20/6/2013: FTT: Extra-territoriality and Stamp Duty Comparative

An important piece of analysis of the European Financial Transactions Tax (FTT or 'Robin Hood' Tax) by Clifford Chance from January this year.

The importance here is in detailed note on application of the FTT as contrasted with existent stamp duties (see page 3) and the extra-territorial nature of the FTT (see page 2).

Link: http://www.cliffordchance.com/publicationviews/publications/2013/01/the_new_eu_financialtransactiontaxwhyi.html

Link to the previous post on FTT: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/06/1462013-eus-ftt-one-tax-multiple.html

14/6/2013: EU's FTT: One Tax, Multiple Problems

FTT - Financial Transactions Tax - has been the pet project of pure love for Eurocrats and Socialistas in the Member States, hungry for revenue. It has been labelled a 'Robin Hood Tax' because the politicians attempted to sell it as a tax on filthy-rich financial services to redistribute to starving unemployed, presumably, despite the simple fact that in the un-competitive and fragmented market for financial services that is Europe, such a tax - any tax - will be fully passed onto ordinary savers, investors, depositors and in general onto the users of financial services.

The EU Commission published volumes of commissioned - made-to-order - research that shows just how brilliant an idea the FTT really is: it will raise loads of revenues, harm no one and will not reduce financial markets efficiency. Stopping just short of declaring the FTT to be a panacea to common cold, the EU enthusiastically propagandized the idea despite the simple fact that vast majority of academic research on the topic of transactions taxes finds that they are either ineffective as means for revenue raising or costly in terms of economic efficiency.

I wrote about this (see link at the bottom of this post below) and will continue to write, not because I long for an easy life for the bankers or financial investors, but because I recognise the fact that investment markets are necessary to the functioning of the society and the economy, and because I also recognise that more open, less restricted, but well-regulated and strictly enforced financial services are better than anything that Brussels et al can conceive in their technocratic dreams.

So in line with the past record, here's another study (http://www.cpb.nl/en/publication/an-evaluation-of-the-financial-transaction-tax) that explores "...whether the FTT is likely to correct the market failures that have contributed to the financial crisis, how well the FTT is likely to succeed in raising revenues, and how the FTT compares to alternative taxes in terms of efficiency."

The study finds (emphasis is mine) "... little evidence that the FTT will be effective in correcting

market failures. Taxing of transactions is not well targeted at behaviour that leads to excessive risk and

systemic risk creation. The empirical evidence does not suggest that the introduction of an FTT reduces

volatility or asset price bubbles. Transaction taxes will likely reduce investment in trading activity and

information acquisition, but also raise the costs of insurance against currency and interest risks by

companies, insurers and pension funds. The welfare effect of that is unclear."

"The FTT will likely raise significant revenues, in spite of the fact that the tax base is highly elastic. In the short term, the incidence of the tax will be chiefly on the current holders of securities. Ultimately, the tax will be borne in part by end users, and we estimate the likely effects on economic growth."

"When compared to alternative forms of taxation of the financial sector, the FTT is likely less efficient given the amount of revenues. In particular, taxes that more directly address existing distortions (such as the current VAT exemption for banks, and the bias towards debt financing) provide more efficient alternatives."

And here's a report from the Open Europe think-tank on the FTT, assessing the EU Commission response to the concerns of the eleven - that right, eleven - member states: (http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/if-you-had-kept-quiet-you-would-have.html)

Quote: "The Commission's response ranges from weak to capricious to outright ridiculous. For example, when it says that "we're not aware of any credit crunch" in Europe."

What else is new?

Note: I wrote about the concerns around the issues of repos and hedging here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/05/3052013-ftt-up-down-down-again-climbing.html


Links to past articles on FTT: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/search?q=FTT&max-results=20&by-date=true
You can search this blog for key words and sort the posts by relevance or date.

30/5/2013: FTT: Up, Down, Down again: Climbing Political Hillocks in Europe

Looks like the EU is now climbing down another over-hyped policy hillock. After scrapping plans to ban / regulate olive oil in restaurants, the EU is now moving in the direction of drastically undercutting original plans for the Financial Transactions Tax (FTT).

I outlined on a number of occasions numerous reasons why FTT was a bad idea for the EU (see set of posts here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/search?q=FTT&max-results=20&by-date=true). The latest changes in the EU seem to be related primarily to the rate of tax (see http://www.ifre.com/brussels-plans-major-scaling-back-of-financial-trading-tax/21088491.article).

