Friday, May 6, 2011

The Canadian Political System

The Canadian political system as it is known today was first drafted by the "Fathers of Confederation" at the Quebec conference of 1864. This then became law when the constitution act was passed in 1867. This act gave the formal executive authority to Queen Victoria (Queen of Great Britain) which made Canada a sovereign democracy. The Canadian political system is therefore loosely based on the British system.
Now, Canada is an independent Federal state with the Queen still the head of state. Her powers are extremely limited however, as the Parliament passes the laws which the Queen gives the "Royal Assent" as the final step. The Governor General of Canada is the Queens representative in Canada and carries out all the Royal obligations when the Queen is not in Canada. The Governor is always a Canadian chosen by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. The length of office is normally five years for the Governor General.
The Houses of Parliament (housing the Federal Government) are located in Canada's capital city, Ottawa. There are 3 main sections to the Canadian Parliament. The Queen as the Head of state; the Senate (appointed on the Prime Minister's recommendations) and the elected House of Commons.
The Federal Government has the power to "make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada" which includes International policies, Defence, Immigration, Criminal Law, Customs and Border control.
The Senate
The Senate is made up of 105 Senators who are appointed by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. These Senators are men and women from all of the Provinces and from a wide variety of backgrounds. They can serve on the Senate up until age 75 and have to be a Canadian citizen, over age 30, own $4,000 of equity in land in their home Province, have over $4,000 as personal net worth and live in the province represented. Each Province or Territory has a set number of Senators - 24 each from the Maritimes, Quebec and Ontario, 6 each from Alberta, BC, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 6 from Newfoundland and Labrador and a further 1 each from the three Territories.
The main role of the Senate is to read over and examine the "Bills" sent from the House of Commons though they can also initiate Bills. This process ensures that no rogue bills will become law, though only rarely do the Senate reject a Bill - sending it back to the House for amendment. The Bills are subjected to the full legislative process by the Senate and if passed will be given to the Governor General for Royal Assent and thus become Law.
House of Commons
The real power is held by the House of Commons. Here, the members of Parliament (MP's) are elected by the general public during a Federal election - normally every 5 years. The country is split up into constituencies (total 308 by population size) and whichever candidate has the most votes wins the right to represent that constituency and take their "seat" in the Parliament.
Each Most candidates represent a particular political party and the party with the most "seats" takes over as the Government. The main parties in Canada are Paul Martins Liberals (ruling), Stephen Harpers Conservatives, Jack Layton's New Democratic Party, The Bloc Quebecois and The Green Party to name the largest.
The leader of the political party that wins the election becomes the Prime Minister of Canada (currently Paul Martin of the Liberals). The Prime Minister effectively runs the country with the support and advice of his Cabinet. The Cabinet is made up of "Ministers" chosen by the Prime Minister to be responsible for certain areas of the Government. There are ministers of Health, Finance, Defence and Immigration to name a few. These areas of responsibility are called "Portfolio's" and each minister will have a large team of civil servants (normally the experts in that field) working for him/her. Only the ministers change during an election - not the civil servants.
Though the MP's represent their local constituency, their main duties are debating the laws to be made and, depending on their Party, either supporting or opposing the Government. The opposition is the political party with the second most seats in the House and their main job is to hold the government accountable for their decisions.
A Government with a lot of seats in the House will be strong and able to pass most laws they want through Parliament. Conversely, a weak Government (such as now) doesn't have the majority of the seats and has to rely on the support of another party to form an effective Government.
After each election, the Senate and the House of Commons either elect (House) or appoint (Senate) a Speaker. The Speaker is in charge of proceedings and has to be impartial, enforcing the rules of the House/Senate during debates and votes. The Speaker presides over the House from a raised chair with the Government MP's om the right and the opposition on the Left.
Making the Laws
To start with, the House of Commons members introduce a "Bill" (legislative proposal). The details of the Bill are read in the House without debate and then the Bill is printed (the first reading).
During the second reading the principles of the Bill are debated followed by a vote. If successful, the Bill is then sent to the Committee stage.
A committee will listen to testimony, examine the Bill and then submits a report to the House recommending it as it is, with amendments or scrapped. From here it goes to the report stage. 

