Quote of the Day: Business Advise: Get Lawyers and Lobbyists

If you run a business, get a lot of lawyers and lobbysists. He who writes the regulations will make a lot of money. He who does not will lose.  Make sure you make the right political contributions and don't say anything critical of those in power. You will need a discretionary waiver of something, and these rules are so huge and so vague, the regulators can do what they want with you. Don't be the one to get "crucified" (EPA). We live in the crony-capitalist system that Luigi Zingales describes so well. Live with it. Political freedom requires economic freedom, taught us Milton Friedman. You don't have the latter, don't expect the former.

This snarky but relevant and realistic advice is from University of Chicago Professor John H. Cochrane who writes that there won’t be much legislation due to a divided Congress, but that big or major changes will emanate from a labyrinth of executive orders and from the “metastatic expansion of regulation, let by ACA, Dodd-Frank, and EPA” which he explains in detail here

Infographic: Dodd Frank-enstein

How burgeoning financial regulations will kill productive enterprises.

For a crispier view of the graphic proceed to Bob Wenzel's EPJ site here

From Amy Payne of the conservative Heritage Morning Bell

There’s a reason the financial regulation law has been called “Dodd-Frankenstein.” This monstrous creation will swell the ranks of regulators by 2,849 new positions, according to the Government Accountability Office. It created yet another new bureaucracy called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that has truly unparalleled powers.

This new bureau is supposed to regulate credit and debit cards, mortgages, student loans, savings and checking accounts, and most every other consumer financial product and service. And it’s not even subject to congressional oversight.

Frighteningly, the CFPB’s regulatory authority is just as vague as it is vast. More than half of the regulatory provisions in Dodd–Frank state that agencies “may” issue rules or shall issue rules as they “determine are necessary and appropriate.”…

The results of this haphazard regulation are dire, Katz says, because “consumers will experience tight credit, higher fees, and fewer service innovations. Job creation will suffer.” She adds that “financial firms of all sizes are shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars for regulatory compliance officers and attorneys rather than making loans for new homes and businesses.”

So the law that was supposed to fix the financial sector—and created something called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—is hurting consumers rather than “protecting” them. Congress should repeal Dodd-Frank before it can do any more damage.

Dodd Frank is an example of arbitrary statutes that leads to regime uncertainty which adds to the prevailing economic and financial uncertainty.

Regime Uncertainty: Dodd-Frank

Regulations can be a major source of risk and uncertainty. Repressive and arbitrary regulations may diminish the entrepreneurs incentives to invest or allocate capital to productive ventures which in aggregate adds to economic woes.

Peter Klein at the Independent Institute quotes Peter Wallison on the adverse effects of the Dodd Frank law

“The question is why—why did this act have such a dramatic effect on the U.S. economy, essentially stifling the modest recovery that had begun almost a year earlier? The most likely explanation is uncertainty. The Dodd-Frank Act was such a comprehensive piece of legislation—and required so many new regulations before its effects could be fully evaluated—that many financial institutions and firms simply decided to wait for regulatory developments before expanding, hiring new workers, or rehiring workers who had previously been laid off. . . .

Following the precept of the president’s then-chief of staff Rahm Emanuel that “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” the law was rushed through Congress only 18 months after the Obama administration took office and 13 months after the first draft of the law was available to Congress and the public. This would have been warp speed for any one of the major provisions in the act. For a law with dozens of complex, radical, and occasionally contradictory provisions, adopting it so quickly and with so little real understanding of its effects verged on dereliction of duty.

Once business firms got a look at the language, they realized that they would have to change their financing arrangements in significant ways, and the costs were largely unknown.

George Soros on Closing Hedge Fund: Do As I Say, Not What I Do

Sad to say that billionaire philanthropist George Soros does not practice what he preaches when it comes to ideology

He recently wrote,

“I have made it a principle to pursue my self-interest in my business, subject to legal and ethical limitations, and to be guided by the public interest as a public intellectual and philanthropist,” he wrote. “If the two are in conflict, the public interest ought to prevail,” he said.

