The Big 5 Breakdown

By: |

The Big 5 tech giants have stormed the world, creating huge developments in the way we live our everyday lives. But, recently the way that they do business has come under question by the government, leaving the breakdown of these companies inevitable.

Just to be clear, when I say the Big 5, I mean Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon and the beloved Google. While it’s undeniable that each of these companies have revolutionized our everyday lives, it has become more evident that these companies haven’t done everything right. These powerhouse companies have gone on to purposefully shut out the competition through monopolizing industries and even data breaching to propel themselves forward. Clearly this is not the right way to do business and their corrupt way of doing business must be stopped. So let’s take a deep dive into how these companies have flushed their industries with corruption, leading the government to step in and investigate further.

Monopolization

When you think of the tech world, it’s no surprise that these trillion dollar companies are at the top of the list. But have you ever wondered why other companies just can’t seem to compete? No, it’s not because these tech companies are just so unique and essential to our lives. It is because they have done everything possible to shut out the competition. Each of these companies display anti-competitive motives in some way shape or form. Take Amazon for instance, they have monopolized the e-commerce industry by building a system that allows them to store goods, accept virtual payments and deliver goods. It may seem innocent at first glance, but this way of doing business is actually not allowed. Why? Because Amazon has taken two separate industries, logistics and ecommerce, and used the fact that they are good at one to monopolize the other.

Facebook has also taken an anti-competitive approach. However, their way of doing things has been a bit more obvious. Any service that seems to offer some sort of competition, they hunt down and take them out through the infamous buyout method. We have seen it time and time again. They have bought out companies such as Instagram, What’s app, Nextdoor, Messenger and many more. Not to mention, Mark Zuckerberg is known to blatantly steal ideas from other companies and integrate them into his own services. Snapchat was a prime example of this, It was proven that Zuckerberg threatened to clone Snapchat if Evan Spiegel (the owner of Snapchat) did not sell it to him. And indeed, Zuckerberg made good on his threat, releasing Instagram “stories,” which is cooingly similar to Snapchat.

And let’s not forget Microsoft and BIll Gates, who was charged with anti-competitive behavior back in the 80’s and 90’s for acts of monopolizing the internet industry. For instance, having Internet Explorer as the default browser on all Windows products.

Data Breaching

Another way these tech giants have illegally propelled themselves to massive success is through data breaching. That’s right as a consumer, your data has not been safe in the hands of these tech companies. Take Google for instance. Google has been known to collect your data, whether it be through collecting your information when you create one of their Google services accounts or compiling your Google searches into a file. They then go on to analyze it and then distribute it to other companies for their own capital gain.

Facebook has also done the same. The difference is, Facebook’s default option is to collect your data when you sign up. This upon first appearance seems standard, but Facebook then goes on to illegally send your data to another company called Cambridge Analytica. This company then distributes your information among other companies without your direct consent, which is illegal.

But perhaps the most evil data breach that we have seen comes from Amazon. They have a service called Amazon Web Services, which for many smaller companies seems like a practical service to use to help enhance their business. Amazon Web Services promises smaller companies the ability to catalogue their products and services data into Amazon’s larger database. For smaller companies this is a great opportunity to gain more exposure to a wider client base. Little do they know, this could be a fatal blow to their business. Why? Because Amazon secretly spies on the database and are fishing for gold. Once they find a company that they like, they are quick to create a competitive product or service, blowing the “little guys” out of the water once and for all.

I’m sure you can now understand why some of the business practices of the tech giants have come into question by the government. It’s one thing to build a powerhouse company, but it’s another to do it illegally and at the unknowing expense of others.

This is why I believe the Big 5 will not last for much longer. Eventually the government will have to interfere, and the breakdown of these companies will begin. Of, course these companies won’t be completely wiped out. But without the security blanket of blatant malpractice, they should brace themselves for the impact of stiff competition.

So, what do you think? Will the Big 5 remain the world’s top tier tech companies when the government steps in and put an end to their illegal anti-competitive methods or will this be the demise of the Big 5 era?