In the report phase, any amendments are debated and voted on. Then it will pass to the third reading. This is where the House finally debates and votes on the final draft - if it passes the vote it is sent to the Senate.

The Impact of Structured Finance on the Ghanaian Financial Services Industry in the Next 10 Years

A Company can issue bonds to investors secured on the future profits expected to arise from part of its existing life business.
When a pool of financial assets (such as car finance, home or commercial mortgages, corporate loans,royalties, leases, non-performing receivables, and contractually pledged operating revenues) are structured and transferred to a 'special purpose vehicle or entity'(SPV or SPE) it is known as a Securitisation transaction.
Generally, most securitisation transactions involve a two tier transaction in which the originator of the assets to be securitised transfers such assets to a wholly-owned SPV.In turn the SPV transfers or pledges such assets to another entity, which issues rated securities in the capital markets that are collaterised by such assets. This second tier entity can be another SPV or a multi-seller commercial paper conduit and can provide funding by issuing medium term notes or commercial paper.
Types of Securitisation transaction
Usually with securitisation transactions, the transfer of rights to assets can take one of two main forms, true sale or synthetic securitisation.
1. True Sale securitisation
In a true Sale securitisation, the originator (for instance a bank selling mortgages) sells the assets to the Issuer. the assets are serviced by the servicer who happens to be the Originator, with respect to say the mortgages sold to the Issuer(i.e.) and the originator continues to collect the principal and interest from the borrowers on behalf of the issuer on such mortgages and see to all default mortgages as well.
The significance of true sale is that the first-tier sale of the assets from the originator to the SPV is structured as a "true sale" such that the assets are removed from the originator's bankruptcy or insolvency estate and cannot be recaptured by any trustee. Thus, the issuers are usually incorporated as insolvency remote entities; and may not engage into any transactions other than those necessary to effect the securitisation what is known as "limited purpose-concept" by which virtue the SPV will not be allowed to issue any additional debt or enter into mergers or similar transaction.
The transactions can be conducted as conduit, whereby the purchaser purchases and securitises assets from a number of different originators. This is done by through refinancing by issuing commercial paper into the capital market. Banks usually engage in conduits by arranging securitisation for their clients, or standalone where the purchaser only purchases assets and issues as asset-backed securities in the context of a single securitisation transaction. No commercial paper is issued.
It must be said here that, the legal characteristics and economic substance of the transfer will be the primary determining factors as whether the transaction is a true sale not a loan.
2. Synthetic Securitisation
In a synthetic securitisation transaction the originator does not sell any assets to the Issuer and therefore does not obtain any funding or liquidity under the transaction. The originator enters into a credit swap with the issuer in respect of an asset or pool of assets, transferring the originator's risk to the issuers. Under this contract, the issuer pays the originator an amount equal to any credit losses suffered in respect of such assets or pool of assets. The Issuer's (SPV) income streams in a synthetic transactions are the fixed amounts paid by the Originator under the credit default swap and interest amounts received on the collateral. These transactions are typically undertaken to transfer credit risk and to reduce regulatory capital requirements.
3. "Whole-Business" Securitisation
Apart from the main two forms above," whole business" securitisation is sometimes used to finance a stake in private or management buy out of the Originator.
This type of securitisation originated in the United Kingdom. It involves the provision of a secured loan from an SPV to the relevant Originator. The SPV issues bonds into the capital markets and lends the proceeds to the Originator. The Originator services its obligations under the loan through the profits generated by its business. The Originator grants security over most of its assets in favour of the investors. In terms of cash flow, there are three most common types of securitisation transactions:
