Buiter: most finance is socially nefarious

The more I read Willem Buiter, the more I like him. This morning in the FT he denounces the financial sector as a harmful sector in some instances.


I believe that efficient financial intermediation and a dynamic financial sector are essential for the proper functioning of any decentralised market economy; I also believe that too much financial sector activity is not only socially worthless, but actually harmful. Take financial derivatives. A financial derivative is a bet created by the issuer whose payoff depends on some aspect of the performance of an underlying financial instrument. If the bet pays out when the buyer of the derivative is worse off, we call it insurance. If the bet pays off when the buyer of the derivative is no worse off, we call it speculation. Speculation need not be a problem; it is a necessary feature of the efficient allocation of risk, as long as only one party to the transaction is engaged in it. To tame the rampant excessive speculation in the derivatives markets, it is sufficient to require that at least one of the parties involved in a derivatives transaction has an insurable interest. The Tobin tax does nothing to achieve this. An example: credit default swaps (securities that pay the holder when a bond defaults) can be issued in amounts much larger than the value of the underlying bonds. Anyone who owns CDS in excess of the value of the bonds he owns benefits when the debt defaults, creating obvious moral hazard. The issuer of CDS whose value is much larger than the underlying bonds has the opposite moral hazard: there is an incentive artificially to reduce or eliminate default risk. The simplest solution is to require that CDS pay out only if the same amount of the underlying bond is presented.


Which is a long winded way to say "Ban naked CDS!". Interestingly I think his analysis of moral hazard is incomplete. Namely even if you hold the bond your interest is to see the company completely default in some way to see your CDS pay out in full.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

$6.66B for BEA: Larry goes Shopping

Oracle has made a $17 per share offer to buy BEA. This putting a somewhat theatrical "number of the beast" valuation on BEA. Yesterday the stock was sitting at $13 and this morning it is at 18 and change representing a 30% jump. Obviously the crazy dude over at BEA is going to put up at least a simulacrum of a fight. Thinking of it, I expect Alfred "I am compensating for..." to put a heartfelt final battle into this, he has probably already super-glued his naked chest to the BEA boardroom table. It is going to get nasty and he will be dragged out kicking and screaming. Alfred will mumble something about not wanting to be Larry's power point bitch, or waxing his boat, or some other non-sense. But Larry is going to make sushi of that board and will feed it to the koi fish he has in his compound and cost more per head than Alfred's car... This one is going to be funny to watch. Pass the popcorn please. First, because of ICahn's shareholder activism, th
Read more

Thug vs Thug: Porsche 1, Hedge Funds: 0

The latest drama is fun. VW became the largest company in the world, in terms of market cap, ahead of EXXON on a little financial market coup d'etat orchestrated by Porsche. Apparently VW stocks was on the way down, I don't know the details but many Hedge Funds (HF) were short the position. Fine. The price goes down. Porsche starts buying the anonymous float (and probably some private too?), but the point is they build a 73% market share without many people noticing. In the US you would need disclosure after 10% or so. Point is, that many HF wake up and realize that their short position is about to lose a lot of money. So what do they do? those idiots? they short cover all together, which means they buy the stock to cover the short. The stock zooms up, by a full multiplier and overtakes EXXON. Porsche makes A KILLING in the process and has robbed the city robbers to the tune of "potentially $30B". Not bad for a days worth of work. PS: hey, psst Porsche! With t
Read more

Quickies #3, protecting IP in OSS

Now enjoying my status as a sage of the industry, which is to say I am older than 20, but alas, not a billionaire, God fuck-it; people are all the time asking me for nuggets of wisdom from my vast experience at the top. Quickies from marcf #3: What IP is there to protect in OSS? B.D asks: "marcf, my open source project is starting to enjoy a measure of success, I am thinking of going professional with it, I am thinking about business models. How much thought should I put in protecting my Intellectual Property?" Answer: B.D. protecting IP in OSS is extremelly important. The only "private" property that exists in OSS are 1- brand 2- URL. Both are obviously related but really you need to protect your brand name, in other words REGISTER your trademarks, use them, declare they are yours and enforce the trademark, meaning protect against infringement. Other products, specifically based on your product should not include your name. Consultancies will be able to say the
Read more