Categories:
Tagged:

Financial Policy Best Practice Framework

By: |

On March 18th 2014 the US Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen stated the need for “reasonable confidence” in order to effectuate a more conservative monetary policy focusing on interest rate raise. Chair Yellen has indicated four macroeconomic factors that need to be further monitored.

  • The labor market with further unemployment rate decline;
  • A continued rise in currently slumped wages;
  • Core inflation stabilization (independent of energy ‘push’);
  • A higher “market-based” expected inflation rate.

The Fed’s decision to hold off on short term rate hikes comes one week after its macroprudential bank stress tests. Notable amongst the results was the “conditional approval” of Bank of America’s capital plan, with complete rejection of Deutsche Bank and Santander’s capital plans. It is clear that under Yellen the Federal Reserve is attempting to uphold the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. From a general standpoint, it is also quite glaring that the Federal Reserve as a central bank is fast adopting more of an eco-political role as a quasi-indirect financial system regulator through financial system monitoring. As has been mentioned before, monetary policy is the fastest mechanism to quell financial system defects, as fiscal policy results tend to lag.

Since the 2008 financial crisis, many economists have called for a more active regulatory role from central banks other than pure monetary rate fixes and being a lender of last resort. In January 2013 Fed Governor Powell met with members of the Financial Services Forum Policy Roundtable to the need for further engagement with appropriate bank regulators with regards to Dodd-Frank and specific cooperation among federal banking agencies. Here we see the Federal Reserve’s role expand into embracing full regulatory responsibilities and acknowledging the need to be more cognizant of fiscal agency activities. Since it is fast becoming the trend of the US Federal Reserve and of central banks in general to take up more than pecuniary monetary policy functions, it is the responsibility of the Financial Policy Council to suggest optimal regulatory best practices.

After careful examination, we found great quantitative insight in regards to the prevention, control and monitoring of financial crises by central banks through the International Monetary Fund’s Policies for Macrofinancial Stability: How to Deal with Credit Booms. (Giovanni Dell’Ariccia, Deniz Igan, et al. 2012). As the title suggests, credit booms are cited as the main, very complex cause of large scale financial crises which mere shifts in short term interest rates cannot fully solve. It is important to note that credit booms are intrinsically not detrimental to the financial system and to the macro economy at large, once properly and timely monitored. The tail risk associated with credit booms can bring strong growth or absolute demise to the financial sector depending on how it is mitigated during the boom, and controlled for the expected credit trough cycle. While there is increased regulation of the overall banking sector within the US, there is a renewed tendency towards credit increase within the non-banking business sectors, which in turn spur the banking sector to increase product (mortgage) marketing to remain competitive. This is a structural aspect of the financial system which encourages credit booms, and credit crises within the US.

Credit Boom Identification

  • The IMF defines credit boom as any period during which the annual growth rate of the credit-to-GDP ratio exceeds 10 percent. A boom ends as soon as the growth of the credit-to-GDP ratio turns negative; thus, the credit-to-GDP measure for any sovereign is crucial to monitor by the Federal Reserve, even in the resetting of an indirectly related short term market shocks.
  • Dell’Ariccia and his IMF colleagues applied the definition of a credit boom and ensuing variance stress tests to a sample of 170 countries with data starting as far back as the 1960s and extending to 2010, with the identification of 175 credit booms therein.
  • One of the most telling results of sample testing showed that no matter the country classification or geographical sphere, one in three booms was followed by a banking crisis within three years of the boom. As well, the IMF results showed that the geographical regions that experienced credit booms had even greater credit delinquency during and well after the crises.
  • Three out of five booms were followed by subpar growth in spite of further macro economic stimulus packages for at least six years following the credit contractions, or outright credit busts. The referenced term for this phenomenon is a “creditless recovery.” One very strong contributing factor to this type of recovery is a failure of both monetary and fiscal policy to focus on credit aggregates, and instead silo industries and sectors according to individual need (e.g. Real Estate).
  • An even more concerning find by the IMF study showed that credit booms generally start at the tail end or after buoyant economic growth. Many decision makers in the lower federal or parliament house tend to believe a credit boom is an absolute sign of economic growth. This is not necessarily so. In many cases, a credit boom occurs to make up for declining economic growth, depending on the sovereign’s liquidity position.