Collaterised Debt- this is similar to traditional asset-based borrowing. The debt instrument need not match the cash flow configure ration of any of the assets pledged.
Pass-Through-this is the simplest way to securitise assets with a regular cash flow, by selling participation in the pool of assets i.e. an ownership interest in the underlying assets so that principal and interest in the underlying assets collected are given to the security holders;
Pay-Through debt instrument-this is borrowing instrument and not participation. Investors in a pay-through bond are not direct owners of the underlying assets but simply investors.
One significant thing with SPV is that unlike with ordinary operating companies, whose charters typically provide for maximum flexibility, the charters of SPVs provide for the entity to have only those powers that are necessary to accomplish the purpose of the securitisation transaction. Thus the SPV in a securitisation will have the power only to purchase the particular receivables contemplated by the transaction, issue the related capital market securities, and make the payments on them and so on.
The reason for these restrictions is thought to keep the risks of the SPV's own bankruptcy as narrow as possible: the smaller the range of the entity's activities, the smaller the risk of a bankruptcy.
Securitisation is based on the underlying assets being securitised. Rating agencies spend a lot of time to estimate the credit risk for all underlying assets in Securitisation transaction. Other risks considered is the prepayment risk.-the risk that a portion of the assets in the underlying pool may be repaid early. Payments and settlements in Ghana are considered to be good. Prepayments can reduce the weighted average life of the pool and as a result expose investors to considerable uncertainty over future cash flows.This can be mitigated by separating the payment of the principal and interest or the conversion of fixed rate returns to floating rate.
Third Party Risk
Collateral is not the only important factor in structured finance transaction. A servicer risk would be particularly strong in Ghana. This is the case that the collection of payments, distribution to investors and performance tracking will fail. Because in Ghana credit rating is not popular.
In a Securitisation or structured finance transaction, a lot of third parties are involved who must fulfill their various responsibilities to make the transaction go on successfully ."Time is money", it is said. Other third party risks include trustee managing succession of servicing in case of servicer default, notifying investors and rating agencies of breaches and defaults, and holding cash payments to prevent servicer misuse of cash flows; manager responsible to balance the competing interest within a transaction.
Financial Risks (Interest Rate Risks, Foreign Exchange Rate Risks, Devaluation Risk)
Financial risks usually cover interest rates, foreign exchange rate & availability, currency and inflation risks. Inflation really affects the originator in a Securitisation transaction for reasons like raising the cost of the transaction which can delay its completion. Some governments are also sceptical about foreign investment in their country and sometimes prevent the repatriation of funds by foreigners outside. Devaluation and interest rate just like inflation can also affect Securitisation negatively especially when provision has not been made in the transaction deal for that. Russia is a good example. International funds are often cheaper than local ones, but given the fact that the payment to receivables is sold locally, and paid in local currency, using foreign loans creates exposure to the risk of currency depreciation.
Political Risk
Because cross-border transactions are conducted such that assets generate cash flows in the domestic currency while the securities backed by those assets are denominated in foreign currency, there is the risk that regardless of the credit strength of the underlying assets, the issuer might default on the payment. The following relevant known political risks are identified:
Expropriation risk: 

