should we start with some fundamentals? Okay.

The Gold Standard is a monetary system in which the standard economic unit of account is a fixed weight of gold. Under this system, paper notes are convertible into pre-set fixed quantities of gold; any issuance/creation of money is counterbalanced and guaranteed by gold reserves. Parity between two different currencies is therefore set through gold and the exchange rates are stable if not fixed between them.

This definition leads immediately to some questions:

First of all, who would decide on the weight of gold that would be allocated to currencies? Would the weight depend upon the current monetary strength of each country’s economy? What would determine the monetary strength or simply the strength of an economy? Would it be its ability to repay debts, its growth rate or the trust placed in its currency by international investors? Would the current quantity of a currency including treasury bonds (issued to pay debts) count towards determining the strength of an economy? Would all currencies be convertible into gold? If no, which currencies would be convertible and based on what criteria? If under the Gold Exchange Standard started in1922, only the U.S. Dollar and the British Pound were convertible into gold and other currencies were pegged to them, could this be the case today with new currencies such as the Euro and emerging economies such as China?

If there are so many questions raised with a potential Gold Standard system, why are some “famous” people calling for its return?

I must acknowledge that there are some advantages with such a system taking place. For instance, the Gold Standard would limit the power of governments in issuing fiat currency through central banks without counterpart in the real economy (quantitative easing, anyone?). The ultimate effect of financing debt through bond issues is to destabilise other economies who buy debt without gold collateral.

The Gold Standard also tends to reduce uncertainty in international trade by providing a fixed pattern of international exchange rates. Indeed, under a Gold Standard, disturbances in price levels in one country would be partly or wholly offset by an automatic balance-of-payment adjustment mechanism called the “price specie flow mechanism.”

Let’s take the example of a country with a negative balance of trade. Gold would flow out of that country in the amount that the value of imports exceeds the value of exports. This would mean reduction in the money supply in that country since the creation of money would be indexed to the quantity of gold held by the central bank. This fall in money supply would in turn, generate the drop in prices of products in that country. The lower prices would cause exports to increase and imports to decrease, which will improve the balance of trade. Inversely in countries with positive balance of trade.

Having said that, the idea of going back to the Gold Standard does sound really rustic to me owing to the high speed and complexity of today’s monetary and financial transactions around the world. Under such a system based on pre-determined, fixed exchange rates between currencies, there would be a need to review these fixed parities between gold and currencies every time that there would be a significant fluctuation on commodity, stock, financial or monetary markets. Furthermore, if a country decided unilaterally to devalue its currency, it would produce sharper changes on a global scale than the smooth declines seen in fiat currencies since the exchange rates are fixed. How? As its currency would become cheaper to obtain with less gold, economic agents would rather acquire it and later exchange it at the same exchange rate for a more powerful currency.

Also, in such a system where coins, paper notes, electronic funds and any other form of money are automatically convertible into pre-set fixed quantities of gold, what would happen if a country like China calls in all their debts including treasury bonds owed by western countries to be repaid immediately in gold?  With the vast quantity of dollars worldwide laying claims to the U.S. Treasury, an overnight transition to gold convertibility would certainly create a major discontinuity for the U.S. financial system.

People might respond that there is no need for the whole block of current dollar obligations to become an immediate claim. Well, no comment!!!

What about the bilateral debt owed by developing countries to developed nations? Would this be claimed in gold?

Finally, the idea of a Gold Standard could be suicidal for emerging economies. You would probably ask why?

Let’s have a look.

Indisputably, emerging or developing economies need to spend in order to finance their growth and their development. Most economists would also agree that when a country creates a budget deficit designed for public investment (infrastructure, education, basic research or public health), such a deficit is bearable, beneficial and even necessary in the case of emerging economies. Therefore, restricting these economies to spend in proportion to the quantity of gold produced would be anything but understandable. Indeed, budget deficit can help emerging nations to stimulate their economies by creating a market for business output, creating income and encouraging increases in consumer spending, which creates further increases in the demand for business output. As a consequence, the real GDP of the country raises and the unemployment rate decreases, leading to more tax income for the government.

The restrictions of gold convertibility could therefore profoundly jeopardise the development of some emerging economies.

I can hear some Gold Standard advocate voices responding that, they are not referring to the previous or old “Gold Standard”. Instead, they are referring to a new “fractional reserve system”, under which the gold reserve will indirectly affect the amount of currency circulated in countries and around the world.
Well, during economic crises like the current one, the “fractional reserve system” could meet the currency supply in countries such as U.S.A and E.U., and would not hinder the development of their economy. However, for emerging economies, the lack of gold reserve would not meet the monetary supply of rapid economic development.
But above all, being under a more traditional Gold Standard or a so called new modern one, developing countries, particularly those without enough gold, would have to purchase gold with their foreign exchange reserves. In that way, U.S. and Euro-zone could decide to withdraw dollars and Euros in order to protect their leading positions in international financial system.

To conclude this paper, and for those who have not yet noticed it, to the question on “Gold Standard: yes or no?” my answer is without doubt no. However, I must admit that the current global financial system, which predominately relies on the U.S. Dollar as a reserve currency by which major transactions such as the price of gold itself are measured, must change. Especially as U.S.A do not issue their currency with proper real economic counterpart.

