IMF

Busting a few myths about black money

rupee-foradian.png.scaled1000

Vivek Kaul

Growing up in erstwhile Bihar in the late 80s and early 90s, one of the first economic terms that I came across was “black money”. Those were pre Android phones, pre Google, pre internet, pre mobile phones and in large cases even pre landline phone days.
So, what did one do when one had a doubt like this and wanted to know what black money really was? One asked. Parents. Friends. Friends of friends(Okay, these were real friends of friends, not the Facebook variety that we have these days). Neighbourhood uncles and aunts. Bhaiyyas and Didis preparing for the UPSC or the state public service exam. And hopefully an economist.
Ranchi was a small town during those days. My social studies text book even called it a “hill station”. And the chances of finding an economist there, were next to none (not that the chances have gone up now).
So, what you got were vague explanations like, black money was black money. People looked at you and probably wondered, why is the fellow even asking this.
And so the doubt remained. As time went by, as happens in such small towns, everyone who could leave the place, got up and left, including me. Of course, over the years, I figured out what black money was. Black money was black money, one of the few economic terms which are a definition in themselves.
In April 2009, the newspaper I worked for back then, asked me to interview Proffesor R Vaidyanathan of the Indian Institute of Management at Bangalore. The professor put a number to the entire black money debate, which thanks to the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) was just about erupting then.
He said that around $1.4 trillion of Indian black money was stashed away abroad. This money, he elaborated could be in Switzerland and various British/US islands which are tax havens.
His estimate was based on a report titled Illicit Financial Flows from Developing Countries: 2002—2006, brought out by Global Financial Integrity(GFI), a Washington based non profit organization.
The 2013 report of GFI said that nearly $343 billion of black money left India during 2002-2011. This amounted to around 3% of India’s economic output during the period. The number was particularly high in 2011, when around $84 billion may have left the country, the report suggested.
The GFI’s estimate does not take into account criminal activities as well as corporate tax evasion. These are massive sources of black money. Nevertheless, this is the most comprehensive study of black money which leaves emerging markets like India and hence, does give us a good idea of the amount of black money leaving the country.
In the recent past, prime minister Narendra Modi has taken up the issue of bringing back black money that has left India. In his latest radio broadcast over the weekend he told the country that “As far as black money is concerned, you should have faith on this ‘pradhan sevak’. For me, it is an article of faith. Every penny of the money of poor people in this country, which has gone out, should return. This is my commitment.”
While this is a good stand to take in public, getting back all the ‘black money’ that has gone out, back to India, is not a feasible proposition. The simple reason is that all this money is not lying around at one place.
There is a great belief that all this black money is lying around in Switzerland. This isn’t true. Data released by the Swiss National Bank, the central bank of Switzerland, suggests that Indian money in Swiss banks was at around Rs 14,000 crore (2.03 billion Swiss francs). India was at the 58th position when it came to foreign money in Swiss banks. The total amount had stood at Rs 41,400 crore in 2006.
The reason for this is simple. Over the last few years as black money and Switzerland have come into focus, it would be stupid for individuals or companies sending black money out of India, to keep sending it to Switzerland.
There are around 70 tax havens all over the world. And so this money could be anywhere. Getting all this money back would involve a lot of international diplomacy and cooperation. Also, the question is why would tax havens return this money. Their economies run because of this black money and no one undoes a business model that is working.
An estimate made by the International Monetary Fund suggests that around $18 trillion of wealth lies in international tax havens other than Switzerland and beyond the reach of any tax authorities. Some of this money must have definitely originated in India.
Further, in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, interest rates in Western economies have crashed. Switzerland is no exception on this front and hence, Swiss banks have been paying very low interest rates over the last few years. Given this it doesn’t make any sense for Indian black money to go to Switzerland, when there are better returns to be made elsewhere.
Indian black money found its way into places like Switzerland when India had limited investment opportunities. But that is not the case now. Hence, chances are that over the last few years, Indian black money has largely stayed in India where it has been invested in areas like real estate or in metals like gold. Further, chances are that a lot of black money is being round-tripped into India through hawala to be invested in physical assets like land, apartments etc.
Hence, it is important that instead of chasing black money stashed all over the world, the government starts looking at transactions which generate black money in India. The two sectors which generate a lot of black money are real estate and education. No real estate deal is complete without paying a certain amount of the deal amount in “cash”. And even school admissions these days lead to money changing hands in the form of a “donation”.
Why can’t the government start local when it comes to unearthing black money? The answer is fairly straightforward. Many real estate companies and education institutes are run by politicians. Try taking a taxi around Mumbai and you will realize that most so called “education institutes” are run by politicians. The way this works is that the education institute is run by a non profit organization but all the assets(like the building in which the education institute is run) are owned by a private limited company and the education institute pays a rent to the private limited company for using all the assets. This is how money is tunnelled out. Why can’t the government look at these transactions?
It is ironical that we don’t even have a decent estimate for the total amount of black money in this country. As a 2012 white paper released by the ministry of finance stated “There are no reliable estimates of black money generation or accumulation, neither is there an accurate well-accepted methodology for making such estimation.”
If the government is serious about tackling the black money menace it first needs a reasonable estimate of the total amount of black money in this country. It needs a comprehensive mechanism to figure out how black money is being generated and how and where it being hidden.
Further, the central idea in unearthing black money should be to bring more and more people under the tax bracket. The situation is abysmal on this front. As the former finance minister P Chidambaram said in his February 2013 budget speech “There are 42,800 persons – let me repeat, only 42,800 persons – who admitted to a taxable income exceeding Rs 1 crore per year.” This is a totally ridiculous number. There are probably more people making that sort of money just in South Delhi.
If the government is serious about the black money issue, it should be going after these people who are hiding their income and not paying taxes. But the question is can it do that? The income tax department is one of the most corrupt institutions in the country and given half an opportunity they are ready to sell themselves out lock, stock and barrel.
Further, it is worth remembering that a lot of black money that is generated is ultimately used by politicians to fight elections. Hence, it is in their interest that the status quo continues. To conclude, black money stashed away in foreign destinations is not the real issue. The real issue is the black money that continues to be generated and hidden in India and the inability of the government to tackle it.