The act of taking something from its owner for public use. This involves the act where a government takes over assets or accounts of local parties in the event of financial crisis.

Nationalisation: 

Transfer of business from private to state ownership. This is not usually experienced in the West as in South America and Africa. In relation to Ghana's political situation, this is not envisaged.

Convertibility risk: 

This is the risk that in a national crisis, the government might impose a moratorium on all foreign currency debts because of a financial crisis in the country.

Change of law: 

The ruling government can change the laws overnight and this can affect a structured finance. Sometimes for economic and political reasons, tax laws are enacted which might not be to the advantage of the originator in terms of the cost increase to certain elements which could increase the purchase price of the product on completion and can jeopardise the securitisation transaction which must be made cheaper if it is to succeed. For example an increase in the fuel tax can affect the entire transaction because tax neutrality is paramount to securitisation transaction.

Legal & Documentation Risks 

Following change of law in political risk discussed above, possible legal risks to a Securitisation transaction include inadequate legal, legislative, and regulatory framework on tax, financial and money market & securities. Sometimes the case and administrative laws in the country concerned are not developed. These issues are of great concern to investors and for that matter the originator will have to deal with this risk.

In asset-backed securities(ABS),however, the legal and documentation risks include uncertainty surrounding the transfer of assets from the seller/originator to the SPV (i.e. 'true sale') the need to ensure that holders of ABS receive full control over the underlying assets; the bankruptcy remoteness of the issuing SPV.
This means reviewing all the covenants in relation to the separation of the SPV from the seller; the legal roles of the trustee and servicer across all relevant jurisdiction including Ghana to curtail operational and execution risks associated with the payment and receipts of transactions.
Because of the changes in deal structures and considering the legal and financial framework of Ghana, legal and documentation risk will be very high.
Regulatory Risk 

The risk that originators and other lenders will not be treated fairly. There should be a laid down regulation on profit-sharing, regulations on the rated instruments and most importantly what structure should the SPV that issues the securities be.

Liability Structure Risk 

This risk is the issues associated in which with the tranching or slicing of securities brings conflicting interests which if not checked may disrupt the appropriate distribution of receivables to end-investors. The key to structured finance transaction is the payment waterfall which set the covenants for paying the interests and principal and allocation of losses among investors. This can be sorted with over-collateralisaton tests which ensure the existence of sufficient collateral in the underlying pool of assets to cover principal payments; and interest coverage test to ensure that there are sufficient interest proceeds to cover interest payments to note holders.

Levels of Risks 

Rating agencies usually would have to assess the totality of the risks envisaged in each transaction before assigning a rating to the security. Thus the potential for any shortfalls in receivables and the adequacy of any credit enhancement to ensure that the end-investors are assigned the right level of default risk. Cross-border transactions for example require specific analysis regarding the potential limit that could apply to the rating of the notes because of the potential default of a government and the possible application of a moratorium by a government in times of crisis.

Benefits of Securitisation 

The use of Securitisation is not limited to one specific asset or income flow. The application stretches beyond the existing bank-funding products and equity funding arrangements. The challenge is the approach with which a Securitisation is considered and the ability to measure the impact thereof on the future of the business. This stems from the fact that Securitisation is cash flow driven and not earnings-improvement driven.

Generally, securitisation can offer the following benefits and we would later analyse to see whether or not it would benefit Ghana.
Efficient access to capital markets: when transactions are for example structured with credit ratings by a recognised credit rating agency on most debts, pricing is not tied to the credit rating of the originator. This is very significant if the originator is not credit worthy.
Limitation on issuer-specific's ability to raise capital is reduced: securitisations can minimise an entity's inability to raise capital because capital raised under securitisation becomes a function of the terms, credit quality or rating, prepayment assumptions and prevailing market conditions.
Illiquid assets are converted to cash: Securitisation makes it easier to combine assets which otherwise could not be sold on their own, to create a diversified collateral pool against which debt can be issued.
Raise capital to generate additional assets: capital can quickly be raised such as releasing long-term capital for any allowable purposes like completing capital project and purchasing additional assets.
Match assets and liabilities to minimise risks: a well-structured securitisation transaction could create near perfect matching of term and cash flow locking in an interest rate spread between that earned on the assets and that paid on the debt. This means that Ghanaian business entities can raise enough funds without necessarily providing collateral for security because of the transfer of risk.
Raise capital without prospectus-type disclosure: A conduit securitisation transaction allows one to raise capital without disclosure of sensitive information of any sort; in fact information is kept confidential.
Complete mergers and acquisitions, & divestitures more efficiently: Assets can be combined or divested efficiently under Securitisation transaction. By dividing assets into smaller parts against which debt is issued it can become possible to do away with other business entities which are no longer profitable.
Transfer risk to third parties: Financial risk on loans and other contractual obligations by customers can be partially transferred to investors under securitisations.
More funding beyond bank lending: A structured Securitisation transaction enables the originator to raise funding while maintaining the right to the profit on the receivables. However, these funds will not be linked to its credit rating but rather the credit rating is on the special purpose entity created for the Securitisation transaction. By incorporating an offshore SPE, many businesses in Ghana with poor credit rating might potentially raise funds for any purpose.
The overall effect of securitisation of bank loans and credit aggregates is likely to be a reduction in the level of credit extension by the monetary sector and a reduction of similar magnitude in the M3 money supply. This is to say that the banking sector closes its balance sheet by setting off some loans against some M3 deposits.However,the original borrowers still have obligations but to the SPV not a bank and institutional investors still own assets which are now tradable securities not M3 deposits.
Structure of Ghana's Financial System 

