Greek banks recovering well after recapitalisation, says Eurobank GM

How have Greece’s banks been affected by the Troika’s stabilisation programmes and the European Central Bank’s higher capitalisation requirements? Dimosthenis Arhodidis, General Manager of Eurobank Ergasias, says that after a terrible 2015, Greece’s banks are recovering well and are hopeful for 2016.

World Finance: Years of fiscal derailment and chronic competitiveness problems have been at the heart of Greece’s financial crisis, which has seen two successive Troika IMF stabilisation programmes since May 2010. But how has this impacted the country’s banking sector? Here to discuss is Dimosthenis Arhodidis, of Eurobank.

Well Dimosthenis, the face of the banking sector in Greece has been plagued with crisis. So what’s the situation today?

Dimosthenis Arhodidis: The situation today is a lot more stable than it was a few months ago. Greek banks have been recapitalised – all four systemic banks. The last one to be recapitalised was the National Bank of Greece, and the recapitalisation exercise finished a few days ago.

However, we went through a terrible 2015. Supposedly 2015 was going to be the turnaround year. However, the negotiations of the leftist government that took power in January 2015 lasted for about six months. We ended up with capital controls which cost the economy quite a bit.

Also we ended up with another round of stress tests by the European Central Bank, which led to capital needs that banks needed to raise.

Fortunately, all four banks managed to raise the funds needed for the recapitalisation, so hopefully the future will be much better, with a banking system that is sound and totally recapitalised.

World Finance: Well you mentioned stress tests, and they happened in October. So what were the key findings to come out of these?

Dimosthenis Arhodidis: The stress tests actually started in August, and finished sometime in October. They key findings were that there were still capital needs for some of the banks. However the bank that I work for, Eurobank, ended up number one in terms of capital needs: meaning it had the least capital needs of all four banks. And we managed very easily to raise all the capital needed under the adverse scenario using private funds.

World Finance: So how resilient would you say the banking sector is, moving forwards? And where does Eurobank fit into this?

Dimosthenis Arhodidis: The banking system is definitely a lot more resilient. However, its resilience will be proven as we go through 2016 and 2017, hoping for an economy that will grow, instead of still being in recession.

The banking system needs to focus on bringing back deposits. One very important statistic is that about €45bn are kept in cash at homes: this is about 25 percent of the country’s GDP.

The resilience of the banking system will depend on how easy, or how quickly, these funds will come back into the banking system to improve its liquidity, because banks need to provide liquidity to the economy.

Also, the resilience of the banking system will be tested by the way banks will handle all their non-performing loans. As you can imagine, after six years of being in a recession, about 40 percent of the loans portfolio of the banks is non-performing. So banks need to handle this NPL portfolio, try to get the loans back, and stop building provisions, which hurt their profitability.

World Finance: Greek banks are now going through a period of recapitalisation. Talk me through this – how are you feeling the impact?

Dimosthenis Arhodidis: One of the things that the recapitalisation exercises do to banks is, banking employees stop doing their regular work and focus more on what the stress test results will be, and how the bank will be recapitalised.

So for the last two and a half months, we were focusing on that, instead of focusing on our actual job, which is to serve the clients, satisfy their needs, and create value for the clients and the bank.

As I said, this exercise is over now, so hopefully we will go back to our regular work, which is to serve the clients, create value for them, create value for the bank and its shareholders. And we’re ready to go back and support the Greek economy.

World Finance: And what are the remaining challenges for Greece’s financial sector moving forward?

Dimosthenis Arhodidis: The challenges are mostly political. We need to have a long period – I’m not sure how to define long period – but I would say we need to have at least a couple of years without elections. Elections create instability in any country, but more so in Greece right now.

nd we need the political system to move along with the reconstruction of the Greek economy, apply all the necessary changes needed, reduce bureaucracy, fight tax evasion, fight corruption, and give incentives for investments to come back to the country.

Either from Greek individuals and entrepreneurs who hold assets and capital abroad, and could bring it back to the country and make investments. Or attract foreign direct investment, which has been at very low percentages relative to GDP if you look throughout the last 10 years.

World Finance: And finally, how do you see the country’s economy developing: any green shoots?

Dimosthenis Arhodidis: There is a lot of potential for the Greek economy. Asset prices are very low. We are at a point where entry prices are very attractive for investors. Tourism is one sector that attracts a lot of attention from abroad. Also fish farming, energy; there are sectors where an investor could come in, buy very cheaply, make the necessary investments, and make money out of this.

We’re talking about internal rates of return, IRRs of at least 15 percent. So there’s a lot of potential for the Greek economy.

World Finance: Dimosthenis, thank you.

Dimosthenis Arhodidis: Thank you very much.

New Basel rules may be a burden on banks

A series of recently finalised banking regulations may end up costing banks tens of millions of euros each to implement.

The new standards, set by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and designed to reduce the risk among banks buying and selling client securities, could, according to a report by the consultancy group Oliver Wyman, cost each financial institution between €40m and €120m each to implement.

The rules are intended to dampen the chances of banks taking on too much risk to their own books when buying or selling securities from clients. This will require banks to increase their market risk capital in the hope of staving off the potential for financial collapse.

The requirements, in following much more stringent previous drafts of the regulation, have been seen as less draconian than previously feared. Whereas in late 2015, some were predicting that banks would be required to increase their market risk capital by an average of 74 percent, that number, in the finalised draft of the new regime, would only require banks to boost capital requirements by a median rise of 22 percent, according to the Basel Committee.

However, according to the Oliver Wyman report, the impact of the new regulations has been severely underestimated. According to Oliver Wyman Partner Rebecca Emerson, “It’s one of the most expensive regulatory programmes that banks are currently dealing with,” reported the Financial Times. Emerson also noted that, based on conversations with clients, banks have largely diverging estimates for how much it will cost to implement the newly minted rules.

Part of the reason why the regulation will be so costly is due to it requiring banks using internal risk models to have them approved by regulators desk-by-desk, rather than being able to have them agreed on a business-wide basis.

 

 

KBZ Group: Don’t wait too long to invest in Myanmar’s growth

After 50 years of isolation under military rule, Myanmar’s economy has been slowly opening up in the past few years. That may pick up pace now that Aung San Suu Kyi’s party has won the election. Nyo Myint, Senior Managing Director of KBZ Group, and Zaw Lin Aung, Deputy Managing Director of KBZ Bank, say that now is the time to invest – before Myanmar’s new ASEAN partners take the opportunities for themselves.

World Finance: After 50 years of isolation under military rule, Myanmar’s economy has been slowly opening up in the past few years. That may pick up pace now that Aung San Suu Kyi’s party has won the election. With me to discuss the investment opportunities moving forwards is Nyo Myint, Senior Managing Director of KBZ Group of companies and Zaw Lin Aung, Deputy Managing Director of KBZ Bank.

Well Nyo Myint, if I might start with you: what sort of changes have you seen to Myanmar’s economy recently?

Nyo Myint: Myanmar’s economy has seen significant growth. Every year since 2010 the economy has grown at least eight percent. And in the 2014-15 fiscal year, the country recorded foreign direct investment of $8.1bn. That was more than $300m the country received in 2009-10, before the liberalisation occurred.

There has been the same internal economic growth for the last few years. However, the growth for this year, 2015-16 is projected to moderate to 6.5 percent due to the severe floods that took place in the country.

World Finance: And Zaw Lin Aung, over to you now. So the financial sector: what’s been the knock-on effect for you?

Zaw Lin Aung: In the last four years there have been significant developments in the financial services sector. The major development was the awarding of the authorised dealer licences to four private banks in November 2011. And KBZ Bank is one of the licence holders in the industry, so we can engage in international banking and trade finance business.

In December 2011, ATM machines were allowed to be installed; within four years, over 1,000 ATMs have been deployed across the nation. Our KBZ Bank has the largest ATM network in Myanmar. Now Visa and Mastercard can be used in the country.

The other development was in the last year. Nine foreign banks were awarded banking licences, which encouraged healthy competition and improved our financial sector as a whole.

World Finance: And Nyo Myint, Aung San Suu Kyi has of course recently won the election, so what’s the business sentiment surrounding this?

Nyo Myint: Most of the multinational companies are believed to be prepared to invest in Myanmar. Apart from the financial aids and grants to be contributed by international institutions. So we look forward to moving business more vigorously during the tenure of the new government.

The winning party also said they are committed to financial sector reform, which may lead to a lower inflation rate, steady the local currency, more autonomy to certain banks, greater transparency, and so on.

World Finance: And Zaw Lin Aung, what would you say are the biggest growth opportunities for enterprises today?

Zaw Lin Aung: There’s a huge opportunity in the emerging economy like Myanmar, not just fundamental sectors like infrastructure, but knowledge-based industries, as well as education and hospitality.

In the short term there are many opportunities in the tourism industry. The communications industry is very promising with the loss of potential. The mobile phone industry has seen massive growth, but it’s still in its infancy in Myanmar.