The article originally appeared on www.equitymaster.com on Nov 6, 2014

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek) 

Question after Cyprus: Will govts loot depositors again?

A woman walks out of a branch of Laiki Bank in Nicosia
Vivek Kaul 
So why is the world worried about the Cyprus? A country of less than a million people, which accounts for just 0.2% of the euro zone economy. Euro Zone is a term used in reference to the seventeen countries that have adopted the euro as their currency.
The answer lies in the fact that what is happening in Cyprus might just play itself out in other parts of continental Europe, sooner rather than later. Allow me to explain.
Cyprus has been given a bailout amounting to € 10 billion (or around $13billion) by the International Monetary Fund and the European Union. As The New York Times reports “The money is supposed to help the country cope with the severe recession by financing government programs and refinancing debt held by private investors.”
Hence, a part of the bailout money will be used to repay government debt that is maturing. Governments all over the world typically spend more than they earn. The difference is made up for by borrowing. The Cyprian government has been no different on this account. An estimate made by Satyajit Das, a derivatives expert and the author of Extreme Money, in a note titled The Cyprus File suggests that the country might require around €7-8billion “for general government operations including debt servicing”.
But there is a twist in this tale. In return for the bailout IMF and the European Union want Cyprus to make its share of sacrifice as well. The Popular Bank of Cyprus (better known as the Laiki Bank), the second largest bank in the country, will shut down operations. Deposits of up to € 100,000 will be protected. These deposits will be shifted to the Bank of Cyprus, the largest bank in the country.
Deposits greater than € 100,000 will be frozen, seized by the government and used to partly pay for the deal. This move is expected to generate €4.2 billion. The remaining money is expected to come from privatisation and tax increases.
As The Huffington Post writes “The country of about 800,000 people has a banking sector eight times larger than its gross domestic product, with nearly a third of the roughly 68 billion euros in the country’s banks believed to be held by Russians.” Hence, it is widely believed that most deposits of greater than € 100,000 in Cyprian banks are held by Russians. And the move to seize these deposits thus cannot impact the local population.
This move is line with the German belief that any bailout money shouldn’t be rescuing the Russians, who are not a part of the European Union. “Germany wants to prevent any bailout fund flowing to Russian depositors, such as oligarchs or organised criminals who have used Cypriot banks to launder money. Carsten Schneider, a SPD politician, spoke gleefully about burning “Russian black money,”” writes Das.
It need not be said that this move will have a big impact on the Cyprian economy given that the country has evolved into an offshore banking centre over the years. The move to seize deposits will keep foreign money way from Cyprus and thus impact incomes as well as jobs.
The New York Times DealBook writes “Exotix, the brokerage firm, is predicting a 10 percent slump in gross domestic product this year followed by 8 percent next year and a total 23 percent decline before nadir is reached. Using Okun’s Law, which translates every one percentage point fall in G.D.P. (gross domestic product) to half a percentage point increase in unemployment, such a depression would push the unemployment rate up 11.5 percentage points, taking it to about 26 percent.”
But then that is not something that the world at large is worried about. The world at large is worried about the fact “what if”what has happened in Cyprus starts to happen in other parts of Europe?
The modus operandi being resorted to in Cyprus can be termed as an extreme form of financial repression. Russell Napier, a consultant with CLSA, defines this term as “There is a thing called financial repression which is effectively forcing people to lend money to the…government.” In case of Cyprus the government has simply decided to seize the money from the depositors in order to fund itself, albeit under outside pressure. 
The question is will this become a model for other parts of the European Union where banks and governments are in trouble. Take the case of Spain, a country which forms 12% of the total GDP of the European Union. Loans given to real estate developers and construction companies by Spanish banks amount to nearly $700 billion, or nearly 50 percent of the Spain’s current GDP of nearly $1.4 trillion. With homes lying unsold developers are in no position to repay. Spain built nearly 30 percent of all the homes in the EU since 2000. The country has as many unsold homes as the United States of America which is many times bigger than Spain.