The financial system comprises of 
1. Bank of Ghana 
I. Savings and loans bank 
II. Discount houses 
III. Finance houses 
IV. Leasing companies 
V. Forex Bureaux 
2. Securities and Exchange Commission 
I. Stock Exchange 
II. Brokerage firms 
III. Investment Management companies 
IV. Trustees and Custodians 
3. National Insurance Commission 
I. insurance Companies 
II. insurance Brokers 
III. reinsurance Companies

The banking system in Ghana is structured to serve the needs of all citizens as much as possible. At the end of 2005,the banking industry was made up of Merchant banks, Universal banks, Commercial banks, development Banks,ARB Apex banks, and Rural Banks; with a total growth of its assets by 17.62%.
The Non-Banking Financial institutions (NBFI) sector is made up of Savings and Loans Companies, Discount Houses, Finance Companies and Leasing Companies. Total assets for the Non-Banking Financial Institutions also grew by 47.98% which were mainly triggered by loans and advances, investments, other assets and fixed assets. The Discount houses hold 82.61% of the overall total investments of the NBFI sector.
The new Banking Law, Act 673, which became operational in 2005 with its higher Capital Adequacy Ratio requirements, new sanctions regime, as well as higher governance standards ensured that banks remained generally compliant with regulatory and prudential requirements.
The Securities Market in Ghana
African stock exchanges face a number of challenges before they could enter a new phase of rapid growth. The most critical issue is to eliminate existing impediments to institutional developments. These include a wider dissemination of information in these markets, the implementation of robust electronic trading systems and the adoption of central depository systems. Ghana has since established a central depository system in November, 2004.
The Ghana securities market is regulated by the SEC. The Ghana Stock Exchange is underdeveloped with reference to exchanges in US, Europe and even South Africa. South Africa for example has market capitalisation of $180 billion, one of the largest in the world with Ghana's market capitalisation of $11 billion.
Considering that Ghana has had just one Securitisation transaction -structured finance-with no records for research, and the position of Ghana's macro-economic situation, it was found expedient to look at the Securitisation transaction in South Africa. Even though Securitisation transaction is still at an early stage of development in South Africa, it has grown rapidly in recent years and it would be a suitable "benchmark" after which to carve Ghana's Securitisation transaction.
According to the available information, the first Securitisation in South Africa was aimed at mortgage Securitisation; developments were very slow over the 11 years. Then in 1992 Securitisation was applied to corporate equipment rentals and leases up until 1997 through 2000s with Securitisation on trade receivables, properties, future rebate flows, future cross-border flows and CLOs.
South Africa's motive for Securitisation transaction was to benefit from more efficient financing and profit maximisation; improved balance sheet structure and finance ratios; improved risk management; and lower economic and regulatory capital requirements among others.
Although the Securitisation transaction is still in its infancy in south Africa, available records show that issuance involving domestic banks in South Africa (i.e. private banks) has increased from R250 million in 1989 to a whopping R26 billion by the end of October 2005. Based on a recent study conducted on the UK market which suggests that Securitisation provides investors the opportunity to attain a higher after tax return in comparison with after tax returns being generated by equity related property investment , Securitisation in South Africa is being applied as an acquisition tool in acquiring properties and as a portfolio optimisation and value unleashing tool.
Securitisation regulations in South Africa compares to international Regulatory Practices similar to those in the United States of America and regulate the manner with which Securitisation assets and income flows are transferred from the originator to the SPV and operational aspects and efficiencies of the SPV.
Different opinions exist in the South African market regarding conformity to Securitisation regulation. One centres on the use of specific words "Bank or deposit-taking Institution" that only South African banks can originate a securitisation.The other opinion is on non-conformity as appropriate if a company or business other than a bank originates a Securitisation.
The onus of the matter is that Securitisation transaction is also designated within the regulation as an activity which is not limited to the business of a bank under certain conditions; thus allowing companies other than a bank to embark on Securitisation transaction.
The Ghana Securities Exchange Commission's annual report for 2004 does not mince words about the position of the Ghana Securities market. It reported that "despite the modest decline in index performance in percentage terms, the GSE still maintained its position as one of the best performing stock exchanges in the world in 2004 for the second time running." Market capitalisation of listed Companies on the Ghana Stock Exchange increased by 84.90 trillion cedis to 97.61 trillion cedis from just 12.6 trillion cedis.In dollar terms, market capitalisation went up by 654.0% from US$1.43 billion at the beginning of 2004 to US$10.8 billion at the end of 2004.
Unlike the stock market, the bond market in 2004 was relatively low posing "a serious market development challenge to the commission". The turnover value of listed corporate bonds in 2004 declined from US$606,600 in 2003 to US$73,414 a decline of 87% whilst government bonds also declined by 71%.The value of listed corporate bonds in 2004 was US$6.79 million compared to US8.98 million in 2003.
The corporate bond market remained relatively quiet. However, the US dollar denominated corporate bonds traded on the market increased by $41,783 to $115,200.
The government of Ghana is determined to use municipal, corporate, government and agency bonds to improve activity in the primary market. As a result of that, the Bank increased accountability and transparency in line with International Financial reporting Standards (IFRS) best practices in its financial reporting and disclosures in 2005. 

