So finally Gekko is back. Last night I had the pleasure of seeing Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps. It doesn’t disappoint. It pushes all the right buttons and manages to communicate the current situation with reasonable clarity. I will be interested to see how the person in the street views it.

I enjoyed the quick hello from Charlie Sheen as Bud Fox and Oliver Stone made a few cameos himself. The plot was fairly straightforward but the message of the film was stark: the system is untenable and has been seriously abused. Sure Gekko used to buy companies and strip them down and sell them on: the ultimate art of financial efficiency and productivity improvement. But now it’s about financial engineering which has nothing to do with the business itself.

As Gekko notes in a speech to a group of students and alumni, the share of GDP generated by financial services got as high as 40%………it used to be around 7%.

This orgy of financial speculation has left our global economies in tatters and we rush to pick up the pieces. Blame lies all around so that shouldn’t be our focus (they lent it, you spent it!) but the ramifications are very serious. We know well that the global financial system nearly collapsed and after trillions of dollars in bail outs and stimulus, it still looks very shaky. Payback will be painful.

The new “Bud Fox” character, carrying the torch for alternative energy, asks the “bad guy” what his number is, how much it would take for him to walk away from the business. His answer: “more”. It’s become nothing more than ego, a game as Gekko would describe it. Ultimately it’s a loss of understanding and values. The disconnect between the financial markets and the real world has grown so wide that a chasm has been created, a big black monetary hole which is dragging us all in. This film has much more impact than Mike Moore’s recent treatise on capitalism because it paints a truer picture: the excess, the egos, the glamour….and the frailties of us all.

Susan Sarandon has a neat role as a nurse turned real estate speculator. She painfully encapsulates the shift from real, productive work to speculation on house prices. Needless to say she comes a cropper.

The bail outs continue and moral hazard is everywhere. Is Gekko redeemed? Not really. He’s more human but the guy still loves the game and is happy to play even under the new rules. The trillion dollar question for the audience is simple: will the rules be changed?

Don’t hold your breath.

So Basel III is finally with us…….phew……can’t wait for Basel IV. I’m not sure about a fifth one as that really would be a joke too far but then again if we can have a Rocky and Rambo V why not Basel V? We will really be up the creek when that one comes out. Is this one likely to change anything? No one seems to think so but then again 2 years ago I said the same thing about Basel II!!

It all comes down to leverage which now is well understood. The new capital requirements simply squeeze poorly capitalised banks a bit harder but really make sod all difference to the underlying problem which as we all know is excess credit creation. This credit creation is also known as money supply expansion. Are credit and money the same thing? well yes and no. When you get a new loan from the bank, you have received credit. This credit appears as money in your bank account and can be converted (though usually ins’t) into note and coin. But here’s the nub. Whilst money, the the form of note and coin, cannot be destroyed (ok you could burn it), when you pay back your loan that money is cancelled…in a puff of smoke. It only existed in your imagination. Of course that same “money” can be relent but new credit can always be created as long as there is enough “equity” in the bank…….come in Tier 1 capital and other assorted IOUs.

For example, the money supply in New Zealand has contracted by nearly $10bln in the period from Feb 09 to Jul 10. That’s why there’s no money in the economy……it’s goneski. But if we dealt in real money it would never disappear; once it was created it stayed in circulation or under your bed but it could not be destroyed.

The ability of banks to inflate and deflate the economy is still very much theirs with central banks acting like the lunatics they are by playing important games with their interest rates. They haven’t quite worked out the mess they made over the last 15 years by focusing on inflation and forgetting about asset prices, leverage and moral free speculation.

Gareth Morgan notes this in his take on it but again misses the real point, as does Basel 1,2 and 3 (and probably 4 and 5). It is the quality of money supplied into an economy that is the most important aspect of the economy. Copious amounts of speculative credit has blown out the “real” economy creating a mess which could take decades to unwind.

But we need to address this sooner or later….otherwise we will get the same maneuvering again ………or is it the same manuva?

One of the greatest financial inventions is leverage: the ability to create an asset of value in excess of your original investment.

Simply put this is how you can buy a house with no deposit or a small one. Consider the reality of leverage:

You buy a house for $500,000 and put down a 10% deposit of $50,000.