Developments in other forms of communication are needed much more.

I can recommend business opportunities in four key areas: especially in infrastructure, manufacturing, communications and education, for the quick win.

World Finance: And Nyo Myint, how important would you say it is for companies to focus on social development?

Nyo Myint: Of course, social development is central to this transformation that is happening in Myanmar. There is no point in having the economic liberalisation if it doesn’t filter down to all people in the country, and allow everyday people to live better lives.

Formerly I was part of the public sector, and for 15 years now I have been in the private sector. I have now witnessed first-hand the significant contribution of the private sector to social development.

The Brighter Future Foundation, which is the social arm of our Kanbawza Group of Companies, is the biggest private donor to the country, and has been conferred the best philanthropic foundation award in Myanmar for 2015 by the President of Myanmar for our latest contribution to society.

Apart from being the highest taxpayer for four consecutive years in the history of the bank and the group of companies.

World Finance: And Zaw Lin Aung, finally, what sort of trends do you forsee impacting Myanmar’s economy over the next 12 months?

Zaw Lin Aung: Myanmar’s business over the next 12 months will be business as usual. The growth rate for the last five years has been consistently very positive. I can forsee the growth rate continuing even more in the near future. But I understand western countries are taking a wait-and-see approach for the next six months, during the political party handover and the sitting of the next parliament.

But many countries are within our reach, including Japan, China, South Korea, India, as well as our ASEAN countries have been doing business in Myanmar for many years, and will surely increase their operation in the next 12 months.

So I urge western countries not to wait too long and miss out on the first mover advantage.

World Finance: Zaw Lin Aung, Nyo Myint, thank you.

Nyo Myint: Thank you.

Zaw Lin Aung: Thank you so much.

Wealth Management Awards 2015

ASIA
China
China Citic Bank International

Malaysia
OCBC Bank

Hong Kong
HSBC Hong Kong

India
ICICI Bank

Japan
Mitsubishi UFJ Merrill Lynch PB Securities

Mauritius
Afrasia Private Bank

Singapore
Maybank Private Wealth

Thailand
Kasikornbank Private Banking

Taiwan
King’s Town Bank

Vietnam
ANZ Vietnam

EUROPE
Armenia
Unibank Prive

Austria
Erste Private Bank

Belgium
Banque Degroof

Czech Republic
SOB Private Banking

France
BNP Paribas Banque Privée

Germany
Deutsche Bank

Greece
Attica Wealth Management

Italy
BNL Gruppo BNP Paribas

Liechtenstein
Kaiser Partner

Luxembourg
UBS

Malta
Jesmond Mizzi

Netherlands
ING

Nordics
Danske Private Banking

Portugal
Golden Assets

Romania
ING

Russia
UFG Wealth Management

Spain
Santander

Switzerland
UBS

Turkey
Ünlü & Co

UK
Barclays Wealth and Investment Management

MIDDLE EAST
Bahrain
Ithmaar Bank

Egypt
Concord International Investments Group

Israel
Pioneer Wealth Management

Jordan
Invest Bank

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Saudi Kuwaiti Finance House

Kuwait
Burgan Bank

Lebanon
SFB Wealth Management

Oman
National Bank of Oman, Sadara Wealth Management

Qatar
Barwa Bank

United Arab Emirates
Dubai Islamic Bank

NORTH AMERICA
Canada
BMO Wealth Management

Dominican Republic
Sapphire Advisors

US
Merrill Lynch Wealth Management

CENTRAL AMERICA
Panama
UBS

SOUTH AMERICA
Argentina
Puente

Brazil
BTG Pactual

Chile
Picton

Colombia
Old Mutual

Mexico
BBVA Bancomer

Paraguay
Puente

Peru
Banco de Credito del Peru

Iran to buy 114 Airbus aircraft

With Western economic sanctions against Iran now lifted, the country has embarked on a new strategy to boost its flagging economy. In what is expected to be one of its first major deals, Tehran is seeking to purchase 114 civilian planes from the Airbus Group, the Minister of Transportation, Abbas Akhoundi, revealed on January 16. According to Bloomberg, the purchase will include both new and old A320 aircraft, as well as several A340 planes, which are no longer in production.

Commercial talks with Airbus have not yet begun, but the purchase is estimated to be worth around $10bn. The potential is therefore huge, and underscores several other opportunities now present for the market.

As part of the nuclear deal made with six world powers last July, Iran agreed to scale back its development activities in exchange for easing sanctions on several of its industries, including banking, transportation, insurance, medicine and consumer goods.

Since the agreement was first made, world powers have allowed the sale of aircraft parts and training manuals to Iran, thereby providing much relief to its ageing fleet and the associated safety concerns. Akhoundi’s announcement thus marks Tehran’s first big step to renovate its national airline carrier, Iran Air, and boost its fleet in order to meet domestic demand and expand its international travel potential.

Naturally, there are various challenges that lie ahead as Iran enters into a new stage in its economic development: Tehran must swiftly address its undeveloped legal system and high levels of corruption, as well as push for greater flexibility in its labour market. Other concerns include the state’s indebted financial sector, as well as the possible reintroduction of sanctions, should Iran’s compliance slip.

With a population of 78.5 million and a GDP of more than $400bn, as estimated by the World Bank, Iran is the largest economy to re-enter the global system since the collapse of the Soviet Union. As such, the impact to the global economy will be considerable – and aviation is just the start.

 

 

 

An uncertain forecast

The physicist Niels Bohr is attributed with the saying that “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.” Indeed, it may be that when it comes to the economy, forecasting is even harder than Bohr’s specialty of quantum mechanics.

Economic forecasters have not distinguished themselves in recent years – or, really, ever – with their ability to foresee events. As Adair Turner pointed out, “Modern macroeconomics and finance theory failed to provide us with any forewarning of the 2008 financial crisis.” That was the case even at the actual time of the 2008 financial crisis. According to a study by IMF economists, the consensus of forecasters in 2008 was that not one of 77 countries considered would be in recession the next year (49 of them were).

The idea that the great financial crisis was a shining example of perfect market equilibrium will seem counterintuitive to many

Traditionally, these difficulties have been blamed, not on the complexity of the world economic system, but on efficiency. According to Eugene Fama’s Efficient Market Hypothesis, markets are drawn to a stable, optimal equilibrium. Price changes are the result of rational investors reacting to random events that by definition cannot be predicted. However it is still possible, in theory, to make probabilistic predictions. Risk analysis tools such as Value at Risk (VaR), are used to compute the chances of a portfolio losing a certain amount.

The idea that the Great Financial Crisis was a shining example of perfect market equilibrium will seem counterintuitive to many. But the theory does give an excuse for all those missed forecasts. In fact, they just confirm its correctness. According to Fama, the efficient market hypothesis “did quite well in this episode”, and when asked if the crisis would lead to any changes in economics, he replied: “I don’t see any.” This impression was no doubt backed up when his work was awarded the economics version of a Nobel Prize in 2013.

Crisis of prediction
There has been little interest, at least from the mainstream, in reforming or replacing the fundamental tenets of economics. But what if prediction error is due, not to things such as stability, rationality, and efficiency, but to their opposite?

At the start of the last century, physics was faced with an even more serious crisis of prediction. Physicists knew that as an object – say the filament in a light bulb – was warmed, it would radiate energy – some in the form of visible light. According to theory, the energy would be channelled into short wavelengths of infinite power, and anyone turning on the light would be instantly annihilated – the so-called ultraviolet catastrophe.

The dominant theory of the atom was Rutherford’s ‘solar system’ model, in which a number of negatively charged electrons circle round a central, positively charged nucleus, like planets around the sun. But according to Maxwell’s equations, the circulating electrons would produce an electromagnetic wave, just as electrons in an antenna create a radio signal. They would radiate away their energy, slow down, and smash into the nucleus, all within less than a billionth of a second.

These problems were solved by going back to the drawing board, and questioning the basic assumptions of physics. The German physicist Max Planck found that he could correctly model the radiation from glowing objects so long as he assumed that the energy of light could only be transmitted in discrete units, which he called quanta, rather than in a continuous range. And Bohr came up with a quantised version of the atom in which attributes such as the energy of electrons only existed as multiples of some basic unit.

Rather than being smooth and continuous, it seemed, the universe was jumpy and discrete. And according to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, you could never measure both the exact position or momentum of an object – only the probability that it was in a certain state. Quantum mechanics therefore used probabilistic wave functions to describe the state of matter at the level of the atom.

Since economics had long modelled itself after Newtonian physics, one might expect that the quantum revolution would have led to a fundamental change in economics. And in a way, it did. Unfortunately it was in the wrong direction.

Going random
The success of quantum physics, and in particular its role in nuclear weapons, meany that funding poured to weapons laboratories and universities around the world to develop new techniques for analysing probabilistic systems.