Coupled with this, other relevant Government policies were strengthened to reinvigorate revenue collections and consolidate public expenditure aimed at reducing the domestic debt in relation to GDP .As a result of that the government started a programme of reducing domestic debt in relation to GDP to enable the private sector access credit and lead the growth process.

The significance of Bank of Ghana in the financial system is that the bank is the provider of technical support for the legal and regulatory reform of the financial system to minimise risks and ensure legal certainty especially for electronic transactions; and also monitor various financial laws at different stages of development.
There is no doubt that people learn from experiences of others so do nations about the successes and failures of other nations especially with regard to something new and complex like the concept of Securitisation transaction. It is recommended that Securitisation in Ghana is modeled on the experience of South Africa's Securitisation transactions with some changes in the legislations to fit the situation in Ghana.
Ghana's private sector is beset with many constraints for no doubt, however, the other side is that, there are so many opportunities either untapped or unidentified comparative as well as other natural and mineral resources already in large quantities. There is potential for more effective exploitation of these endowments. But continued reliance on a few commodities with low prices and wages subject to fierce international competition in slow global markets have left the country vulnerable to hardship. These products could be structured and securitised.
Training of players of Securitisation transactions like, the originator, servicer, legal advisers, accounting adviser, tax advisers and others must be continuous about the technicalities of Securitisation transaction from now till the take-off. There should not be any mediocrity as is the characteristics of government and government agencies. 

Investors and potential originators must also be educated on the benefits of Securitisation as an alternative for traditional capital formation besides equity and debt which is common to the Ghanaian business community. Providing better understanding of, cash flow drivers behind Securitisation transactions, credit rating agencies and also credit enhancement issues. This would trigger a strong desire for this form of capital formation to put Ghanaian businesses in the race to compete favourably on the international scene.