And Spain’s biggest three banks have assets worth $2.7trillion, which is two times Spain’s GDP. Estimates suggest that troubled Spanish banks are supposed to require anywhere between €75 billion and €100 billion to continue operating. This is many times the size of the crisis in Cyprus which is currently being dealt with.
The fear is “what if” a Cyprus like plan is implemented in Spain, or other countries in Europe, like Greece, Portugal, Ireland or Italy, for that matter, where both governments as well as banks are in trouble. “For Spain, Italy and other troubled euro zone countries, Cyprus is an unnerving example. Individuals and businesses in those countries will probably split up their savings into smaller accounts or move some of their money to another country. If a lot of depositors withdraw cash from the weakest banks in those countries, Europe could have another crisis on its hands,” The New York Times points out.
Given this there can be several repercussions in the future. “The Cyprus package highlights the increasing reluctance of countries like Germany, Finland and the Netherlands to support weaker Euro-Zone members,” writes Das. The German public has never been in great favour of bailing out the weaker countries. But their politicians have been going against this till now simply because they did not want to be seen responsible for the failure of the euro as a currency. Hence, they have cleared bailout packages for countries like Ireland, Greece etc in the past. Nevertheless that may not continue to happen given that Parliamentary elections are due in September later this year. So deposit holders in other countries which are likely to get bailout packages in the future maybe asked to share a part of the burden or even fully finance themselves.
This becomes clear with the statement made by Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the Dutch finance minister who heads the Eurogroup of euro-zone finance ministers “when failing banks need rescuing, euro-zone officials would turn to the bank’s shareholders, bondholders and uninsured depositors to contribute to their recapitalization.”
“He also said that Cyprus was a template for handling the region’s other debt-strapped countries,” reports Reuters. In the Euro Zone deposits above €100,000 are uninsured.
Given this likely possibility, even a hint of financial trouble will lead to people withdrawing their deposits. As Steve Forbes writes in The Forbes “After this, all it will take is just a hint of a financial crisis to send Spaniards, Italians, the French and others scurrying to ATMs and banks to pull out their cash.” Even the most well capitalised bank cannot hold onto a sustained bank run beyond a point.
It could also mean that people would look at parking their money outside the banking system.
“Even in the absence of a disaster individuals and companies will be looking to park at least a portion of their money outside the banking system,” writes Forbes. Does that imply more money flowing into gold, or simply more money under the pillow? That time will tell.
Also this could lead to more rescues and further bailouts in the days to come. As Das writes “If depositors withdraw funds in significant size and capital flight accelerates, then the European Central Bank, national central banks and governments will have intervene, funding affected banks and potentially restricting withdrawals, electronic funds transfers and imposing cross-border capital controls.” And this can’t be a good sign for the world economy.
The question being asked in Cyprus as The Forbes magazine puts it is “if something goes wrong again, what’s stopping the government from dipping back into their deposits?” To deal with this government has closed the banks until Thursday morning, in order to stop people from withdrawing money. Also the two largest banks in the country, the Bank of Cyprus and the Laiki Bank have imposed a daily withdrawal limit of €100 (or $130).
It will be interesting to see how the situation plays out once the banks open. Will depositors make a run for their deposits? Or will they continue to keep their money in banks? That might very well decide how the rest of the Europe behaves in the days to come.
Watch this space.
This article originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on March 26, 2013.
(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