Some of this effort spilled over into economics and finance. Probabilistic techniques such as Monte Carlo simulations, used regularly in financial modelling, had its genesis in atomic physics. The famous Black-Scholes equation for option pricing can be rephrased as a probabilistic wave function.

Unfortunately all of these techniques failed during the crisis. Part of the reason is that this shift to probabilistic predictions was taking exactly the wrong lesson from quantum physics. Instead of fundamentally questioning the assumptions of economics, which were always based on a naively mechanistic view of human behaviour, economists just patched a random element onto their existing model of a stable, optimal system. The result was the same as if physicists had just tinkered with their ‘solar system’ model of the atom, instead of completely rethinking it.

Today, instead of having the ultraviolet catastrophe, there is the opposite: all the lights went out, and no one can find the switch. The field needs a proper quantum revolution of its own. A first step is to acknowledge the quantum nature of money.

Just like subatomic particles, money has dualistic properties that elude exact prediction – and because the economy is based on money, prices are fundamentally unpredictable as well. Plus, people are involved, and they are even less reliable in their behaviour than electrons. Of course, this will mean that old ideas will have to be completely rethought, which no one likes to do. But again on the bright side: it’s an even better excuse for forecast error.

Post-oil preparation on a global scale

According to a recent IMF blog post, “The low price environment is likely to test the relationship between governments in oil-exporting countries and their sovereign wealth funds”. It went on to say: “Absent cuts in public expenditures, governments will likely be transferring less revenue than before to these funds. At the same time, pressures to draw down on sovereign wealth funds’ assets will probably rise.” Such are the pressures weighing on sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) in the present climate.

It was little over a year ago now that the market for SWFs was closing out yet another record performance, and TheCityUK figures for that year showed assets under management had grown 16 percent on the last. Despite falling commodities and – crucially – oil prices, 59 percent of SWFs kept their assets on an upward curve and very few withdrew assets. This, together with Scott Kalb’s assertion in May that the world’s 74 highest-ranking SWFs controlled $7.7trn in assets, is testament to their importance both as a source of capital and a precious means of averting financial collapse. Unfortunately oil’s slump in the months since has proven a bridge too far, and while most were spared the consequences for much of 2014, the same cannot be said for this past year.

“Like any large institutional investor, SWFs will be monitoring the knock-on effects low oil prices have on global financial markets”, said David Evans, Senior Writer and Editor for the Sovereign Wealth Center. “And oil-funded SWFs may also have to worry about cash-strapped governments raiding the till — that’s already happened in Russia. The Kuwait Investment Authority is reportedly looking to sell assets to cover the government’s budget deficit, while Norway and Alaska are preparing to withdraw more capital from their funds.”

The performance of SWFs is tied to that of oil, and it’s no coincidence those countries with the largest SWFs are likewise home to the largest fossil fuels reserves

Safety in numbers
For all but a few, the performance of SWFs is tied to that of oil, and it’s no coincidence those countries with the largest SWFs are likewise home to the largest fossil fuels reserves (see Fig. 1). Often posited as an effective instrument for the management and reduction of hydrocarbon volatility, oil nations have warmed to SWFs, safe in the knowledge that doing so might spare them some of the risks contained within.

Between 2011 and 2014, assets managed by SWFs grew, on average, 20 percent each year, riding on the coat tails of oil’s whirlwind success. The close ties to oil are unsurprising, given $4.3trn of the market’s $7.1trn in assets under management are dependent on revenues from oil and gas, according to the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute. Of the approximately 70 SWFs in operation, more than half are funded directly by oil receipts.

Norway, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE, for example, are home to four of the world’s five largest SWFs, and, not coincidentally, are also home to some of the most plentiful oil reserves. To take a brief look at Norway’s fund, more formally known as the Government Pension Fund Global, the pot – of over $900bn at its peak – has done much to head off volatility and keep the national economy on the straight and narrow.

Speaking about the fund’s aims and ambitions, Norges Bank Investment Management, which manages the Government Pension Fund Global on behalf of the Ministry of Finance, wrote: “One day the oil will run out, but the return on the fund will continue to benefit the Norwegian population”. As much could be seen when in 2014 the size of it made every one of Norway’s more than five million people a theoretical millionaire – in crowns at least. The government was clearly of the opinion that the fund’s growth would continue in much the same vein when it set out its expectations that same year that the fund would reach $1.1trn by 2020.

However, while the fund’s objectives make clear the pot is for future generations, unforeseen circumstances mean the country could begin to make withdrawals this year. Looking at August of last year, the fund racked up its biggest loss in four years, largely due to the downturn in China and the fallout from the VW scandal. In the third quarter the fund lost $32bn – 4.9 percent. While the losses are considerable, the threat from China and VW is considerably less than that posed by oil. A bright spell, in which the fund has expanded six-fold over the past decade, is about to come to an end.

Speaking in May, Norway’s government announced its non-oil budget deficit would reach a record NOK180.9bn ($20.6bn), and the country’s petroleum-derived income was close to 30 percent short of October predictions. Having chipped 13 percent off the national currency and caused tax revenue derived from petroleum extraction to slip 42 percent on the previous year, the oil slump is as much an issue for oil dependent Norway as it is for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Gulf states.

“While not all sovereign wealth funds rely on oil sales for their inflows, some of the biggest or most high-profile SWFs are funded by hydrocarbons. A decline in oil prices means that there is less money available for governments to fund their SWFs”, said Selina Sy, Manager of Premium Publications at Preqin. “However, it is the stated aim of many SWFs to supplement government income when income from the sale of hydrocarbons declines, so we may see some of them fulfilling that function as governments seek to plug funding shortfalls.”

SWP

Changed focus
Essentially, the situation means SWFs in the here and now must adapt to a climate wherein proceeds from oil are no longer guaranteed. Whereas income has been overflowing for countries like Norway in years passed, for as long as the price hovers in and around the $50 per barrel mark, this will likely not be so.

Speaking in an interview with MarketWatch, Massimiliano Castelli, Head of Strategy of Global Sovereign Markets at UBS Global Asset Management, said: “It is a new era.” SWFs “will have to adapt to this new environment and work harder to achieve the return expectations of their stakeholders”. Castelli added that, while the market has enjoyed a 20 percent rise in recent years, the rate could slow to around seven percent for the next five years, should the situation remain more or less unchanged. “On the whole, funds from oil-rich economies are likely to keep more of their capital in liquid assets so it’s readily accessible in emergencies”, added Evans. “Other, less risk-averse funds are likely to scour the markets for countercyclical investment opportunities.”

Whereas last year it looked as though SWFs were shifting their attention to focus on local economic development, the unexpected collapse of oil prices has dampened ambitions on this front, meaning the focus today rests with macroeconomic stabilisation as opposed to development. For Kuwait and Qatar, balancing the budget is out of the question with an oil price below $60 a barrel, whereas in Russia the break-even point is a worrying $107, according to Citi Research. The three must now dip into their SWFs.

Of course there are exceptions, notably New Zealand’s Superannuation Fund, which, as of the fiscal year ending June, reported a 14.6 percent growth in assets. This and a handful of others are proof enough that the market for SWFs need not resign to the decline in oil prices, and the market need only adjust its focus accordingly. This shift away from a reliance on fossil fuels could be seen – albeit to a lesser degree – last year, when investments such as real estate enjoyed an uptick in popularity.

“It is impossible to apply a single expectation to all sovereign wealth funds, as each ranks differently in the concerns of the respective states, and has different aims and sources of income”, said Sy. “Continued low commodities prices are likely to depress the rate of inflows to SWFs, and it may be that some enter a different stage of activity as they seek to rely more on developing their previous investments.”

Evans pointed out that “overall, however, SWFs tend to have well-diversified portfolios and most are self-sufficient (they don’t rely on oil revenue for their ongoing funding streams) so they won’t be unduly worried unless prices stay low for several years”.

While the shift in strategy last year was in keeping with a more domestically minded focus among the SWF community, the same strategy could be employed in the here and now to equally good effect, to ensure the fate of any SWF is not dictated by the whims of the energy market. Essentially, the advice for oil-based SWFs is the same as it is for oil nations in general: that a reliance on any one revenue stream is a weakness.

People’s QE pros and cons

According to The World Economic Forum, approximately $5.7trn must be invested in infrastructure annually by 2020 if we’re to head off the threats posed by climate change. With priorities as they stand, the infrastructure gap shows no signs of abating in the immediate-term and the situation will likely worsen if governments choose to ignore the issues at hand. The challenge for public sector institutions therefore, is to use what limited resources they have to remedy the aforementioned issues of climate change and infrastructure spending.

In a period where governments are warming to expansionary monetary policies, some believe a similar stance – albeit one with a few modifications – could succeed in mitigating climate change and boost infrastructure spending. Certainly, more measures are needed if we’re to reduce the risks, though what form they might take is a matter for debate.