The technicalities of grasping the intrinsic techniques of properly analysing the segregation of assets and income flows from the company that owns them to the SPV which is meant to control the assets for the benefit of investors, must be well understood by the investment community.
A lack of genuine understanding of the drivers behind a Securitisation transaction, the ability to measure the impact on future operations as well as the initial costs involved in Securitisation creates difficulty in clearly defining the true incentives for conducting Securitisation amongst South African companies. Thus a comprehensive understanding of such amongst Ghanaian companies will boost Securitisation transaction.
One issue that needs to be tackled very well is the Tax Laws to make the Securitisation transaction work. Ghana operates a free-zone scheme and this can be extended to encourage Securitisation transaction. Certain areas within the country could be assigned as 'free zone for Securitisation'and 'use as tax haven' to nurture and groom Securitisation in Ghana.
The regulatory environment through which Securitisation is conducted, coupled with capital market infrastructure to support adequate pricing of all risks associated with all forms of Securitisation transaction-conduit, synthetic or "whole-business".
Finally, it is recommended that, research into the legal framework on bankruptcy, tax, and commercial laws relating to structured finance and Securitisation in particular should be encouraged among the Ghanaian academia.
Ghana indeed has an enabling environment suitable for Securitisation transaction. Key issues to drive this on might include as mentioned above extension of existing laws like Tax, Bankruptcy and commercial Laws to include treatment of Securitisation transaction.
Ghanaians are strong-willed, forceful and patient. When the expertise is acquired for Securitisation with the training of the players above, good governance of the other key government policies like MIDR and Strategy for 2004-2008‎, improvement on the Ghana School Financing activity‎ they will serve as catalyst for Securitisation.
Considering the experience of South Africa over the past decade, the experience of the developed economies in Securitisation transaction and the macroeconomic and the investment climate continue to improve as it is now ,in the next 10 years, Ghana will not be too farther away from engaging in Securitisation transaction if not already there.

In Times of Financial Uncertainty and Political Confusion Wise Leaders Need to Get Effective Answers

As soon as I returned from that excellent Day Conference with international leader Gary Kah that I turn to Psalms 120 and 121. We had been hearing about what was going on behind the scenes politically and financially. I have checked up on the various organisation to which he referred and they all exist and they all appear to be involved in what could be classed by that overarching phrase, New World Order.
Psalm 120 encourages us to see things as they really are and one of the lessons in Psalm 121 is "Learning where to get answers". These are vital lessons leaders need to understand and teach.
Do you want answers to some of the serious issues going on the political and financial world? Then, read on. It will not be possible to give a comprehensive answer in one brief article but there is a satisfactory and satisfying answer available.


I lift up my eyes to the hills. Where does my help come from? My help comes from the Lord.
As we travel along the pilgrim road faith gives rise to many questions. There are problems, struggles, battles and even Jesus Christ had to face Calvary.
When troubles come we have to look at little higher than the hills. The Psalmist knew that only too well. We have to look to God, and that is where we learn to get answers. Wise leadership will recognise and share this with others.
In a sense we are not just being given an apple here, but we are being taken into the orchard, where we can eat and be satisfied whenever we have that need.
There are three hazards which travellers faced as they ascended the slopes in their approach to Jerusalem and that is the setting for these Psalms calls Songs of Ascent.



Travellers could stumble over a stone. They could trip and hurt themselves. Many financial leaders and bankers have done just that over the past year and they have also cause hurt to many others.
Severe exposure to the sun was a real danger. Sever exposure to lust and greed are also real dangers and many have fallen seriously as result of the love of money. To love money is a tragedy of the most immense proportions. That is serious sin
And, there was the effect of the moon on the emotional system, and this has been feared for centuries. This is far too serious a subject to be material for humour.
Yes, our God protects us, and watches over us, and shades us from harm.
It is part of life, even as disciples of Jesus Christ, that things can happen to us, physically, and in all kinds of ways. Paul experienced this and so did Peter and John and many others, and men still do.



We have to set these words in the whole context of Scripture.
This is not 'a being spared' from trials and hardships and sorrows. It is more a reassurance that none of these things can bring us under the domination of sin or Satan.
Learn where to get answers and understand how to get answers, especially when it comes to the big issues of life. If you are a leader then exercise sound positive leadership and help those in real trouble at this particular time. Ease the dilemma which many are facing.

Can US Afford Political Gridlock Already?