Monetary Policy Control

In particular, credit booms seem to occur more often in countries with expansionary macroeconomic policies, and low quality of banking supervision. This model usually fits a developing country or emerging market paradigm. Thus, it is noteworthy that the major financial crises of 2008 stemmed from the US banking and financial systems, and even more so from a primarily credit risk perspective. It is as if the central banking system completely dismissed signs of macroeconomic overheating. Should monetary policy then remain conservative with high cost of borrowing, low asset price valuations to stifle credit growth? The answer goes both ways. Most times central banks focus on short term rate adjustments to adjust money supply, all the while paying attention to market risk. This was the case of the US Federal Reserve prior to the financial crisis of 2008. We have already pled the case for allowing a credit boom to occur, with control. A credit boom naturally has credit risk to adjust for; therefore it is necessary for central banks to change monetary policy in response to aggregate asset price. We note here that aggregate asset price valuation control is necessary over a focus on individual bank institutions to effectively mitigate credit risk factors.

A serious problem faced by central banking decision makers is tightening monetary control during the first sighting of a credit boom, as purely political decision makers may confuse a credit boom with absolute economic growth. Monetary policy measures to control a credit boom can spur a higher short term unemployment rate, which leads to fiscal issues. Well meaning monetary policy control can also exacerbate macroeconomic pressures: increases in rate borrowing costs can lead to an outflow of funds to foreign lenders, even more creative variable interest only lending options, and a further increase in the banking sector’s debt service.

Almost all sovereigns immediately turn to monetary policy unsupported by immediate regulatory policy to ‘fix’ the repercussions of a credit decline, credit bust, and ensuing financial crisis, since monetary policy does have the ability to create corrective action without an extensive time lag. The IMF study states that stand-alone monetary policy can help slow down a credit boom during economic overheating, or simply put, when the economic crisis hits. However stand-alone monetary policy is still reactive without the support of immediate macro prudential regulatory policy, with a policy framework considering aggregate changes.

Fiscal Policy

Fiscal policy has the least immediate positive effect on immediately controlling credit booms. Fiscal policy counts in the long term outcome of controlling the likelihood of credit booms through resetting tax provisions that affect borrowing. The IMF study cites that fiscal consolidation independent of a credit boom can bolster the financial sector in case of a credit crisis. However, the time lag and political implications associated with fiscal policy are inhibiting factors to a proactive control at the early stages of a credit boom. This brings to question the overall effectiveness of governmental fiscal policy in an ever changing and increasingly sophisticated global financial arena. Empirical support from the IMF study suggests that fiscal tightening is not associated with a reduced incidence of credit booms that lead to financial crises in the short to medium term. If so, it may be quite precarious to place increased financial system decision making in governmental folds.

Dell’Ariccia and his IMF colleagues propose countercyclical taxes on debt to offset the credit cycles, and so add tightening balance during a credit boom. In this regard, there will be further fiscal consolidation, or “buffers” that may act in the same manner as a regulatory capital requirement. A salient point made in favor of this measure is that the taxation would apply to the very active nonbank financial institutions as well. The issues cited with such fiscal policy modifications have to do with an easy circumvention of tax policy through various “tax planning” mechanisms especially employed by the nonbank sectors. Indeed, the IMF regression results actually depict that during a period of high economic growth, increasing tax revenues are simultaneously correlated with an increase in credit lending by both bank and nonbank entities. Further taxation may then truly be counterproductive to financial system tightening.