World Finance spoke to Richard Murphy, author of Corbynomics and The Joy of Tax, about the merits of a ‘people’s’ quantitative easing (QE) and how a programme of this type could plug the investment gap. As one of the most influential figures in global tax and a constant presence in discussions about tax justice, the anti-poverty campaigner and tax expert offered us his take on why a People’s QE is preferable to the conventional alternative.

You’ve been highly critical of QE in the past. Could you elaborate on some of its shortfalls?
The result of QE is that the central bank of a country owns debt issued by the government of that country. However, because the central bank is itself owned by the government of that country, then in reality the government owns its own debt.

There are three consequences of this. First, interest on that debt is effectively cancelled. After a QE purchase of debt by the government, any interest then paid on that represents the government, in effect, paying itself. That amounts to little more than the government shifting money from one of its pockets to another.

It is, of course, essential that any money invested by government or one of its agencies on behalf of society must be managed to good effect

Second, the debt that has been purchased is effectively cancelled. This is a hotly contested suggestion by some because technically the debt does still legally exist and the government does still technically owe it to its own central bank, but for all practical purposes an organisation that repurchases its own debt somewhere within in its own structure [does] effectively cancel it. This fact is confirmed by the UK Government’s own accounting; in that the debt is shown as effectively cancelled.

Third, because QE debt is not bought from the government by its central bank but is instead bought from the debt’s previous owners (usually pension funds, insurance companies or banks) then something else also happens: new money is created and injected into the financial system. It is important to understand that this is not new money raised from taxpayers. This is instead new money created by the central bank in the same way that all banks create money when they make loans.

How does the People’s QE differ from that of conventional QE?
People’s QE is different. Whereas conventional QE buys back government bonds already in issue and makes payment to the previous owner of that bond, without any condition attached to it, People’s QE has a quite different goal.

The bonds used in People’s QE are issued by a government agency with the task of investing for the purpose of ensuring that new infrastructure is created in the economy. That agency could be specially created for this purpose, or it could be a subsidiary of a central bank that directs the funds to those best able to use them, as loans or grants.

But the important point is that this agency will issue bonds to bond markets (which includes banks, pension funds, insurance companies, and of course individuals and companies) with a degree of expectation that at least some of those bonds will be bought by the central bank of the country that has, at least in part, been primed to buy them. The blatant intention of this exercise is to provide additional – and new – funding for the purpose of tackling a shortfall of investment and creating new jobs.

The proportion of funding that comes from the private sector, and that which will come from People’s QE, will be dependent upon the demand for the bonds at the time they are issued to the market by the agency responsible for their creation. If the entire bond issue is taken up by the private market then so be it: there would then be no need for the government to intervene because the funding would have been provided for the projects in any event. If, however, there was a potential shortfall in private sector demand for the bonds, compared to the need for funding for infrastructure that is believed to exist, then the government could make up the difference using People’s QE. In other words, People’s QE is used to ensure that there is no shortage of funds for this essential purpose.

Are there any questions of illegality in funding people’s change investment in this way?
Some questions have been raised as to whether it’s legal under European law for a government to arrange for the issue of bonds knowing that its own central bank might then acquire them. There are provisions in European treaties that forbid a direct loan from a central bank to the government responsible for its operations.

Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, who is opposed to the People's QE proposal
Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, who is opposed to the People’s QE proposal

There are two responses to this suggestion of illegality. The first is that, if it is true, then it is highly likely that the entire UK and all the EU QE programmes that have been put in place to date are illegal. We think it very unlikely that the governments responsible for these programmes would have undertaken them if they thought that was the case, and there is no sign of a legal challenge arising ever since German objections at the time the EU programme’s creation were dismissed.

Second, the People’s QE programme is designed to overcome this objection. All the bonds that will be subject to this programme would, in the first instance, be issued by the agency responsible for their creation to private sector buyers. It would only be after they’ve been placed with those private sector buyers (even if they were underwriters) that the bonds could then be repurchased by a central bank.

In this way we believe that all the requirements of European law will be met, even at the cost of paying a small fee, at the very least, to a private sector underwriter at the time the bonds are first issued.

To what degree do the bonds used for People’s QE represent a public/private partnership?
One of the reservations that some people have about the government being involved in deciding which project should be invested in as part of a People’s QE programme is that they believe the private sector has a better track record in deciding which projects are worthwhile investing in.

This is not the place to debate whether this is true or not, but what’s important to note is that every single bond that would be issued for the purposes of funding People’s QE would be offered to the private sector. Therefore, in each and every case the discipline that private sector ownership could impose upon the decision-making processes will exist.

What would you say to those who criticise People’s QE on the grounds that QE funds must be invested profitably?
It is, of course, essential that any money invested by government or one of its agencies on behalf of society must be managed to good effect. And because the bonds subject to People’s QE will, at least in the first instance, be sold to the private sector to satisfy EU legal requirements, there will be a need to demonstrate a return on investment.

In practice there are several ways in which that return could be paid. In some instances projects invested in will undoubtedly be expected to generate revenues. So, for example, People’s QE funds could be used to invest in carbon neutral housing, in which case profits on sale or from rental incomes could be used to finance a return.

Alternatively, People’s QE could be used to create new, carbon neutral, generating capacity, which would, again, make a return, and could therefore pay a return to investors.

Another possibility is that the government would decide to subsidise a particular type of activity, as has been the case with the installation of photovoltaic cells on housing during the development period.

It would also be entirely possible for some bonds to be created with a higher risk attached to them, and for them to be marked on that basis so that any return might be dependent upon technology breakthroughs. In these cases the return would come from the exploitation of intellectual property that the project generated.

By 2020 it is expected that climate change requirements might reach $100bn per annum

The point is that the creation of bonds to fund People’s QE does, in itself, impose the necessary discipline on those managing these investments and this is true whether or not these bonds will be held in the private sector or the central bank.

Can enough money be created to make a real, lasting difference?
One of the challenges posed by the current shortfalls in infrastructure investment, including those relating to climate change, is the sheer scale of the money required to tackle the issues that arise. By 2020 it is expected that climate change requirements might reach $100bn per annum, for example.

This sum is not, of course, required for each and every country: it is a global figure, and when global GDP is about $70trn a year the scale required is more readily understood – otherwise equivalent to about 0.15 percent of global income. The sum, when expressed in this way, is a little less daunting. It also seems more achievable when it is realised that over the last few years the global economy has been able to absorb around $1trn per annum of conventional QE without threatening the stability of the global financial system in any way.

What’s more, when that financial system has not suffered from inflation, but there has been a continuing and persistent unemployment problem in many of the world’s major economies, then it’s clear that the physical capacity to invest in the infrastructure needed to address fundamental issues such as climate change does exist. The role of People’s QE is to make that possible.

America’s education bubble

One of the fundamental purposes of government is to advance important public goods. But, if not handled carefully, the pursuit of significant social goals can have unfortunate economic and financial consequences, sometimes even leading to systemic disruptions that undermine more than just the goals themselves.

Mohamed El-Erian

This happened a decade ago in the US, with the effort to expand home ownership. It has been playing out more recently in China, following an initiative to broaden stock-market participation. And it could happen again in the US, this time as the result of an attempt to improve access to funding for higher education.

Cause and effect
In the first case, the US government eagerly supported efforts to make mortgages more affordable and accessible, including the creation of all sorts of ‘exotic’ lending vehicles. The approach worked, but a little too well. The surge in debt-enabled demand to drive up real-estate prices, while the banks’ greater willingness to lend led many people to purchase homes they couldn’t afford. The collapse of the subsequent bubble – a major contributor to the 2008 global financial crisis – nearly tipped the world economy into a multi-year depression.

In China’s case, the government hoped that broader stock-market participation – achieved through efforts to bolster equity prices and promote lending for investment – would make citizens more open to pro-market reforms. Again, the approach proved too effective, and a bubble formed.

Now, the government is trying to counter the risk of a disorderly deleveraging that would damage the Chinese economy and produce significant knock-on effects for the rest of the world. America’s effort to expand access to student loans – a fundamentally good initiative, aimed at enabling more people to pursue higher education – carries similar risks. Fortunately, there is still time to do something about it.

Universities are often slow to adapt their curricula to the economy’s needs, while new technologies and business models are exacerbating the winner-take-all phenomenon

No one doubts that investment in education is vital. Numerous studies have shown major returns for individuals and societies alike. Higher levels of educational attainment improve overall economic wellbeing and prosperity, lower retirement burdens, and enhance social mobility and satisfaction. The unemployment rate for college graduates in the US, at 2.5 percent, is roughly one-third the rate for those without a high school diploma. What policymakers must determine is how to invest in education in ways that maximise these benefits, without creating new risks. This is where the US risks falling short.

Over the last 10 years, the combination of higher tuition fees, more student enrolment and greater reliance on loans has caused the stock of outstanding student debt to nearly triple. It now stands at well over $1.2trn, more than 60 percent of which is held by the bottom quartile of households – those with a net worth of less than $8,500.