However, also per article: "Rather than levying trade in stocks, bonds and some derivatives from 2014, it may now apply to shares only next year and to bonds up to two years later." Again, sadly, the new changes are way off, as argued here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/05/2652013-ftt-v-sovereigns-addiction-to.html .

The real problem is that there is no way to structure a reasonably efficient FTT. None at all. Any FTT proposal will strike either one or some of the outcomes below:

1. Raise too much revenue, chocking off market efficiency and damaging liquidity
2. Raise too little revenue, making no real differences in any direction
3. Push high volume (liquidity-enhancing) and low margin (information-disclosing) transactions out of open markets platforms into dark pools and off-shore
4. Incentivise even more debt over equity

At some point in time, we must realise that any defence of FTT is at this stage is nothing but political face-saving.

26/5/2013: FTT v Sovereigns' Addiction to Debt

FT.com reports (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c3121802-c480-11e2-9ac0-00144feab7de.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fhome_us%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz2UQE68h14) that 

"The European Central Bank has offered to help the EU redesign its financial transactions tax to avoid any ‘negative impact’ on market stability, highlighting official fears about the implementation of the levy."

So far so good, as FTT indeed is likely to cut liquidity in the markets, reducing markets efficiency, and potentially increasing volatility, rather thane educing it.

Of course, the original idea the EU came up involved levying tax on trading in bonds, equities and derivatives. So one would expect the following prioritisation from the ECB concerned with markets impacts:
1) Not to distinguish between bonds and equities in tax application and rates, as the two instruments are de facto long-only instruments in either corporate (real) economy, banks (financial economy) and sovereigns (for bonds - which somewhat qualifies as a real economy as well).
2) Levy tax primarily on derivative instruments (although here, tax can be avoided much easier)
3) Recognise that in the restricted competition environment and with legacy subsidies from the crisis period still in place for incumbent financial institutions, any FTT will be at least in part passed onto retail investors and savers, and in more extreme cases - e.g. duopoly model of banking in Ireland - onto all retail users of banking services)
4) Real economy - incomes, investment, entrepreneurship, unemployment, etc - will be most impacted by the FTT levied on real assets - equities and some (not all) bonds and this effect will be stronger the stronger is the banking and investment banking sector concentration in the economy.

Alas, as is clear from the FT.com article, the ECB is not concerned with (3) and (4) whatsoever, and it is unconcerned with (1) either. It also seems to be aware of (2) pitfalls. Aside from that, ECB is concerned with the perennial task faced by all European Government - the obsession of raising as much tax revenue as possible while incentivising more debt pumped into sovereign bond markets.


Per FT.com: "The ECB believes markets should efficiently “transmit” changes in interest rates to the real economy." You might think that this means transmitting higher (lower) ECB rates into higher (lower) (a) Government bond yields and (b) higher/lower cost of private credit. Err… you would be wrong.

Per FT.com there are rumours that "…the ECB would prefer to have a limited UK-style stamp duty on equities". What can possibly go wrong, then?

ECB concern is clearly to grease the wheels of sovereign bond markets. The fact that FTT will reduce markets liquidity in real instruments & will cost retail investors in the end - well, that is hardly ECB's concern at all. ECB like the EU Governments is only worried about own coffers & give no attention to the economy.  

Equity markets volatility (FTT original raison d'être is to reduce volatility) had NOTHING to do with the current crises. The ECB focus on 'UK-styled stamp duty on equities', if confirmed, thus exposes FTT as a pure scam to raise more tax revenues, not a measure to deal with 'markets instability'. 

As FT.com quotes one of the market participants: "bond markets were a “phenomenally attractive” way of channelling savings into investment." Alas, it is not - corporate bonds are debt. Shoving more debt while disincentivising equity investment is not a great idea for long term sustainable funding.

In Europe, lending money to Governments, including to fund dodgy unfunded pensions and white elephant projects, is tax-wise deemed to be more laudable than to invest in equity of real enterprises. By corollary, lending to companies is also deemed to be more preferential than funding them via equity. One of the outcomes of this decades-long preferential treatment of debt is the current crisis: over-bloated and under-funded public spending coupled with too much private debt (including banking debt) against too little equity (the latter imbalance drove the bailouts of banks in euro area periphery).

With this in mind, talking about 'Robin Hood' taxes on Financial Services in EU is equivalent to believing in Santa's Magic raindeer as a viable alternative for public transport.