Regulatory Policy

Macro prudential policy consists of capital and liquidity requirements, and regulatory stress testing of the banking sector throughout the economic cycle. Capital and liquidity requirements act as countercyclical buffers to control the cost of bank capital; loan-loss provisions especially demand capital increases to account for an economic trough. When put into practice in a consistent manner, regulatory policies provide adequate information to decision makers on the credit health of the banking sector. To date, most of these policies have been fully monitored and implemented in hindsight as it pertains to curtailing and preventing a credit boom. Regulatory policy as a stand-alone has not been fully effective with curtailing the start and duration of an overheating credit boom.

Aggregate measures of macro prudential policy include the following:

  • Differential treatment of deposit accounts;
  • Reserve requirements;
  • Liquidity requirements;
  • Interest rate controls;
  • Credit controls;
  • Open foreign exchange.

The IMF team found through empirical analysis that these measures are truly helpful in predicting a negative outcome of a current credit boom, rather than being able to actually prevent credit overheating in the financial system. The IMF also found that the global banking sector has been able to circumvent credit controls such as asset concentration by utilizing foreign partner or parent banks, and/or by creating foreign banking and nonbanking spinoffs. Empirical analysis also suggests that the Loan to Value (LTV) ratio monitoring is particularly prudent in restricting negative credit overheating, especially when faced with real estate credit crises.

Conclusion

The IMF study suggests and we agree that financial policy is justifiable in preventing, curbing and monitoring credit overheating in the global economy. We also see that stand-alone policies are not fully effective in mitigating negative credit and tail risks with the boom. Overall, a credit boom occurring during an economic boom can have positive returns once aggregate risk is effectively managed. Since the 2008 financial crisis we see the US Federal Reserve take a more active role in setting financial system policy monitoring, which in effect may be necessary given the highest stand-alone weakness of fiscal policy. Suggestions are as follows:

  • When credit booms coincide with a general economic boom, monetary policy can be the initial (not sole) tool to manage and slow down economic overheating.
  • During the early stages of a credit boom, macro prudential and other regulatory policies should be effectuated in line with monetary policy to ensure capital buffers to mitigate a credit crisis.
  • The IMF has stressed that the governing body to enforce macro prudential polices must have a thoroughly structured task force to supervise and detect when capital requirement thresholds are triggered on a case basis and in the aggregate.
  • More than half of credit booms examined that started at an initial credit-to GDP ratio higher than 60 percent ended up in crises. This ratio needs to serve as a primary quantitative credit risk trigger for central banks and federal agencies.
  • Fiscal policy falls short in curbing credit overheating in the short term, even when coupled with monetary or macro prudential policies. Fiscal policy providing tax code provisions to limit borrowing can bolster the overall health of an economic boom, but possibly may not aid in curbing a specific credit overheating.

As global markets become more sophisticated and fast paced, we see the need for central bank decision making for the financial system, which entails a marked focus on credit risk and macroeconomic indicators. We expect to see the US Federal Reserve and central banks in general employ a well structured mix of financial policies to manage credit booms, mitigate associated risks, and turn around “creditless recoveries” into long term economic stability.

SOURCES

Giovanni Dell’Ariccia, Giovanni, Igan, Deniz et al. “Policies for Macrofinancial Stability: How to Deal with Credit Booms.” The International Monetary Fund Staff Discussion Note. June 2012.

Matthews, Steve. “Yellen Is Watching These Four Indicators for Signals on When to Raise Rates.” Bloomberg Business Online. March 2015.

The US Federal Reserve Regulatory Reform. “Resolution Framework.” The US Federal Reserve Online. March 2015.

Van den end, Jan Willem et al. “The Interaction between Central Banks and Government in Tail Risk Scenarios.” De Nederlandsche Bank Working Paper. March 2013.

Categories:
Tagged:

The greatest threat facing the US today is….

By: |

The handwriting is on the wall and the ruling class is beginning to realize as the 2012 elections approach, there are going to be wholesale changes in Congress and their corrupt puppet politicians are going to be voted out of office. There may be efforts at rigging the election or voter intimidation by unions and special interest groups, but this will only guarantee a violent backlash. The general population has become better informed thanks to the internet and the New Media. They are not happy.

