Surely the ultimate humiliation for New Zealand would not be losing the Bledisloe Cup nor even seeing the Wallabies win the Rugby World Cup in 2011 at Eden Park but the bone jarring crunch of monetary union with Australia.

Recently smoke signals have been wafting from the Beehive as John Key and Kevin Rudd white flagged the issue in recent talks. When politicians say it’s a good idea but unlikely you know that it’s on the table. In fact this is not a new story. It comes up whenever there has been a proper meltdown and New Zealand looks a bit lonely and downbeat.

It’s been raised by some local economic commentators and all the usual pros and cons have been mentioned. Don Brash laid these all out nicely in a speech back in May 2000 and it’s hard to see past his conclusion that it is primarily a political decision, given that the economic pay off is unclear.

It may be a political decision then but it may not be a comfortable one. As Bernard Hickey writes today “we may not have a choice if we continue to borrow heavily”. The “shotgun wedding” wouldn’t be the most favourable outcome but NZ is not well placed at the moment. To coin a phrase you can’t be a little bit pregnant.

And, as Brian Gaynor writes, according to a recent OECD study, New Zealand is perilously close to Iceland in a ranking of countries with exposure to “overseas debt……personal debt and financial leverage”.The numbers are eye watering and the piper will be most surely paid at some point in time.

But, for now, the Australian banks, which make up most of our banking system, have underwritten us by sending new capital across the ditch. We also had to follow Australia’s deposit guarantee scheme with no choice in the matter. To all extents and purposes we are heavily dependent on them. So as Bernard notes we may find ourselves at the altar of currency union by default and not by political will. And it may happen sooner than we think.

Is there an alternative? Yes. A fully sovereign domestic money supply. More on that another time.

To the joy of conspiracy theorists everywhere, the new “United Future World Currency” coin was presented at the recent G8 summit in Italy. So far though its just a piece of alloy metal but hey value is in the eye of the holder.

As usual it was the Russian President, Dimitry Medvedev, giving the $ a good roasting and moving the debate forward to the minting process. But really how far advanced is this process and how serious are they? More to the point what would a global currency unit look like?

To answer the first question is simple: I have no idea. At the political level it is mere grandstanding usually for the domestic audience. Sometimes it’s easy to forget that most politicians have little understanding of how the global financial system works (no different from anyone else!) but back in the offices of Treasuries and Central Banks it may be a different story.Though I was struck by the recent bizarre questioning of Bernanke over the issue of $ currency swaps with central banks. It’s a classic.

I do think though that the Eurasian block are serious about making this move. Each step is a step closer to creating a multipolar currency whether its based on the Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), a Commodity Backed Currency (CBC) or an Energy Backed Currency (EBCU). Even the Amero could be a consideration.

But the key outcome will be whether we move from a Fiat based system to a hard currency system. That would make a major change in the structure to the global system perhaps taking us back to Keynes’s suggestion, the Bancor. If we stay with a Fiat system then we simply exchange one piece of paper for another.A hard backed system would certainly restore some much needed reality to the meaning and value.

What’s clear is that the US has become a fiscal disaster and holders of paper issued by the US have said enough is enough: your paper is not “as good as gold“.

3 months a campaign was launched in the UK for a Post Bank to compete with high street lenders and provide a more democratic platform for banking. And now the Aussies are getting behind the same proposition. Dubbed the People’s Bank, it would be run through the network of Australia Post just as Kiwibank has done in New Zealand.

Initial reaction has been interesting with the government saying everything is fine and no need for any competition new competition or inquiry into the financial system for that matter. Well that’s what governments always say. In 5 years of corresponding with officials here in NZ I’ve never had a response that ever differs even when pointing out the finance company sector was going to collapse.

There has also been some commentary about not needing a government owned bank given the disasters of earlier years when many state owned banks collapsed. I enjoyed this quote from the Liberal Senator, George Brandis:

“In principle the opposition philosophically does not support government-owned enterprises unless there is a very clear case, for example, cases of market failure.”

Er yes.

Mostly the commentary has been at the fluffy level. Kiwibank has demonstrated that it is possible and can work well. I certainly have enjoyed their internet platform and found it way better than the big 4 banks. I like that government is backing it in terms of capital though it should be noted it operates as a stand alone SOE. Sam Knowles was quick to comment on the workability of the Kiwibank model in Australia.

So this is the opener in a debate that could take some time and hopefully focus on the real issues within the banking system namely who creates the credit.

Stay tuned.

Following on from the news about Kiva moving into the US small business market, fleet footed Ben Kepes calls us to action in New Zealand.

Small businesses in NZ have seen no relief from high interest rates in the recent lowering of rates here. At the same time credit is hard to come by and many business owners have resorted to credit cards to keep their businesses going.

This is a troublesome state of affairs given its the productive economy that has to earn the dollars to pay back the humungous debt necklace hanging around the necks of Kiwis.

So what’s the state of play with microfinance at the moment? Well Kiva is going great guns. It’s really tapped into people’s desire to help and be generous in giving but created this new joy of creating and empowering change for people. It connects people together and that personal touch pulls the punters in.

The more tradtional p2p lending services are not finding life so easy. Charis Palmer reports here on recent developments citing problems for Prosper in the US and some success for Zopa in the UK. Locally Peermint has fallen by the wayside, Nexx hasn’t really got going and Lending Hub has joined a busy Australian market.

