Private Public Partnerships are back on the agenda as the New Zealand Election approaches once again. National is proposing them and Labour denouncing them. For once I actually agree with Michael Cullen though probably our reasons are somewhat different.

First of all I think infrastructure is incredibly important. Imagine if we had free broadband covering the whole of NZ. Imagine a computer in every household. Decent and reliable energy and school facilities our children require to get them on track to become productive adults.

Of course we need decent roads, hospitals and schools. I think National has a bit more vision in this area. It realises that we need to seriously invest and not in extra layers of bureacracy but in high impact areas like teachers, classrooms, sports and leisure facilities and technology.

It’s the PPP bit that I don’t like because what normally happens is that the Public bit gets loaded with debt and the overall cost of the project spirals out of control. Private investors want iron clad punts with very good paper returns. The Public wants quality common good assets for the public use. I think road tolls can be useful if a road supplies a benefit to a small group of users but in general we need to create long lasting infrastructure that ultimately benefit all.

It’s easy to split hairs over the financing and benefit aspects of building public assets but i’d bring the axe right down and say that we can fund these projects interest free.

Yes that’s right. Interest free. There’s a proviso, well maybe a couple:

One: The asset must be clearly adding the the public good. Broadband comes into this category as do schools and healthcare (though that is a greyish area).

Two: the money supply needs to be better managed.

The proposal is simply that government can create the money interest free, metaphorically speaking by printing it. The money comes into the system and is used to create the asset. The money can be paid back or not depending on the asset.

What? i hear you say. Isn’t that inflationary? Ceteris paribus yes but see proviso 2. The main issue is that interest will not be required so no new money needs to be created in order to pay back the interest. All you monetary scholars will alread know that interest is money that does not yet exist in the system and so has to be created via new money, normally in the form of debt.

The Forum for Stable Currencies in the UK has been advocating this policy for 6 years now through a string of Early Day Motions in Parliament. These have been kindly sponsored by Austin Mitchell, an MP well know to New Zealanders.

The point here is to dispell the myth that we are dependent on banks and overseas financiers to create our own public assets. That is a conversation I would love to see John Key and Michael Cullen have.

After a 1200 pt rally in the Dow the market has come to its senses and started bailing again. It’s a year now since Bear Stearns stumped up $3bln plus to bail out one of its funds thereby signalling the start of the crisis.

The news is bad wherever you look but the focus now is on the banks and whether they will be able to shore up their balance sheets which have more holes than a block of Emmental.

The pressure of continued write downs will simply hasten the inevitable collapse of a major institution. The big question is how the banks will be re-capitalised.

The first wave of capital provided by overseas investors has resulted in major losses and burnt fingers. Sovereign funds may be a little more wary this time round even if the price is way cheaper.

The Naked Capitalist reports on discussions the Fed has been having with private equity companies to see if they might be interested in stumping up some cash. However, there are issues of bank ownership and the size of stake any non-bank organisation can take. The word is that the Fed could seek to relax these rules.

This does not fill one with confidence.

Closer to home NZ finance companies are collapsing like a house of cards. It’s hard to know if any will be left. Already prosecutions are underway against accountants who signed off on the books of failed companies. I wonder how bank auditors will be feeling when they come to sign off the books of the major banks and see a long list of assets “uanble to be valued” properly.

There should be caveats galore.

But the question remains as to whether the crisis will spread to the major banks. If it does we could see queues around the corner of all our financial institutions before too long. I’d certainly advise people to have a bit of cash set aside and money spread around various banks. Having said that NZ is one of the only countries in the OECD not have have deposit insurance for banks.

Given the central banks moves so far it’s safe to say the banking system is underwritten to some degree but if you own shares in a bank i would be very uncomfortbale about that.

Somehow I haven’t heard about Microplace but it’s an exciting addition the the expanding world of P2P lending and microfinance. It is different to Kiva because you invest in a security (like a bond) for a fixed term, usually 2-4 years and you receive a return, although minimal 1.5-3%. As I understand it the big issue is getting registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Microplace is backed by eBay which certainly helped whereas Kiva was a start up and was forced into going the non-profit route.

It’s great to have two companies to compare and contrast.

Kiva is more personal. I choose who I want to lend to and can received feedback and updated information on how the borrower is getting on. This is really important as it builds a web of social capital.

With Microplace you are buying a package of loans and so you don’t have that personal contact. Also there is the issue of return. I think it’s good you can get a return on your loan as long as it does not influence the rate being paid by the eventual borrower.

So you could actually lend to the same borrower through either Kiva or Microplace but somehow Microplace can get you a small return on your money. I’ll be digging further to see how they do this.  So far they have been very helpful and open.

In a way the securitisation approach is not much different from mortgage backed securities where people invest in a package of mortgages. Of course we all know what’s happened with those. However i would stress this is completely different in that all the loans are unsecured anyway. It’s also important to note that default rates on microfinance are a mere 1-3%.

When we cut out the banks and go direct we enable relationships of trust to be built. This allows the traditional aspects of social relationships to take place. No one cares if you default to the bank but to default to other people can bring personal shame and other social fallout.

These 2 companies are blazing a trail for the rest of the finance industry. P2P finance could well be the next big thing.

Yesterday the ANZ reported another huge profit even with very large write downs and provisions for bad debts. A mere $510m for the six months to date is not too shabby though we can expect 2008 to be much harder going as loan demand (and supply) falls and consumers pare back on expenditure. We are already seeing signs of that with credit card spending falling along with credit card balances increasing.

But what really stands out is the $3.2bln the banks made in New Zealand in 2007. That is a lot of dough, the majority of which comes from the ability to create money into existence via interest bearing loans.

In the last 10 years loans have risen from $127bln to $323bln an increase of 154%….in 10 years!!!

In that time house prices (from QV data) have risen 178%.

It’s good to see Kiwibank taking a bigger part of this market because at least the profits stay with the taxpayer. And of course the right to create money is a sovereign one so why not have a “national” bank. That’s something worth thinking about.

Following on from their generous bail out of Northern Rock, the UK Government, otherwise know as the taxpayer, has opened its arms to any old piece of paper banks have sitting around on their balance sheet.

Or to be more accurate, the Bank of England will accept mortgage backed securities in return for government bonds. Nice trade if you cant get it. The amounts mentioned are 50 to 200bln pounds (where the hell is my pound key?) but basically it’s a free for all.

Now we can expect to see banks reaching for the refinancing button in order to take advantage of this. RBS has already put its hand up for 10 to 12bln of fresh capital plus a 6bln write down.

Ok so its just more mess. The markets may rally on this hoping it can help clear the looming crisis in the mortgage market but the numbers are really starting to mount up and this is just very bad news indeed.

The key issue here is the capital adequacy of the banking system. It’s proven to be the achilles heel which is why the authorities have had no option but to underwrite the system.

Given this exposure of the fragility of the banking system it is time to ask questions about capital adequacy and the way banks are regulated and allowed to operate.

Merrills realeased another $9bln from trading losses and decided to fire 4000 people who probably never made a trade in their life. That brings the total for 3 quarters to $29bln, a not insignificant sum.

Citigroup was in there as well with another $5bln loss for the quarter and another 9000 jobs to go in addition to the 13000 already on the streets.  Naturally the stock rallied…phew only $5bln!

It’s interesting to see how far this continues because this isn’t a good show at all. The numbers just keep getting bigger and bigger. Citigroup still has $60bln worth of exposure to sub-prime and other loans. What worries me is the 7.7% Tier 1 capital adequacy ratio.

That is what this is all about. Leverage to the hilt and be damned. Banks have become nothing more than licenced fronts for gambling.  Fair enough but that isn’t why people deposit their money in them.

Safe as houses? Well that depends what the house is worth.