IMF, debt and the death of traditional banking


Vivek Kaul
Some of the earliest banks started operating in Italy somewhere in the twelfth and thirteenth century. These banks were essentially banks of deposits. Merchants deposited their money in the form of gold and silver coins and bars with these banks for safekeeping. The bank in return issued a receipt against this deposit. The receipt could be shown when the coin money was to be withdrawn. Hence, the earliest banks were “banks of deposits” or “store houses of wealth”.
As time went by some banks developed a reputation for probity and honesty. This led to merchants who had accounts with these banks simply transferring receipts of these banks when they had to pay one another instead of going to the bank showing their receipt and withdrawing their gold or silver to pay each other.
Hence, these receipts started functioning as “paper” money. In sometime people running these banks also figured out that their depositors do not all come all on the same day asking for their deposits back. So in the intermittent period they could either lend out the gold/silver to others or simply print fake deposit receipts not backed by any gold or silver bars or coins, but which looked exactly like the original deposit
receipt. Of course they charged a fee for this.
A similar trend seems to have played out in London in the seventeenth century where merchants took to depositing money with the goldsmiths. This happened after King Charles I seized around £130,000 in bullion, deposited by the city merchants at the Tower of London in 1640.
Like the Italian bankers the London goldsmiths also figured out that they could keep lending the gold that was deposited or simply issue fake receipts, and make more money in the process. As Hartley Withers writes in his all time classic The Meaning of Money:
The original goldsmith’s note was a receipt for metal deposited. It took the form of a promise to pay metal, and so passed as currency. Some ingenious goldsmith conceived the epoch-making notion of giving notes, not only to those who had deposited metal, but to those who came to borrow it, and so founded modern banking.
This is how banks evolved from being just banks of deposit to being banks which gave out loans as well. And to this day they work in the same way. This change also gave bank a right to create money out of thin air, something only the governments could do till then.
Let’s try and understand how that happens. Let us say an individual/institution/government deposits $1000 with a bank. Let’s assume that the bank in turn keeps 10% of the deposits (for the ease of calculation) and lends out the remaining 90% or$900 in this case. It thus manages to create an asset from someone else’s money. So we also have a situation here were the money supply has increased by $1900 ($1000 money deposited with the bank + $900 loan given by the bank).
The $900 loan gets deposited with another bank which in turn lends $810 (90% of $900) and keeps $90 with itself. The $810 is deposited in another bank and leads to a loan of $729. So the banks can keep creating money out of thin air and the money supply can keep going up.
This ability of banks to create money out of thin air is believed to be behind the boom and bust cycles (also referred to as business cycle fluctuations) that the world economy has seen over the last three decades. As J write in The Chicago Plan Revisited, a research paper released by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) “sudden increases and contractions of bank credit that are not necessarily driven by the fundamentals of the real economy, but that themselves change those fundamentals.” When banks feel optimistic, they create money out of thin air by lending it and in the process create the boom part of the business cycle. But when the banks feel pessimistic about economies they may call back their loans or not give out loans at all, and in the process create the bust part of the cycle.
The IMF authors feel that this ability of the banks to create money out of thin air needs to be reined in. The ability to create money should rest only with the government. For this to happen they have revisited The Chicago Plan. The plan was first proposed in the aftermath of The Great Depression of the 1930s.
“During this time a large number of leading U.S. macroeconomists supported a fundamental proposal for monetary reform that later became known as the Chicago Plan, after its strongest proponent, professor Henry Simons of the University of Chicago,” write Benes and Kumhof. Over the years Irving Fisher, who was America’s greatest economist of that era, also came to be closely associated with it.
This plan strikes at the heart of how conventional banking works. A bank raises money as deposits and lends it out as loans. The Chicago Plan separates the deposit and lending functions of the bank. So when $1000 is deposited with the bank, the bank will have to hold the entire money with it and act as a “bank of deposit”. It will not be able to lend this money out. So bank deposits cannot fund its loans.  This also eliminates the chances of bank run totally. Even if all the customers of the bank come and demand their deposit from the bank at the same time, the bank can easily repay them.
The question that crops up here is that if the bank does not lend out its deposits how does t fund its loans? As per the Chicago Plan the loans will have to be funded separately from sources which are not subject to bank runs. Hence, loans would be funded out of retained earnings of the bank. They could also be funded out of the bank issuing more shares to investors. And a third source of funding, which is at the heart of the Chicago Plan, would come from the government.
The bank will have to borrow money from the government to fund its loans. The government can ‘print’ this money that it will lend to banks. Hence, this is the way the government can control money in the economy. When it wants to expand money supply it can lend more and vice versa. Banks cannot create money out of thin air because they are not allowed to lend their deposits.
“The control of credit growth would become much more straightforward because banks would no longer be able, as they are today, to generate their own funding, deposits, in the act of lending,” write the IMF authors.
Also, the government will lend against certain assets of banks. These assets can be included while calculating the net debt of the government and deducted from its total debt. The government can also buy back government bonds held by banks against the loans it will give to banks to fund their loans. Either ways the net debt of the government could come down dramatically.
The government could also use the same method to buy out private debt from these banks. It could buy back private bonds against cancellation of government loans to these banks. And why would the government do that? “Because this would have the advantage of establishing low-debt sustainable balance sheets in both the private sector and the government, it is plausible to assume that a real-world implementation of the Chicago Plan would involve at least some, and potentially a very large, buy-back of private debt,” write the IMF authors.
That’s the plan. But the bigger question that the plan does not answer is how much can governments be trusted when it comes to printing money?
A slightly shorter version of this article appeared in Daily News and Analysis on October 24, 2012.
(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He can be reached at [email protected])
 
http://money.msn.com/investing/no-debt-no-cuts-no-new-taxes