Mr. Soros has been an strong advocate of government regulation/intervention which he blames on (market fundamentalism) or capitalism. Of course today’s world has not been operating on a laissez fair capitalism but rather a crony-state-corporatist-patron-client capitalism.

From Conservapedia

In a Der Spiegel interview in 2008, Soros advocates European-style socialism for America, "is exactly what we need now. I am against market fundamentalism. I think this propaganda that government involvement is always bad has been very successful -- but also very harmful to our society."

Soros's answer to America's problems involve more regulation and more government intervention in the marketplace. Soros pours billions of dollars into the following anti-USA causes

Well, ironically he recently announced the closure of his 4 decade long of hedge fund in protest of Dodd Frank bill, a regulation which he sees as not be beneficial for him.

From Bloomberg

Soros’s sons said they took the decision because new financial regulations would have made it necessary for the firm to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission by March 2012 if it continued to manage money for outsiders. Because the firm has overseen mostly family assets since 2000, when outside money accounted for about $4 billion, they decided it made more sense to run it as a family office, according to the letter.

The rule calls for hedge funds with more than $150 million in assets to report information about their investors and employees, the assets they manage, potential conflicts of interest and their activities outside of fund advising. Registered funds will also be subject to periodic inspections by the SEC.

“We have relied until now on other exemptions from registration which allowed outside shareholders whose interests aligned with those of the family investors to remain invested in Quantum,” the executives said in the letter, referring to its flagship Quantum Endowment Fund. “As those other exemptions are no longer available under the new regulations, Soros Fund Management will now complete the transition to a family office that it began eleven years ago.”

Mr. Soros’ stern reaction signifies a dose of his own medicine. So what happened to your so-called cardinal priority in the name of public interest, Mr. Soros?

As most socialists are, claims of upholding the interests of the collective are exposed as demagoguery, hypocrisy and a matter of convenience when actual cases are applied on them--yes only regulate those that do not apply to me!

After all, motherhood statements are almost always about projecting “feel good” or generating applause or ‘likes’ or portraying heroic self importance for social acceptability rather than reality.

Nassim Taleb on Dodd Frank’s OFR: Soviet Style Management

While rapid advancement of technology has been decentralizing or democratizing data and information flows, central planners dream of the opposite: centralizing these in an attempt to control the markets.

A recently enacted financial overhaul law, Dodd Frank has an offspring called the Office of Financial Research.

According to the Wall Street Journal Blog, (bold emphasis mine)

Dodd-Frank created the new semi-autonomous office to support a new council of regulators – the Financial Stability Oversight Council, or FSOC – that is charged with spotting and tamping down emerging risks to financial stability. The OFR has two key components – a data-collection arm that has broad power to request any kind of information from financial firms it deems necessary, and a research and analysis arm that to be focused on monitoring the financial system for risk and producing research to improve regulation.

Celebrity author and Black Swan expositor Nassim Taleb critiqued the framework of this new office. In a prepared testimony Mr. Taleb says that this represents

an attempt to create “an omniscient Soviet-style central risk manager.”

That’s because Mr. Taleb points out that quant models can’t capture real events

According to the same article, (bold emphasis mine)

In his testimony, Mr. Taleb said that “[f]inancial risks, particularly those known as Black Swan events cannot be measured in any possible quantitative and predictive manner; they can only be dealt with [in] nonpredictive ways.” He argued that trying to do what the OFR is designed to do could actually increase risks, in part by increasing “overconfidence” in the information’s ability to predict the next crisis.

Like all quant-econometric based models, they suffer from what the great F. A. Hayek calls as the knowledge problem as embodied by the quote below:

The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

Most people hardly ever learn

War on Gold and Commodities: Ban of OTC Trades and ‘Conflict Gold’

In the US, in compliance to the new law, the Dodd-Frank Act, Over The Counter (OTC) trades will be prohibited beginning next month.

