Elites have always ruled the world even in open democracies. Sure this was expected in dictatorships regardless of political persuasion but in democracies? What happened to “government of the people, by the people, for the people”?

In his new book, “Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making“, David Rothkopf explores the globalisation of the new elites, naming some 6000 players who basically run the whole show. From media to banking he lays out how close these people are and how they are shaping and making the world in their own images. The link between politicians and business is crystal clear. In some countries its hard to tell the difference with the US a great example of this.

If anyone felt the US financial authorities were in collusion with the banking system look no further. The current US Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, is a former Goldman Sachs Chairman and Chief Executive. Rothkopf reveals the shennanigans that took place over the bail out of Bear Stearns. He tells how bank heads met over the weekend to hammer out a deal for Bear Stearns. Clearly the deal had to be done that weekend lest the market really fall apart on the Monday. This type of round table pow wow is becoming more and more common as the fragility of financial markets continues to be revealed.

On one hand this sounds good: we have capable people in government and business to take charge of managing a crisis. They all know each other and have worked with each other. They know the score.

But: are they not the same people who caused and are part of the crisis? Is there any chance we get to hear the truth of the matter? Do ordinary shareholders and citizens matter anymore?

Well there have always been plenty of stories about how the Fed operates and the murky manner in which its was founded.

But one thing is clear from this article and the activities of those in power. They run the show in a “we know best” style. The question all concerned people should have is whether power should be so concentrated and in the hands of so few.

I wonder what Lincoln would have made of it.

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.

We’re starting to see real signs of a weakening house market here in New Zealand. Sales for Auckland’s top real estate company are down over 50% and a recent auction saw a 6% clearance rate.

I decided ton investigate this myself in Christchurch and looked at some properties recently. One i saw was a 3 bedroom unit which had been bought for $375,000 a year ago. It could be rented for about $350 a week maybe a bit more if it had some money spent on it. It wasn’t in great condition but looked a reasonable investment property.

It was auctioned yesterday and passed in at $317,500. It still hasn’t sold.

We’re not really seeing this come through into prices yet because we only get the median price which is often misleading. In fact it can go up if a few properties sell in the higher brackets and none in the lower levels.

But it’s clear that prices are falling quite heavily in many areas and there is a buyers strike on at the moment.

Although there is the belief that property prices increase regardless the market is clearly starting to realise that capital gains are not guaranteed and therefore investors are starting to look more closely at the maths.

Mortgage rates are 9.5% for 2 years fixed. Yields are 3-5% and prices are falling. Even with the negative equity tax break that’s a big yield gap to fill. There is also the issue of not being able to borrow 100% of the price anymore.

With many fixed rates rolling over this year to much higher rates, the squeeze is really on. This will really start to impact when banks ask for properties to be revalued and then ask for extra equity.

Property investors, like banks, are facing a major liquidity crisis.  Price falls of 10-20% may not be as outlandish as previously thought.

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.

Keep going guys, Alan Bollard pleads. He asks banks and businesses not to hibernate. What?!

Is he suddenly the Finance Minister? It’s really quite odd to see a central bank governor talking like this especially since the last few years he’s been going on about house prices and overborrowing without doing a great deal about it.

Now he’s saying don’t let credit constraints get in the way.

At the same time the Commerce Minister tells investors to get savvy or get “burned”. I love it especially from a Labour government where many ministers have invested in property themselves. Financial literacy? We’d certainly like some.

The facts are very simple. Too much leverage, much of it unseen, caused an asset bubble. That bubble is now deflating and there will be some major fallout. Add to that concerns over global food and energy prices and you have a perfect storm. So for banks now to put the shutters up whilst they count the cost is simply sound business practice.

Westpac has already adjusted its loan criteria. This just fuels the need for lower house prices and demonstrates the role that banks have played in the boom. Yes the interest rate is important but only at the margin. The real issue is how much will they lend: 100% or 65%.

It’s a big difference in what people can afford to pay.  Now landlords have the power as they can raise rents and people will just have to bear it. So along with an increase in mortgagee sales we will see an increase in rent arrears if rents increase beyond peoples’ means.

So it’s a bit late for the officials to weigh in with their comments. They have had plenty of time to look at banking regulation and have completely missed the boat.