But instead of going back to a strict Gold Standard system, the idea of having a more diversified reserve currency system based on market baskets of currencies or commodities including gold would be more sensible.

Related Article:

Towards a new global reserve currency…the end of the U.S. dollar?

OUI OU NON A L’ETALON-OR?

Veuillez vous référer à la version anglaise pour le moment.

https://lambertmbela.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/gold-standard-yes-or-no/

 

1960 – 2010 : 50 ANS D’INDEPENDANCE, L’HEURE DES BILANS ET DES RESOLUTIONS.

Alors, les bilans ! J’aurai plutôt tendance à parler des résolutions ou encore peut être de ce qui devrait se faire pour que les choses aillent mieux. Car faire les bilans de ces 50 ans d’indépendance risquerait me plonger dans un afro-pessimisme dont je ne partage pas toujours la philosophie.

Alors on va essayer de rester positif et élaborer plutôt des propositions quant à l’avenir.

Le point qui retient le plus mon attention est celui du bilan politico-économique notamment sur un modèle de développement et ou d’organisation propre au continent.

Dans un article que j’ai publié en Mai 2009 (https://lambertmbela.wordpress.com/2009/05/03/fmi-bm-ue-et-les-economies-africaines-de-nouveaux-paradigmes-de-developpement/) j’explore la nécessité d’un paradigme de développent qui, à contrario des doctrines FMIennes et de la BM, serait plutôt un modèle “hybride” de gouvernance. Un modèle qui jumellerait un service public assaini et protecteur du citoyen, et un secteur privé consistant financé directement (via la bourse) par de capitaux nationaux et étrangers.

A mon avis, après 50 ans d’échec à la fois des institutions internationales et de nos dirigeants qui par ailleurs, non seulement manquent de vision et d’amour pour leur nation et peuple, mais aussi et surtout sont davantage motivés par leurs intérêts personnels. Vous me diriez que ce n’est pas nouveau et vous avez raison.

A mon avis donc, il serait temps pour le continent -du moins l’Afrique francophone- de se redéfinir tant sur le plan politique que sur celui économique; de repenser la façon dont elle se vend et elle passe des contrats avec le reste du monde; de réévaluer ses atouts et comment ceux ci pourraient peser sur les relations internationales. Je pense notamment aux matières premières comme le cacao dont la Côte d’Ivoire, le Ghana, le Nigeria et le Cameroun, respectivement 1^ier, 2^ème, 4^ème et 6^ème producteurs mondiaux (60 % de la production mondiale). Ces pays pourraient se regrouper afin de peser et d’influencer en leur faveur sur le prix international du cacao. Dans le même ordre d’idées, après 50 ans d’Etat-nations, il serait peut être aussi temps de comprendre qu’avec plus de 50 pays, l’idée des Etats Unis d’Afrique ou Union africaine (c’est comme vous voulez) en un seul coup est assez platonicienne voire utopiste pour un continent où la fibre et l’orgueil nationalistes restent encore un fond de commerce assez productif pour les chefs d’Etats. A mon avis, une intégration sur des bases économiques/commerciales serait salutaire et davantage catalytique d’une Afrique unie. Comme pour le cas précédent du Cacao, Le Nigeria, l’Algérie, l’Angola et d’autres producteurs de pétrole sur le continent pourraient pareillement former une entité purement africaine ; s’entendre sur la gestion globale du pétrole africain en termes de quantité et d’offre afin de peser sur et d’influencer le marché international en leur faveur. De même pour les pays producteurs de mines ou de céréales. De tels regroupements constitueraient de bases solides pour ce rêve des Etats Unis d’Afrique qui nous est cher à tous. L Union européenne n’aurait-elle pas commencé avec une certaine Communauté européenne du charbon et de l’acier (CECA) en1951 avec juste six pays?

Le second point que j’aimerais aborder est celui du bilan purement économique ou mieux encore du bilan des entreprises et des affaires. J’entends parler de « désillusion » dans les articles de la presse internationale. Moi j’irai plus loin et je parlerai plutôt de rétrogression dont seuls les chefs d’Etat africains détiennent le secret. En effet, comment expliquer qu’au moment où nous en avons le plus besoin, que les “Banques De Développement” créées au lendemain des indépendances aient Presque toutes disparues? Je ne voudrais surtout pas  revenir sur le comment elles ont été gérées, ou par qui, ou encore que sont devenus leurs dirigeants etc etc. N’en rajoutons pas à un bilan déjà assez amer comme ça!!! Où sont passés les “Crédits Agricoles” qui étaient destinés au financement de l’économie? J’oublie les sociétés nationales de transport urbain qui, créées pour servir le peuple et faciliter les mouvements des biens et personnes, se sont retrouvées au service des Présidents et de leurs familles, des ministres et de leurs protégés, des DGs et de leurs acolytes… je m’arrête là la liste est bien longue… Ce qui donne lieu aujourd’hui à d’énormes bouchons de part et d’autre des artères des grandes villes sur le continent avec à la clé des accidents de route liés au transport de fortune…

Sans vouloir tomber dans un afro pessimisme -chose que je dénonce, reconnaissons tout de même que ces 50 années d’indépendance ressemble davantage à une régression que même à un statut-quo. Même si personnellement je reste positif et crois fort au progrès de ce continent que je porte cher au Cœur.