Today, seven out of 10 post-secondary students graduate with debt, with the total volume exceeding debt from credit cards and auto loans combined. Moreover, student loans constitute 45 percent of federally owned financial assets.

Making matters worse, the return on investment in education is falling, because the economy is growing slowly and changing rapidly, making it difficult for some graduates to secure employment that takes advantage of their knowledge and skills. Universities are often slow to adapt their curricula to the economy’s needs, while new technologies and business models are exacerbating the winner-take-all phenomenon.

Battling for investment
If the return on investment in education continues to decline, the servicing of student loans will tend to crowd out other consumption and investment outlays, especially given that student debt has considerable seniority in the capital structure. In this scenario, the risks of default and delinquency would rise, along with financial insecurity and general instability, all of which would exacerbate the inequality trifecta (income, wealth and opportunity).

The good news is that, though some 10 percent of borrowers already face repayment problems, the macroeconomic and financial tipping points remain some way off. But this is no excuse for complacency; it merely provides time for a concerted effort to implement measures that will ameliorate the destructive trends stemming from student loans.

The work to be done
First and foremost, US politicians need to take full responsibility for economic governance, seeking not only to boost growth, but also to avert a reduction in long-term growth potential. After depending on unconventional monetary policy for far too long, the US Congress needs to adopt a more comprehensive approach, with measures aimed at improving worker training and retooling, modernising education curricula, and incorporating transformational technologies more effectively into the economy. Increased infrastructure investment, better corporate-tax policies, and an updated budgetary approach are also needed.

For their part, universities – which have benefited considerably from the wide availability of student loans – should rein in their costs, while offering more direct financial aid funded through philanthropy. Some universities have already adopted ‘no loan’ policies; students’ demonstrated financial need is met entirely with grants financed by the university and other donors.

Not all universities need to go this far – and most can’t, because they lack large enough endowments to cover the costs. But a broader move in the direction of non-debt financing of higher education is needed.

Efforts could also be made to encourage households to save more, starting earlier, for education. Student loan disclosures should be made more transparent, thereby enabling applicants to make responsible decisions, with lower-cost two-year community colleges serving as a useful stepping-stone to a traditional college education. And more could be done to expand income-based repayment schemes.

None of these measures will be easy. But if implementation continues to lag behind realities on the ground, the challenges will be far greater down the road. As borrowers’ growing debt burdens limit their financial flexibility and productive contribution to the economy, the policy emphasis will shift from mitigating future risks to reducing indebtedness directly through loan forgiveness and bailouts. That would raise thorny issues of fairness and misaligned incentives, and could ultimately have the perverse effect of reducing educational access.

Mohamed El-Erian is Chief Economic Advisor at Allianz

© Project Syndicate 2015

Finding a reliable source

If one were seeking a perfect example of why it’s so hard to make financial markets work well, one would not have to look further than the difficulties and controversies surrounding crowdfunding in the US. After deliberating for more than three years, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) last month issued a final rule that will allow true crowdfunding; and yet the new regulatory framework still falls far short of what’s needed to boost crowdfunding worldwide.

Robert J Shiller

True crowdfunding, or equity crowdfunding, refers to the activities of online platforms that sell shares of start-up companies directly to large numbers of small investors, bypassing traditional venture capital or investment banking. The concept is analogous to that of online auctions. But, unlike allowing individuals to offer their furniture to the whole world, crowdfunding is supposed to raise money fast, from those in the know, for businesses that bankers might not understand. It certainly sounds exciting.

Regulators outside the US have often been more accommodating, and some crowdfunding platforms are already operating. For example, Symbid in the Netherlands and Crowdcube in the UK were both founded in 2011. But crowdfunding is still not a major factor in world markets. And that will not change without adequate – and innovative – financial regulation.

Crowd control
There is a conceptual barrier to understanding the problems that officials might face in regulating crowdfunding, owing to the failure of prevailing economic models to account for the manipulative and devious aspects of human behavior. Economists typically describe people’s rational, honest side, but ignore their duplicity. As a result, they underestimate the downside risks of crowdsourcing.

The risks consist not so much in outright fraud – big lies that would be jailable offenses – as in more subtle forms of deception. It may well be open deception, with promoters steering gullible amateurs around a business plan’s fatal flaw, or disclosing it only grudgingly or in the fine print.

It is not that people are completely dishonest. On the contrary, they typically pride themselves on integrity. It’s just that their integrity suffers little lapses here and there – and not always so little in aggregate.

In my new book with George Akerlof, Phishing for Phools: The Economics of Manipulation and Deception, we argue that unscrupulous behaviour has to be factored into economic theory in a fundamental way. The economic equilibrium we live should be regarded, above all, as a phishing equilibrium, in which small-time individual dishonesty can morph into something more systemically important when it is carried on by business organisations under intense competitive pressure. Yes, competition rewards the sharp and hardworking. But it also often compels them to keep the frontiers of subtle deception in view.

Most people, even the cleverest, cannot grasp the next breakthrough business opportunity

Phishing equilibrium
The SEC’s new rules for crowdfunding are complex, because they address a complicated problem. The concept underlying crowdfunding is the dispersal of information across millions of people. Most people, even the cleverest, cannot grasp the next breakthrough business opportunity. Those who can are dispersed. The economist Friedrich Hayek put it well in 1945:

“[T]here is beyond question a body of very important but unorganised knowledge which cannot possibly be called scientific in the sense of knowledge of general rules: the knowledge of particular circumstances and place. It is with respect to this that practically every individual has some advantage over all others in that he possesses unique information of which beneficial use might be made, but of which use can be made only if the decisions depending on it are left to him or are made with his active cooperation.”

The problem is that the promise of genuine “unique information” comes with the reality of vulnerability to deception. That’s why channeling dispersed knowledge into new businesses requires a regulatory framework that favors the genuinely enlightened and honest. Unfortunately, the SEC’s new crowdsourcing rules don’t go as far as they should.

The 2012 US legislation that tasked the SEC with rulemaking for crowdfunding platforms specified that no start-up can use them to raise more than $1m a year. This is practically worthless in terms of limiting the scope for deception. In fact, including this provision was a serious mistake, and needs to be corrected with new legislation. A million dollars is not enough, and the cap will tend to limit crowdfunding to small ideas.

Trust, confidence, suspicion and fear
Some of the SEC rules do work against deception. Notably, crowdfunding platforms must provide communication channels “through which
investors can communicate with one another and with representatives of the issuer about offerings made available”.

That is a good rule, fundamental to the entire idea of crowdfunding. But the SEC could do more than just avow its belief in “uncensored and transparent crowd discussions”. It should require that the intermediary sponsoring a platform install a surveillance system to guard against interference and shills offering phony comments.

The SEC and other regulators could go even further. They could nudge intermediaries to create a platform that summarises commenters’ record and reputation. Indeed, why not pay commenters who accumulate ‘likes’ or whose comments on issuers turn out to be valuable in light of evidence of those enterprises’ subsequent success?

For the financial system as a whole, success ultimately depends on trust and confidence, both of which, like suspicion and fear, are highly contagious. That’s why, if crowdfunding is to reach its global potential, crowdphishing must be prevented from the outset. Regulators need to get the rules right (and it would help if they hurried up about it).

Robert J Shiller is Nobel Laureate in Economics and Professor of Economics at Yale University

© Project Syndicate 2015

When financial markets misread politics

When Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) defied pundits and pollsters by regaining a parliamentary majority in the country’s general election on November 1, financial markets cheered. The next day, the Istanbul stock exchange rose by more than five percent, and the Turkish lira rallied.

Dani Rodrick

Never mind that one would be hard pressed to find anyone in business or financial circles these days with a nice thing to say about Recep Tayyip Erdogan or the AKP that he led before ascending to the presidency in 2014. And make no mistake: though Turkey’s president is supposed to be above party politics, Erdogan remains very much at the helm.

Confrontational politics
Indeed, it was Erdogan’s divide-and-rule strategy – fuelling religious populism and nationalist sentiment, and inflaming ethnic tension with the Kurds – that carried the AKP to victory. Arguably, it was the only strategy that could work. After all, his regime has alienated liberals with its attacks on the media; business leaders with its expropriation of companies affiliated with his erstwhile allies in the so-called Gülen movement; and the West with its confrontational language and inconsistent stance on the Islamic State. And yet financial markets, evidently placing a premium on stability, hailed the outcome. A majority AKP government – investors apparently believed – would be much better than the likely alternative: a period of political uncertainty, followed by a weak and indecisive coalition or minority administration. But, in this case, there was not much wisdom in crowds.