Looking at this from a purely technocratic sociological viewpoint, avoiding mass riots and violence while this many desperate people lose life-sustaining programs appears to be an impossible task, and given our current economic and political environment this seems inevitable. What’s going to happen in this society when these people are without jobs, when their families hurt, when they lose their homes in massive numbers a neighborhood at a time? The scenarios are grim. Former US Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair recently testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee stating that the greatest threat facing the US is not terrorism, it’s the current economic crisis.

“The primary near-term security concern of the United States is the global economic crisis and its geopolitical implications. The crisis has been ongoing for over a year, and economists are divided over whether and when we could hit bottom. Some even fear that the recession could further deepen and reach the level of the Great Depression. Of course, all of us recall the dramatic political consequences wrought by the economic turmoil of the 1920s and 1930s in Europe, the instability, and high levels of violent extremism.”

This propaganda effort is only a temporary measure and will not suffice over the long-term. As the economy continues to collapse, the banking elite risk being overthrown as a result of their own greed. So they will then turn to physical violence to suppress populations that can no longer be controlled through propaganda and economic coercion. The classic strategy of an endangered oligarchy is to divert discontent among the population into nationalistic militarism. It is time, once again, to bang the drums of war and whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor. An increased external threat will lead to an increased internal crackdown, which creates the pretext and conditions for a police state. As we have already seen in the first phase of the crackdown on civil liberties since the “War on Terror” began, when rioting and outbursts of armed insurrection begin within the US, external threats, real or imagined, will again be presented to justify extreme measures to suppress American citizens, and to further repress internal dissent. Without an external enemy to rally the population against, the population will rally against the pre-existing internal powers.

To put a slight twist on what my father once told me back in 1988: The banking cartel “constructs its own inconceivable foe, terrorism. Its wish is to be judged by its enemies rather than by its results. The story of terrorism is written by the state and it is therefore highly instructive. But they must always know enough to convince the people that compared with terrorism; everything else must be acceptable, or in any case, more rational and democratic.”

It would not surprise me in the least if some enterprising guerilla journalist were to uncover the fact that people like Stephen Lerner were actually on the JPMorgan payroll. The art of misdirection is not just confined to the worlds of magic and politics. The average American is dreadfully unaware of just how depraved these people are. The little regard they have for human life is beyond common comprehension.

Is history repeating itself? Not to oversimplify an extremely complex situation, but this is all too similar to the origins of World War II. The looting of the masses by unaccountable Wall Street elites led to the Great Depression and set the conditions for WWII. Desperate and impoverished populations increasingly supported more and more extreme leaders. The conditions are now so ripe for world war that even the leading leftist intellectual Noam Chomsky was quoted in the April 2010 edition of The Progressive comparing modern-day America to Weimar Germany prior to the outbreak of WWII. Research the history of pre-war societies and you will see how our current political environment fits historical precedent like a glove.

After analyzing our current crisis and studying well-established historical precedents, one must conclude that the global bankers have only three possible cards left to play. The first is admitting culpability and working to restore the American economic engine to its free market potential. History has taught us that the ruling class rarely admits error and never concedes power. The second is to foment so much civil unrest and fear that the general population will be clamoring for a global dictator who will provide them food, shelter and security in exchange for their individual freedom and sovereignty. The final play is global conflict where they can try and control the outcome by means of funding both sides.

Of course, the one-tenth of one percent of the global population hoarding our wealth could give back a significant amount of the $39 trillion they looted from us (not counting what they have hidden in offshore accounts). That would certainly go a long way to fixing the crisis they have caused; but that’s another thing the ruling class never does. They never give any money back, no matter how excessive and ill-gotten their gains.

Your feedback as always is greatly appreciated.

Thanks much for your consideration.

Categories:
Tagged: