Adrian Hamilton: I wouldn't get too carried away by success if I were Brown
Being a Chancellor with a plan isn't the same as being a statesman
Thursday, 16 October 2008
It's not only in the stock markets that shares can rebound with a dramatic rush. Gordon Brown's bounceback has been almost as astonishing as that of the banks he now claims to have saved. And he is right to boast. The Brown package of state-guaranteed loans and direct government shares has become the world standard. Where the US stumbled with a rescue plan rejected in Congress and then savaged by most of the experts and where the EU floundered between the conflicting approaches of an interventionist France and a parsimonious Germany, our Prime Minister stepped up to the plate and scored the home run.
In politics as in comedy, of course, timing is all. You could reasonably argue that Brown himself should carry the can for much of the regulatory failure of the banks by fatally dividing oversight for the financial industry between the Bank of England and the FSA when he made the Bank independent. You could point out that the Government's response was hopelessly indecisive and delayed when the crisis first broke over Northern Rock. And you could argue that the British package was only made possible because of the double failure of the US authorities in letting Lehman Brothers go and concentrating on toxic debt rather than injecting new capital in the banks.
But it was the British officials who saw those lessons and acted upon them. And it was Brown who sold the British model to a reluctant US and a doubtful Europe. This was a man in his element, doing what he loves most – pushing measures to answer problems and acting as a super-Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Yet, if he is to glory in market acclamation, Brown should also learn their lessons. Shares have rebounded, but nothing like near the levels they were only a year ago. Nor have the Government's poll ratings. And the reason is two-fold.
One is that, although markets seem to have concluded that the global adoption of the Brown plan has staved off the imminent collapse of the financial system, it hasn't of itself solved the underlying strain in the system. There is still a huge weight of toxic debt overhanging the markets (just look at the potential liabilities of credit default swaps) and a continuing uncertainty as to who is liable for what.
Beefing up the bank's capital can make them more robust but so long as house prices keep falling and shares are low, then no one is going to be very willing to start lending again, not least because they don't know the full extent of their own liabilities. Hence the steady refusal of the all-important interbank rate to budge from its high.
What the markets are also warning is that recession is on the way and that it may do far more damage than the financial crisis. The two are inextricably linked, of course. But even a recovery in confidence in the banks cannot now come in time to stop an economic downturn – a squeeze that may well be necessary to work the excesses of house prices and consumer credit out of the system.
Nobody knows – unless you're Warren Buffet – just where the markets will move over the coming couple of years. But you could urge their caution on Brown. Good though his package may be, it is not perfect by any means, especially when it is taken in conjunction with recession.
Recapitalising some (although not all) of the banks undoubtedly helps. But once the state gets sucked into the market, it gets into all sorts of complications with the shareholders and with the direction of its interests. Recapitalisation does not mean, and should not mean, a return to the past, 2007 or whenever. The pressure on the Government to use the banks in which it has shareholdings to succour borrowers here and promote investment there, whatever the commercial justification, become irresistible. The last thing an economy suffering from too much credit at too low a price needs is another dose of the same.
And that raises another question over the Prime Minister's role as the new "master of the universe." To claim ownership of a plan adopted by all is natural politics. But it is not quite the same thing being the Chancellor with a plan and being a statesman with a leadership role. Attending the EU summit yesterday, Brown made much of his ideas for global institutions to supervise global finance. Fair enough. But better regulation is for the next round, not this. For now there is a global recession and what is needed is a co-ordinated response and for that you need teamwork, not a relentless insistence that you were right when all others were wrong.
Those who follow markets, know the pattern. Excessive zeal on the way up is replaced by panic on the way down, to be followed by the quick upsurge as dealers realise they have gone too far, before they fall back again as the reality of the environment is fully absorbed. If I was Brown, I wouldn't be too cocky, not at least until winter is over.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited




Comments
21 Comments
It's a classic misdirection. First of all how many "small business owners" net $250,000 after all expenses, etc? Second: how can this guy actually afford to purchase something getting this much income on his wages? Does he have other connections and is he in fact a fraud, as some have suggested. In any event, McCain's plan is a phony deal. His "tax cut" would be for medical insurance which would become taxable if provided by your employer. Since most people in yankeedom end up paying more than$5000 and because deregulation also contemplated by his plan would lead to fraud and degradation of the health system, what he is selling is a post-soviet style decline in US health care.
Posted by Dr. John P. Teschke | 16.10.08, 22:45 GMT
Brown's success?
I certainly hope that the rumors presently circulating about the derivatives market in the early stages of collapse are completly unfounded. If not, the credit crunch that Brown's trying to save us from will be the least of everyones concerns.
With over £300 trillion presently tied up in futures contracts, forward contracts, options, and swaps and hedge funds worldwide, no amount of social engineering by Labour & Co will prevent the fallout.
Success, if you can really call it this, may be quite fleeting for Mr Brown.
Posted by Collin Brown | 16.10.08, 16:59 GMT
Brown's success?
I certainly hope that the rumors presently circulating about the derivatives market in the early stages of collapse are completly unfounded. If not, the credit crunch that Brown's trying to save us from will be the least of everyones concerns.
With over £300 trillion presently tied up in futures contracts, forward contracts, options, and swaps and hedge funds worldwide, no amount of social engineering by Labour & Co will prevent the fallout.
Success, if you can really call it this, may be quite fleeting for Mr Brown.
Posted by Collin Brown | 16.10.08, 16:50 GMT
Hahaha - nope, still can't get over it...sticking like chewing gum to the cat. I reckon Brown's laughing up his sleeve. He's so inept, charmless and Gawd awful that any glint of decisiveness has the Old NuLabs jumping for joy. Hey ho - you lot can keep this craphole that the UK has become ; GB I'm sure will repay all your loyalty - maybe not with actual cash, pensions, worthwhile jobs, homes, family or happiness, but who needs that ? Free credit. Forget Socialism. Sod everyone who disagrees.
Posted by Yo | 16.10.08, 15:46 GMT
You can't have it both ways.
Complain about this comment
Posted by Andrew | 16.10.08, 12:27 GMT
andrew, your position is very reasonable and there
fore will be ignored
Posted by unhappy jon | 16.10.08, 13:23 GMT
Those who wish to paint Cameron and Osborme as political midgets should hark back to the early 1990s when Blair and McBroon were political tyros. They were unelectable until they created a new party which turned out to be as successful as Victor Frankenstein's creature.
One thing is certain. McBroon's track record as Treasurer is on public record but should not be re-released except under an X Certificate.
Oor Gordy has tried to reinvent himself like an aging Hollywood star, but is tired, unremarkable and unoriginal - a bit like Brideshead Revisited (Mark II).
Posted by Padraig O'Ryan | 16.10.08, 12:57 GMT
I struggle a bit with the definition of global this and that.The banking crisis is clearly different to recessionary forces in the countries affected.Mr Brown as observed achieved much by timing of a plan that many could have laid credit to .Then there is the big But, it may be the wrong solution in that the failure of inter bank lending may be due to fears on credit default swaps .No one seems to know the size or location of these bar those in AIG and Lehmans.The fix to date may be illusionary relief but for sure this problem it is not global in design ,it's a feature of the US/Western Europe banking system.
Again the idea that sub prime was an American problem can only be true if N Rock(125% mortgages) and B&B (buy to let) have relocated.On accountability for the problems origins that is more difficult as finding about derivatives in company books is difficult .As chancellor GB sat at G7/8/20 meetings which many times saw studies on highly leveraged instruments.
Posted by roger b | 16.10.08, 12:28 GMT
At the end of the day it boils down to this,
Either governments can affect markets, or they can't
If they can then they must shoulder there part of the responsibility for the current situation. Either they acted, and made things worse. Or they failed to act when they should.
If they can't then the billions they are spending will have little or no affect.
You can't have it both ways.
Posted by Andrew | 16.10.08, 12:27 GMT
What success is that then? Keeping ailing institutions afloat with taxpayers money. Am I alone in thinking that this is probably the daftest use of ours and many future generations tax-take? In one foul swoop Ollie Brown and Stan Darling have written off billions with the promise that they will sell their stakes when the price goes up. Not a bad idea then! Why are bank shares going to go up? For the last 20 years we have witnessed an industry whose earnings have been built on leverage and risk. The regulatory backlash that banks will experience over the next few years is liable to see earnings stagnate rather than grow. PE ratios will have to fall and with lower didvidend payouts where's the fun in owning a bit of deadwood. The only way banks will be able to increase revenue is through expanded margins on the loan books. So who is going to borrow at the higher price? - of course pseudo Govt backed industries which are funded by the tax-payer. Another fine mess as some would say.
Posted by James C | 16.10.08, 11:29 GMT
I try not to judge anyone, but if Brown desrves stick for his mistakes & dithering then at least give him some credit when it is obvious we came within a inch of economic armegeddon last week. He may have put off the final meltdown until next year with his cleverness. The fact is Brown may not be PM material but as a backroom boy where dithering is called thinking he's in his element. He came up with the goods - the ideas may not have been original but he knew the ideas to use. He may not deserve gold, he gave that away, but come on? he's got a silver not a bronze for last weeks work....
Posted by kevin | 16.10.08, 11:00 GMT
21 Comments