Lew Rockwell quotes the Forex.com

As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act enacted by US Congress, a new regulation prohibiting US residents from trading over the counter precious metals, including gold and silver, will go into effect on Friday, July 15, 2011.

In conjunction with this new regulation, FOREX.com must discontinue metals trading for US residents on Friday, July 15, 2011 at the close of trading at 5pm ET. As a result, all open metals positions must be closed by July 15, 2011 at 5pm ET.

Next, an initiative to standardized screening of sourcing of gold via certification to prevent so called ‘financing of war or insurgency’ has taken shape.

Diamonds have already been subject to this measure and this has widely been known as Blood Diamond.

From Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge,

In what could be the oddest development in the precious metals market in a long time, the World Gold Council has just unveiled an initiative whose sole purpose if to combat "conflict gold." From the just released notice: "The World Gold Council today announces that, working together with its member companies and the leading gold refiners, it has produced a draft framework of standards designed to combat gold that enables, fuels or finances armed conflict. The draft standards represent a significant, industry-led response to this challenge and are designed to enable miners to produce a stream of newly-mined gold which is certified as ‘conflict free’ on a global basis."

While we are confused what exactly is being pursued with this action, aside from the creation of a black market for gold of course, it does seem that the logical end result will be a decline in the total supply of "certified" gold.

On the other hand, it will also afford the WGC or any prevailing authority the ability to brand any country it so chooses (Indonesia?) a sourcer of "conflict gold" and effectively clamp down on the production of the yellow metal. Additionally, what better way to deprive a gold sourcing country of massive export revenues than to effectively make their product unsellable in the "legitimate" market. Which then would lead to a surge in fair market value due to supply considerations.

While the pretext is to prevent financing illegitimate activities, the ulterior objective is to exert wider swath of control over the gold and commodity markets.

Apparently, all these looks like more signs of desperation as cracks on the US dollar standard widens.

Regulatory Arbitrage: Some Banks In The US Circumvent The New Capital Rule

The major flaws of the interventionist ideology are that they seem to always figuratively “fight the last war”, treat symptoms rather than the source of the disease and starkly misjudge market dynamics in adapting to a new regulatory environment.

A good example of the last condition, largely known as regulatory arbitrage, can be defined as, according to moneyterms.co.uk, “financial engineering that uses differences between economic substance and regulatory position to evade unwelcome regulation. The term is also sometimes used to describe firms structuring or relocating transactions to choose the least burdensome regulator, but this is better described as regulator shopping.”

The essence is that in search of profits, private enterprises tend to look for loopholes which circumvent unfavourable regulations from where they can operate.

It’s fundamentally a cat-mouse game between authorities and the markets.

Below is a good example.

From the Wall Street Journal, (bold highlights mine)

Some foreign banks are moving to restructure their U.S. operations to avoid one of the most-burdensome requirements of the new Dodd-Frank law.

In November, Barclays PLC quietly changed the legal classification of the U.K. bank's main subsidiary in the U.S. so that the unit would no longer be subject to federal bank-capital requirements. Several other banks based outside the U.S. are considering similar moves, according to people familiar with the matter.

The maneuver allows them to escape a provision of the financial-overhaul law that forces the pumping of billions of dollars of new capital into the U.S. entities, known as bank-holding companies.

"It's just not worth it to have all that capital trapped" in the holding company, said a New York lawyer who is advising banks on how to restructure.

The moves are the latest example of how banks are scrambling to cushion the impact of new laws and rules around the world.

Policy makers are demanding banks hold more capital and cash to help prevent a repeat of the financial crisis. But bank executives are worried that all the changes will crimp profits without making the financial system safer.

Last summer's Dodd-Frank law beefed up rules governing the quantity and types of capital banks must keep to protect themselves from potential losses. The provision also closed a loophole that allowed foreign banks to run their U.S. subsidiaries with thinner capital buffers than those of their local rivals.

All these simply show how markets are much superior to governments and how government regulations may lead to unintended consequences.