So there’s no shortage of platforms but it’s proving harder than expected to deliver the business. But there seems to be no platform for small businesses to secure funding. This is certainly an opportunity as there is certainly a strong and established market on the borrowing side with appropriate forms of due diligence available.

The major stumbling block for p2p start ups has been compliance with various regulatory authorities. However there may be ways around this and with politicians supportive of the small business sector the time may have come for a serious attempt to create what would be a mini-corporate bond market funded by the retail investement market direct.

Now that sounds like a major step forward in building a more productive economy.

Early in 2008 I commented on the shaping of a post-imperial world where the flow of investment funds, and coporate takeovers, was coming from the East to the West, with China, India, Russia and the Gulf States recycling $ reserves and new found wealth into weak and failing companies in the West.

The catastrophic implosion of the US financial system in the last year has merely emphasised this change in the balance of monetary might.

So when Kiva, that beacon of social entreprenuership, decided to offer loans in the US itself, there was a huge intake of breath. The US needs microloans??!!!

Of course it does. How do small businesses get funded? Normally by people taking out second mortgages, borrowing from friends or ramping up credit cards. In fact I’m told many businesses fund cashflows problems using personal credit cards. Why?

Because banks have a model where they lend on housing as collateral…oh yeah that worked well…not.

The old fashioned approach to banking (one my father was involved in for 42 years) was lending to small business people and supporting them through the ups and downs of the business cycle. Investing in people and creating relationships of trust.

I think we are headed back to this and it’s peer to peer lending that is making this happen. The web itself has allowed these bonds to be built, that’s what networks are after all. Lots and lots of micro connections. Isn’t that the amazing thing about the web? It’s so huge and vast yet it’s simply a conglomeration of molecules connected together.

I know I’ve been bagning on about this for ages but banking, like media, will be forced to change. The micro world is causing new networks to be created, new bonds to be formed and new efficiencies to be found.

Harnessing the power of the web is allowing this to happen.

Microfinance has shaken up the banking world. I enjoyed reading Matt Flannery’s piece on the Kiva story.

Microjustice will no doubt change the legal world in due course.

We already have microrelationships, micromedicine surely on the way.

And the biggest prize of all………..microgovernment.

The change is coming, the inexorable march of system reorganisation is humming away in the background. It’s not top down, it’s an unseen mass movement with no control function. A pure chaotic system in action, free to develop and receive feedbacks in real time.

Who would have thought a lender from Domenica would be funding a borrower in the US.

Yes times are changing.

People are always asking me where to put their money so I thought I would do a simple post about it. I should add this is simply my own opinion and you should really check with a financial advisor…………tongue firmly in cheek!

Let’s start with the obvious. There is no such thing as a risk free investment. Even sovereign bonds (those issued by governments) can turn into wallpaper….look at the US Treasury market now, the world’s safest place to park your cash. Ultimately it’s just an IOU, generally backed by commodities or in the case of the US by a fairly large military and lots of nuclear rockets.

Having got that out of the way the first question you need to ask yourself is why am I investing? Is it for regular income or the hope of generating a huge pile of cash for future income generation (retirement for example).

Let’s start with the income piece by looking at what is available:

- Cash deposits.

- Term deposits.

- Government bonds.

- Corporate bonds.

- Shares that pay dividends.

- Property.

Generally, as in all things, you pay for what you get. The main issue any investor should consider before making an investment is liquidity:

How quickly can I get my cash and what will I have to pay to get it?

As many investors found to their cost in recent years, liquidity is the single most important issue.

Which draws the question: is there a market for my investment?

In the case of cash that is not a problem (actually that’s not true but for the sake of this exercise we will pretend that cash is always available - see Northern Rock for further details).

Stocks can generally be sold on the spot and cash received quickly (of course stocks can be suspended at anytime which means you can’t trade it, well not on the exchange).

Bonds have a market you can trade on but liquidity can be an issue sometimes.

Property you can forget. That’s a highly illiquid asset.

Managed funds as we see all to often can be very hard to get out of and the fees can be severe. If the fund holds any kind of assets other than plain stocks then redemptions may force suspension of the fund (we’ve seen that).

Baring all that in mind cash seems like the best place to have your money if access is an issue and you are risk averse. Second up would be quoted shares with high liquidity (shares on the major index e.g. Telecom in NZ which pays a good dividend). Bonds would be next and then managed funds and property bringing up the rear.

Anything that offers these with a twist is to be avoided unless you’re a professional. Like guaranteed capital return plus 100% of the 5 year blah blah return on some index. Avoid. There are huge fees and margins built into what is a simple option structure.

I’m sorry but there’s no free lunch in the investment world. But it’s very easy to lose money or receive poor returns whilst paying out large fees and charges.

My advice is start with cash and spend some time learning about basic stocks and bonds. Believe me it is not difficult.

Armed with a little knowledge most people could construct a portfolio of cash, stocks and bonds in a few hours.

Also don’t be lulled into the idea that you are a long term investor and won’t be pulling down the cash for 20-30 years. Look at how fast the world is changing…….planning that far ahead may not actually make much sense.

As with most things in life, keeping it simple can pay off. Also spending a little time learning about investment can save you a lot of money as well as enabling yourself to take charge of your own financial destiny.