It is true that the AKP had a few good years after first coming to power in late 2002. But the party’s room for mischief was constrained by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund abroad and secularists at home. Once those limits were removed, Erdogan’s governments embraced economic populism and authoritarian politics. Investors’ apparent optimism following the AKP’s victory recalls Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

Turkey certainly isn’t the only case where financial markets have misread a country’s politics. Consider Brazil, whose currency, the real, has been hammered since mid-2014 – much worse than most other emerging-market currencies – largely because of a major corruption scandal unfolding there. Prosecutors have revealed a wide-ranging kickback scheme centred on the state-owned oil company Petrobras and involving executives, parliamentarians, and government officials. So it may seem natural that financial markets have been spooked.

Yet the most important outcome of the scandal has been to highlight the remarkable strength, not weakness, of Brazil’s legal and democratic institutions. The prosecutor and judge on the case have been allowed to do their job, despite the natural impulse of President Dilma Rousseff’s government to quash the investigation. And, from all appearances, the probe has been following proper judicial procedures and has not been used to advance the opposition’s political agenda.

We know from painful experience that financial markets’ short-term focus and herd behaviour often lead them to neglect significant economic fundamentals

Beyond the judiciary, a slew of institutions, including the federal police and the finance ministry, have taken part and worked in sync. Leading businessmen and politicians have been jailed, among them the former treasurer of the ruling Workers’ Party.

Predicting uncertainties
Financial markets are supposed to be forward-looking, and many economists believe that they allocate resources in a way that reflects all available information. But an accurate comparison of Brazil’s experience with that of other emerging-market economies – where corruption is no less a problem – would, if anything, lead to an upgrade of Brazil’s standing among investors.

Going back to Turkey, leaked recordings of telephone conversations have directly implicated Erdogan and his family, along with several government ministers, in a hugely lucrative corruption ring involving trade with Iran and construction deals. It is an open secret that government procurement is being used to enrich politicians and their business cronies. From all indications, corruption reaches higher and is more widespread than in Brazil.

But today it is the police officers who led the corruption probe against Erdogan who are in jail. Some of the media outlets that supported the probe have been closed down and taken over by the government. The AKP argues that the police officers are adherents of the Gülen movement and that the investigation was politically motivated, aiming to unseat Erdogan.

Both claims are most likely true. But neither justifies the blatant lawlessness with which the AKP government has clamped down on the corruption allegations. The upshot is that Turkey’s institutions, unlike Brazil’s, are being captured and corrupted to an extent that will hamper economic growth and development for years to come.

Nor is Turkey the only country where large-scale corruption is left unchecked. In Malaysia, Prime Minister Najib Razak has been at the centre of a major political scandal since nearly $700m in unaccounted funds was found in his bank accounts. Billions of dollars are said to be missing from the government investment fund 1MDB, which Najib controlled. Najib has promised a full reckoning, but he has sacked Malaysia’s attorney general, who was investigating 1MDB.

In Latin America, Argentina and Mexico both rank among the bottom half of countries in controlling corruption and maintaining transparency – much lower than Brazil. The dramatic abduction and gruesome killing in 2014 of 43 students north of Mexico City is only the latest example of collusion among the country’s criminal gangs, police, and politicians.

We know from painful experience that financial markets’ short-term focus and herd behaviour often lead them to neglect significant economic fundamentals. We should not be surprised that the same characteristics can distort markets’ judgment of countries’ governance and political prospects.

Dani Rodrik is Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University’s John F Kennedy School of Government

© Project Syndicate 2015

Oman LNG documentary – From Strength to Strength – Trailer

We’ll be broadcasting our new documentary series on Oman and its liquefied natural gas industry from Monday 25th January. Please subscribe to our channel to get notifications of each new episode as it goes live.

World Finance: Oman is the oldest independent state in the Arab world. It has a rich history, culture, and economy. But while its agriculture and tourism sectors are still growing, the backbone of the country has been built on its flourishing energy sector.

Oman has a burgeoning natural gas sector. And as the country’s primary exporter of liquefied natural gas, Oman LNG now runs at a 34 million cubic metre capacity per day.

Oman’s exports of liquefied natural gas has often been described as the game-changer to the country’s economy. The company sees its mission as improving the lives of all Omani people. 1.5 percent of Oman LNG’s net income after tax goes into its diverse social investment programmes, benefitting people of all walks of life.

Samya Alzadjaln, Teacher, Omar Bin Al Khattab Institute for the Blind: This is the Omar Bin Al Khattab Institute for the Blind. There are almost 150 students here in the institute.

Adel Al-Moslahi, Volunteer, Al Rahman Team Charity: We provide help to families: poor families and orphans, and people in need.

Dr Mohammad Ibrahim Alfarsi, Executive Director, Sur General Hospital: We are proud that Oman LNG has supported this hospital from the beginning. Oman LNG donated a lot of equipment; this is a great benefit to the community.

Mohammed Bin Hamad Al Rumhy, Minister of Oil and Gas, Oman: It’s good business for creating wealth for the country. The standard of living is growing; everybody wants to build homes and live comfortably. That requires energy; that requires gas.

Harib Al Kitani, CEO, Oman LNG: We are a company that has not left any stone unturned. We are an example of a successful company in Oman and in the region; and we have gone from strength to strength.

Mohammed Bin Hamad Al Rumhy, Minister of Oil and Gas, Oman: The world is moving back towards relying on fossil fuels. The world will need more gas. Oman will rely on this business, I think, for a little bit longer than we thought.

Harib Al Kitani, CEO, Oman LNG: I think as a model, it’s just one big success.

Litigation finance on the rise

When one hears the words ‘litigation finance’, the image of relentless television advertisements promising large sums of cash for some misfortune that may or may not have ruined your life immediately springs to mind. Fortunately, however, this is not how the practice in question operates: litigation finance refers to the ability of a third-party – more often than not a private equity firm or wealth management fund – to invest in a court case in return for a percentage of the successful outcome. If someone – sometimes an individual, but more likely than not, a company – is attempting to bring a civil case against another person or firm, such investors will purchase a proportion of the case’s outcome, which will be used to pay for legal costs. In return, they will receive a dividend from the successful case.

The practice, while not new, is on the rise. As The New York Times noted, “The industry — which barely existed outside personal-injury cases until the mid-2000s — is growing rapidly, driven by increasingly permissive laws, the promise of high returns and hourly billing rates that run $500 or more for the largest and most sophisticated law firms”.

UK-based firm Burford Capital, which focuses on US ventures, saw its lawsuit investments increase from $150m to $500m between 2013 and 2014, allowing it to see its profits rise by “89 percent, with a 61 percent net profit margin”, according to the New York Times article (see Fig. 1). Gerchen Keller, a new entrant to the market, has a portfolio of $840m, while “IMF Bentham, an Australia-based funder, consists of 39 cases, which the firm values at just over $2bn”. What can be seen, according to the litigation crowdfunding platform Invest4Justice, is the phenomenon of lawsuits “making a transition from a private arrangement to a fully monetised asset class”.

Money already plays a huge role in the ability of a complainant to pursue justice – litigation finance merely levels the
playing field

A new age of legality
While this new asset class could be classified by some as capitalism run rampant – as a new form of profiteering in the age of neo-liberalism, or the further financialisation of the economy – the practice of a third party backing someone else’s lawsuit has a long history: since the ancient Greeks, certain groups bet on outcomes in legal proceedings; a practice which then continued in Ancient Rome. It was finally banned in the remaining Eastern section of the Roman Empire in the sixth century by the Byzantine emperor Anastasius, who argued that such legal disputes should only concern the original two parties.

However, the ban has not quite survived in the modern era. As Luke Gittos, a solicitor based in London, told World Finance, “Parties can be joined to civil cases after an original claim has been made, so I suppose Anastasius has been overruled. I am sure there remains a common law rule of some kind that says only the parties involved are entitled to be heard, but I don’t think this has any impact on the funding situation.”

In a similar way, litigation finance has been compared to the Medieval England concept of ‘champerty’, wherein respected individuals such as nobles or members of the royal court would attach their name to a lawsuit, with the intention of legitimating the claim, in return for a portion of the outcome. The practice itself was eventually banned, but by the 18th century champerty’s relevance – and its prohibition – had waned slightly. As the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham noted at the time, while in Medieval England “the sword of a baron, stalking into court with a rabble of retainers at his heels, might strike terror into the eyes of a judge upon the bench. At present, what cares an English judge for the swords of a hundred barons?… The judge of our days is ready with equal phlegm to administer, upon all occasions, that system… which the law has put into his hands”.

Cashless complainants
While some parallels may exist between the two methods, the ‘mischief’ of champerty – which Bentham described as the practice of “a man [buying] a weak claim, in hopes that power might convert it into a strong one” – doesn’t seem to apply to litigation finance, which in many ways allows the less powerful to pursue justice against the more powerful.

The idea of money playing a vital role in the dispensing and securing of justice, and then becoming a securitised asset in its own right, may raise some concerns. However, the defenders and proponents of litigation finance argue that money already plays a huge role in the ability of a complainant to pursue justice – litigation finance merely levels the playing field.

According to Invest4Justice, access to justice is a fundamental human right. In a post on its website, the firm points to Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.”

However, the group argues that the various means by which states have attempted to provide equal access to “effective remedy” before national courts has been inadequate: lawyers remain expensive and legal aid, where it exists, is often inadequate and “rarely produces good results”. As a consequence, allowing private backers to invest in lawsuits gives people better access to legal representation in their pursuit of justice.

Litigation graph

Often in civil cases, those with the largest pot to draw from are the ones who are able to drag out proceedings. With the looming threat of financial ruin occurring as a result of the accrued costs of a long-running case, a larger company in a civil case can often force the other party to stand down or accept out-of-court settlements. Litigation finance, according to Gittos, has the potential to “provide helpful assistance to those defending claims and provide some assurance that fighting litigation is not going to make defendants bankrupt. Cases can often drag on for long periods, meaning that the financial burden on parties can be significant.”

In a recent article, outlined a scenario where litigation finance would help cases that otherwise would not have seen their day in court, mainly due to financial constraints: “A technology company in liquidation might have a patent-infringement suit that the bankruptcy’s administrators lack the time to pursue”, the article explained. “There may be money to be made by suing a joint-venture partner, but the prospect of a costly case dissuades managers from going to court.”

Different jurisdictions
While the idea of an underdog with a lack of resources pursuing legal recourse against a large company is the backbone of many stories in American popular culture, litigation finance is not only restricted to the US. As Invest4Justice noted, “Litigation funding also exists in France, Germany, Holland and many other civil law countries”. However, due to alternative options for funding cases and rules around conduct, some countries have less of a need for litigation finance.

According to Gittos, “Litigation funding is very rare in the UK”. His own place of work has never experienced it: “This is possibly because we have provisions in civil proceedings whereby successful parties can claim their costs back from the other side. We also have conditional fee agreements, which have become known as ‘no win, no fee’. Some firms also offer litigation insurance – [this] means that people are less likely to be completely disbarred from launching a meritorious case because of funding; they just need to find a lawyer who is willing take the case on the basis of one of our alternative funding mechanisms.”

Gittos also noted how the practice of some large firms bleeding smaller firms dry “is more relevant in the US context”. In the UK, “parties can be punished for failing to settle cases by being charged greater costs if they lose. Parties are actively discouraged from dragging cases on, although I am sure it does happen”.

Quid pro quo
Despite some consternation about the practice of turning lawsuits into an asset class from which dividends can be derived, it is hard to see who loses from litigation finance once you venture beyond the battle of the courtroom: firms with large funds to invest have the cash, and struggling complainants need it. Similarly, those who have cash that they wish to invest get to see a potential return, while those who may not have previously been able to access legal remedy are now able to do so.

Investment is essentially speculation; leveraging cash in hope of a return. Litigation finance is not based upon speculating whether some asset will merely appreciate in value, but is based upon a judgement of whether or not a case is worth investing in, to be pursued in a court of law, with the hope of a win. As each case is invested in on a case-by-case basis, the process seems generally immune from the sort of bubble-driven speculation some assets are prone to. The outcome of the case, based upon decisions in a court of law, decides the payout, rather than fluctuating market forces.

The gig economy and its long-term effects

The technological era has caused a major shift in all aspects of life, including the way we work. As such, online consumer driven services, free communication channels and globalised networks have created a much bigger space than ever before for outsourcing, contracting, temping and freelancing. Aside from the far greater ease and convenience in which companies can now employ non-permanent staff, the appeal of greater flexibility, more money-making opportunities and an enhanced work-life balance are luring increasing numbers into the ‘gig economy’.

Despite the increasingly popular trend, participants face an array of challenges that would leave many resigned to staying in traditional employment. At present, the majority of the labour force still prescribe to a conventional format, whereby they work an agreed number of hours for a set number of days per week for one employer, and usually with a permanent contract in place. In return, they receive a fixed and regular wage, which provides them with long-term financial security.

In addition, permanent staff are reassured in knowing that undoubtedly, they will receive paid annual leave and paid sick days, as well as a specified notice period. Additional employment benefits can differ considerably depending on the country, region, employer, or even the job itself. Health insurance is a common job perk in the US for example, while in Europe; employees tend to be offered more holidays each working year than their American counterparts. In essence, such pre-determined conditions and benefits widely help to keep the conventional employment dynamic in tact.

Despite the comfort of a financial safety net and having paid time off, many have grown weary of the lack of freedom that comes with the nine ‘til five paradigm

The dawn of a new age
Despite the comfort of a financial safety net and having paid time off, many have grown weary of the lack of freedom that comes with the nine ‘til five paradigm both in and outside of the workplace. Moreover, the monotonous routine can feel stifling, which can lead to career dissatisfaction. Some people thrive when working unsupervised, while the variety of contract work can make for a refreshing challenge each day of the week.

The gig economy is also especially helpful for those with young families, particularly women, who now have easier access to earning a wage at home or at times that suit them most. Although the figures have not yet been accurately quantified, it is clear that the number of gig workers is growing rapidly.

This shift in employment, which is still in its nascent stage, is very much a 21st-century phenomenon. “I think the opportunities for people who want to be gig workers has expanded significantly over the last five years; there’s now a much wider range of opportunity, in part mediated by digital platforms of different kinds that makes it possible for someone who actually wants to be their own boss and who wants to run a small business of one as a way of making a living”, said Arun Sundararajan, Professor of Information, Operations and Management Sciences at New York University.

Simultaneous to the materialisation of such technological platforms is a generational mind-set shift in regards to full time employment and entrepreneurship, which has also supported the realisation of the gig economy.

Essentially, the current generation is less predisposed to the shackles of a traditional employer and a set pay packet, and as Sundararajan explained, “the notion of entrepreneurship is far more in the cultural dialogue than it used to be 10 or 15 years ago, and that could also be a contributing factor”.

Given the increasing number and scope of sharing economy platforms, such as Airbnb, Lyft, JustPark to name but a few, millions around the world are signing up to participate in the gig economy, either as their sole income or as a means to augment their current earnings. In terms of the latter, countless individuals are now putting their spare time to economic use by retailing their creations on Etsy, content writing through Freelance.com or selling photographs on Flickr. As such, peer-to-peer exchange is undergoing a mass revival at present, which has been made possible through a visible change in societal consciousness.

Gig economy Fig 1

“I think that over the last 10 years there has been a drastic improvement in the digital trust infrastructure. A big barrier in the past to widespread peer-to-peer exchange was the fact that you would rather buy from a company because you trusted their brand”, Sundararajan told World Finance. Yet there is now a wide range of digital signals available that make people more inclined to deal with semi-anonymous peers, including online review systems and digitised versions of real world social capital, such as Facebook and LinkedIn profiles. “All these different facets to your personality can create a much richer digital persona that makes people comfortable when interacting with you”.

Supporting the gig industry
Just as gig working can increase one’s earnings to an unlimited degree, the opposite can also be true, as pay can vary drastically, and by no means has a fixed minimum. For many, the ‘feast or famine’ style of income can be difficult and stressful; this fluctuation in earnings can make it difficult to save for the future, which is exacerbated further by not being entitled to some form of a retirement package or pension contribution. Then there is the formidable issue of no sick leave – if gig workers are unable to work, they simply do not earn.

The issue of health insurance is particularly troubling for gig workers in the US, given that citizens cannot fall back on national healthcare as they can in European states. In addition to being expensive, the process itself of obtaining medical insurance can be difficult and overbearing. “What a typical corporate human resources department does for you is really filter your choices”, explained Elizabeth Woyke, Business Reporter and co-author of Serving Workers in the Gig Economy. “Whereas online exchanges can take hours, it’s very confusing and you don’t really understand what is the best choice for you; so I think that in the health insurance space, it’s confusion over the wealth of options.” Moreover, the predominant reason why many US citizens choose to obtain health insurance through their employer is because doing so significantly lowers the price through attaining a group rate.

Democratic Candidate Hillary Clinton, who is largely opposed to the gig economy
Democratic Candidate Hillary Clinton, who is largely opposed to the gig economy

Gig workers also face the difficulty of filing personal taxes and keeping track of expenses, which may be a daunting task for those who are not versed in bookkeeping, or which of their outgoings are deductible. For example, Uber and Lyft drivers must keep receipts and tabs on their petrol consumption throughout the year; not doing so at every given opportunity can make a significant difference to one’s pay packet. Then there is the process and self-discipline of putting aside money each month for the year’s end, which can be financially dangerous for many not in the habit.

In response to the increasing number of individuals that are walking away from the traditional employment relationship (see Fig. 1), specialist human resources companies are now emerging to cater for them specifically. “Some of them are focused on ride sharing drivers, others are focused more on the Airbnb hosts, some are really quite general”, Woyke added. Although one such firm may be able to assist with taxes or another can help with acquiring the best healthcare package at a group rate, no one company will offer everything in the same way that a conventional employer does.

Gig workers however, are entitled to the same crucial safety net as the rest of the labour force. That said, now is the time for political decision makers and the wider community to engage in a discussion about how gig workers can be safeguarded. Fortunately for the freelancing community, the debate has already begun and more online advice is now available to assist with the various aspects of adopting an individualistic employment framework. “In fact, what’s interesting is that gig work and the gig economy has become a bit of an election issue here in the US”, Woyke told World Finance. A number of high-profile court hearings are also contributing to the public debate, a notable example being Uber, which has been involved in various legal cases around the world to determine whether its drivers are in fact employees as opposed to contractors.

The UK’s sharing economy

5m

UK workers are self-employed

3%

of those in the UK earn up to

£5k

per week working in the
gig economy

At present, the role of the government in providing a safety net for gig workers varies considerably. In the US and the UK for example, the presumption lies on its provision through the full time employer, whereas Scandinavia’s flexicurity model is in its very nature aligned for providing welfare to gig workers. “The bottom line is, if you’re a country where the safety net is tied very closely to full-time employment, the short-term role of the government should be in facilitating the creation of a new funding model for a safety net – that is an individual government market partnership”, Sundararajan explained.

A modern economy
The gig economy is clearly here to stay. “If you think about it, the reason we have the gig economy is because of huge macroeconomic forces, like globalisation of work, global trade, outsourcing and technology shifts like the rise of smartphones. I don’t think anyone thinks that any of those trends are going away certainly, and so I think the gig economy is not either”, Woyke commented.

It represents a transition that is currently underway in the global economy – a new era in which employers can take their pick from talent across the world, as well as flourish with the help of the creativity and innovation of ‘happy workers’. Likewise, employees can have more freedom than ever in choosing where they want to work, how they want to work and how long for, and even potentially, how much they want to earn. Ultimately people can become the masters of their own careers, and in effect, of their own lives. Although there are various obstacles to be overcome in providing the support that gig workers need, this will come in time and when it does, the sky’s the limit for all.

Sundararajan is optimistic about what the gig economy can mean for the future. “I think that as we start to fulfil more of our everyday economic needs through peer-to-peer exchange, it’s going to shift how much we trust other people in general and [it will] potentially increase the level of trust that we have in society. I also think that there is an opportunity here for peer-to-peer exchange to be equalising in terms of income distribution, and the reason why I think this is because historically people who own the means of production tend to see a faster rate of growth in their wealth than people who simply provide labour.” Gig workers on the other hand are now able to own a small portion, and with the ownership of society’s production engines being more evenly distributed, the equalisation of wealth could be actualised one day in the not too distant future.

Gender blindness is the real measure of workplace equality

The business world has been focused on getting women into its upper echelons. Campaigns like 2020 Women On Boards, which seeks to increase the percentage of female c-suite executives by 20 percent or more by the year 2020, along with other initiatives proposed by corporations and international organisations, are all helping to erode barriers to gender equality in the workplace.

In the US, California became the first state to pass legislation (Senate Resolution 62), which was designed specifically to encourage corporations to promote more women to senior positions. In Europe, the EU Commission took decisive action in an attempt to shatter the glass ceiling, putting forward a proposal that will see 40 percent of non-executive board member positions of publically listed companies in the region filled by women in over the next four years. Developments such as these are not isolated to Europe and the US, however: throughout the world, governments and businesses are putting forward their own strategies and proposals for getting more women into the top-flight.

But despite all this, gender equality is proving difficult to achieve (see Fig. 1). In fact, a recent report by McKinsey & Company, a leading management consultancy firm, showed that women are still underrepresented at every level of the corporate pipeline; with women holding only 32 percent of senior manager roles and just 17 percent of c-suite positions among the 118 US corporations they surveyed. So why are women still struggling to fill top-level jobs when the world is working so hard to help them do so?

Real equality
Interestingly, the answer, according to two powerful women, lies in ending our collective obsession with measuring equality by the number of women at the top of corporate ladder and, instead, focus on cultivating a society that allows both men and women a wider array of equally respected choices. How they believe society should go about achieving this goal is where the two part ways.

The US public policy expert Anne-Marie Slaughter asserts that massive changes to work culture, policy and society are required to get there, while Claire Fox, a libertarian writer and founder of the think-tank the Institute of Ideas, is worried that by overstating the issue, advocates of gender equality are doing more harm than good.

Today, the world seems too content to value women on male terms. But by doing so it actually denies women fundamental freedoms

During her TED Talk, ‘can we all “have it all”?’, Slaughter explained how for years she had “accepted the idea that the most respected and powerful people in our society are men at the top of their careers” and, therefore, for her, “the measure of male-female equality ought to be how many women are in those positions: prime ministers, presidents, CEOs, directors, managers, Nobel laureates, leaders”. And while Slaughter admits that this metric is still important and that society must continue to work towards this goal, she concedes that pursuing this end alone will not result in real equality.

To achieve true gender equality, not only do business and society at large need to recognise that the breadwinning and caregiving roles are equally important, but more importantly, a cultural shift must occur, one where men and women are freed from traditional gender roles, or what Slaughter refers to as the “re-socialising” of men.

Nowadays, in developed countries at least, women are told they can have it all and are expected to want to have it all – to be breadwinners, caregivers and more. But men, according to Slaughter, are still where they’ve always been. “Men are still socialised to believe that they have to be breadwinners, that to derive their self-worth from how high they can climb over other men on a career ladder”, claimed the policy expert. “60 years after The Feminine Mystique was published, many women actually have more choices than men do.”

She added, “We can decide to be a breadwinner, a caregiver, or any combination of the two. When a man, on the other hand, decides to be a caregiver, he puts his manhood on the line”. Women are able to see themselves as much more than just mothers, but many men still struggle to view themselves as anything more than breadwinners. Part of the reason for that, asserts Slaughter, is due to the fact that many women judge the attractiveness of men largely on how successful they are in their career. “A woman can drop out of the work force and still be an attractive partner, [but] for a man, that’s a risky proposition”, said Slaughter. More and more women are raised to believe that they can be whatever they want to be, but that is not the case for men. In order to change this, Slaughter believes that parents and society must ‘re-socialise’ men.

This is not advocating a switching of traditional gender roles – far from it. What this aims to create is real equality: to cultivate a society that allows individuals to make choices based on what is most important to them, not what society has conditioned them to want or what they have conditioned themselves to want.

Free to choose
But in order for full equality to be realised, to construct a world where men and women are able to choose from a wide array of equally respected choices, what needs to happen? People like to talk about removing and breaking down social barriers, but it is often a case of easier said than done.

The answer, according to Fox, is gender blindness. For her, the biggest obstacle to real equality is our obsession with it – or, more importantly, our incessant need to overstate the issue and the harmful ways in which it is framed. “The problem [with framing gender equality] in terms of the glass ceiling, is that it distorts things”, said Fox. “It creates an endless discussion about why women aren’t reaching the top, with this conversation eventually ending up demonising the choices women make.”

Diversity chart

In a recent op-ed in The Telegraph, columnist and former editor of the New Statesman, Cristina Odone, told readers how she was made to feel as if she was somehow “betraying the suffragettes and Marie Curie” for not encouraging her daughter to pursue STEM (science, technology, economics and maths) subjects at GCSE. The story exemplifies the problem with contemporary feminism and the obsession it has with measuring equality by the number of women in top-level jobs or the amount of girls going into careers in science instead of how free they feel go down the path they most desire for themselves.

Odone’s daughter freely decided to study English. She chose books over Bunsen burners. Her mother on the other hand talks of how she was made to feel like she was somehow betraying the sisterhood if she didn’t raise her daughter to become an “entrepreneur or a scientist”.

“The whole point about women’s equality is that we have choice”, said Fox. “Then we choose, and everyone says, ‘oh no, not that choice’”. Today, the world seems too content to value women on male terms, but by doing so it actually denies women fundamental freedoms. Women are expected to be some sort of wonder woman – to be all things to all people. There is so much pressure on women to ‘have it all’ that many risk feeling inadequate if they don’t. This is precisely why Fox wants everyone to stop overstating the issue. “I want people to be gender blind”, she said. “I don’t want people to think about it.

“There is, sadly, less enthusiasm for women to take up public or high-level positions than I would want there to be, but it is not up to me decide what other women should choose to do.” While many would like to see more women assuming high-level positions in society or more young girls choosing to do STEM subjects at university, those that do should be careful. Because when people use the argument, as many do, that ‘we need more women in X, because it will lead to Y’ and value women on male terms instead of as individuals, it can do more harm than good.

This is because measuring equality in this way assumes that ‘men’s work’ is somehow more important than ‘women’s work’, and this narrative, which has been adopted by many, is merely the old sexist stereotype given a progressive spin. The fact is that some people aspire to become the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, while some dream of being at stay-at-home parent. So, as society attempts to offer a wider variety of choices, it must also accept the fact that some people may not want them.