In a few years (certainly recent times) you sell it for $600,000. You have just made $100,000 from an investment of $50,000…a 200% return. Of course you have to subtract your interest but that is what you would have paid in rent anyway or so the theory goes.

In recent years this has been the name of the game. Between 2000 and 2008 New Zealand house prices rose 169%……..!! Yes that’s an incredible number………21% per annum on average. No wonder people thought this was an easy game. No wonder leveraged investments in property became the biggest game in town. But hold on: we are talking about houses not tulips. How could such an unusual bout of asset inflation happen right under the noses of the inflation focused RBNZ.

Well house prices are not included in the CPI calculation. Call me old fashioned but that’s ridiculous.

The major problem with any bubble is that it ends. In this case NZ has not had the same end as the USA with its sub-prime mortgage induced property collapse though the NZ finance company sector did its best to compete.

But the leverage has not been washed out of the system yet. House prices have recovered from the 2008-9 fall and now are back up close to their historic highs. Why is this? Why hasn’t the NZ housing market fallen back to more realistic levels?

There’s no clear answer but I’d like to suggest one: It’s not in the interest of the banks for prices to fall heavily. Why? Because they are the ultimate owners of the housing stock. If they lend 90% to a borrower and the price of that house falls 10% then the borrower has lost their equity and the bank owns the rest. That’s how leverage works on the downside. If the price falls further than 10% the borrower is into negative equity. So far so normal. The bank will just hoover up any savings or other assets held by the borrower. But at some point the bank is left holding the security. Banks don’t like that very much so they seek to sell the asset and recover as much cash as possible. If the borrower cannot cover the loss then the bank has to write that off.

But in a bubble situation the banks have to be very careful not to knock down the price of all property. Otherwise their entire lending portfolio will take a hit not just the one loan which went bad. So banks have a vested interest in keeping prices from falling too far.

Back in 2008 I called for land prices to fall 30%. They haven’t yet but it’s simply a matter of time. In fact they only fell 8.5%…not much of a fall considering the enormity of the rise. Wages are not rising at a rate which can cover the compounding interest on the debt pile (see upcoming post on debt) so the strains of maintaining the illusion will continue to show through. Therefore the banks have a big part to play in making sure house prices do not rise or fall too much whilst they reorganise their lending practices.

What needs to happen? Well a reversion to traditional lending practices will come back into vogue: where you can borrow 2-3 times your salary. Imagine that. Median wage in Christchurch is somewhere between $30-40,000 depending where you look and the average house price is $360,000. Scary……so the banks who are operating on the interest/cash flow model (see upcoming post on definancialisation) will find switching back to the traditional model simply isn’t possible as house prices would fall by rather a lot. You couldn’t find a house for under $200,000 these days so we would have to see a severe correction, probably in excess of 30% though very low borrowing costs would help ease that.

It’s clear that the same financial practices that we have seen employed in the global bond markets have also been applied to residential lending. The valuation model shifted from the established practice of ability to repay the mortgage to the ability to cover the interest. Why? Because the price of the house would always go up. Really? Isn’t delusion fun. The fact is that prices did go up….and up…and up. As they say the market can be wrong a lot longer than you can be right.

All this creates a major dilemma for banks (who are probably aware, one hopes, of their position) and regulators who clearly are not (always happy to be surprised): How to withdraw leverage (which was a ponzi scheme) from the residential mortgage market without causing a crash? How to realise that we have been deluding ourselves as to the  ”value” of our houses. How can we explain that 169% rise? Did we suddenly become more wealthy? Er no our trade balance for the period March 2000-2008 was minus $30.7bln!!!!

No we simply revalued our property again and again for no reason other than the banks were happy to go with the valuations (also pushed it has to be said by overseas immigrants paying cash prices) which just kept going up. If house A in one street sold for 20% more then all the other houses must be worth 20% more. Housing became a commodity and so was able to enjoy the commodity style price action……….of course housing isn’t a commodity as people actually live in them. And that is what is keeping the market afloat…..but don’t look too hard at the numbers. They might make you wonder exactly what it all means.

More on that in the upcoming posts on debt and definancialisation.