With the near collapse of the financial system in 2008, the Bush Administration, with the Republican party in control of both houses of Congress, took aggressive, unprecedented action. The government was not grid-locked. Decisive action was possible and was taken.
As President Bush described it in his just-released book Decision Points, credit markets had seized up, panic was rampant, the financial system was on the brink of collapse, and an already severe recession threatened to drop the economy off a cliff into another Great Depression.
So the Bush Administration, with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed chairman Ben Bernanke as point men, brokered the sale of troubled investment bank Bear Stearns and brokerage firm Merrill Lynch to stronger financial firms, took over giant housing lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and in the near-panic after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, rescued giant financial firm AIG with an infusion of $85 billion (in exchange for warrants on the company's stock that made the government 79.9% owner of the company).
There were plenty of critics. Responses at the time to my columns supporting government intervention mostly ran along the lines of, "Let the banks collapse, they asked for it with their greedy actions." "Why should the government use tax-payer money to bail out home-owners who bought houses they couldn't afford?" "Let a depression come and wipe everyone out. Then we can start over again and do it right."
In the continuing financial crisis the Treasury Department next established the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), funded with $700 billion to purchase the troubled assets of financial institutions. The Federal Reserve launched a quantitative easing program to buy more than a $trillion of mortgage-backed securities and U.S. treasury bonds.
In his book, Bush acknowledges that the actions his administration took were "a breath-taking intervention in the free market.... My friends back home in Texas were going to ask what happened to the free market guy they knew.... But markets had ceased to function."
His administration used the same reasoning in its November, 2008 decision to bail out the auto industry. In his book he explains that "With the free market still not functioning, I had to safeguard American workers and families from widespread collapse."
Fast forward to 2009.
Unhappy that the Bush administration decisions had not already ended the worst recession since the Great Depression, voters had passed the baton to President Obama and the Democratic party, providing it also with control of both houses of Congress.
The Obama administration made much the same assessment of the still plunging economy, continued freeze up of the financial system, and need for continuing the unprecedented government intervention in the free market system.
As the recession worsened in the early months of 2009, and the stock market continued its bear market plunge, the Obama administration (and Democratic-controlled Congress) extended the Bush administration TARP program, provided an additional $60 billion credit line to AIG, launched a more expensive auto industry bail-out when the Bush Administration's $19 billion bailout effort failed to prevent the bankruptcies of Chrysler and General Motors, introduced costly bonuses to home-buyers and 'cash for clunkers' programs, and continued the high levels of government spending.
Timothy Geithner had replaced former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and used reasoning similar to his predecessor for intervening in the free market system, saying, "Critical parts of our financial system are damaged, international trade is contracting sharply as finance has dried up, and the recession is worsening. This is a dangerous dynamic and we must arrest it. Too many Americans have lost their jobs and too many businesses will fail, creating more job losses, if we don't take forceful actions."
A year later, even though the stock market had launched into an impressive new bull market in March, 2009, and the recession had officially ended in June, 2009, it did not seem that conditions had improved to voters, dismayed that the housing industry remained in shambles, unemployment remained high, and the federal budget deficit was still hitting new record highs.
So in the mid-term elections, voters decided to make another change, this time creating potential government gridlock, putting one party in control of the House, and leaving the other in control of the Senate. The popular opinion is that a government that can't get anything accomplished is preferable to having either party in power.
Voters don't seem to remember the magnitude of the previous crisis or that both parties, when separately in power, were in agreement that temporary intervention in the free market system was necessary. A poll by the non-partisan Pew Research Center a few months ago found that fifty percent of Republicans, 46% of Democrats, and 44% of Independents did not remember that the government bailouts of financial institutions (and auto companies) were launched during the Bush Administration and Republican control of Congress, incorrectly believing they were launched after Obama became president in 2009.
Actually if the efforts succeed, they can share the credit. If they fail they can share the blame.
Meanwhile, there have been other times in the past when having one party or the other in the White House and in the majority in Congress was critical to the government being able to take timely actions in the face of serious financial problems or military threats. There have been other times of financial stability and good times when gridlock and the inability of politicians to play their games was a good thing.
Hopefully, voters got it right in the mid-term elections, that we are now in one of those long benign periods of financial stability when gridlock is preferable, when government will not need the ability to make quick and decisive responses to unexpected developments.

Methods to Screen Political Candidates

How to better achieve the age old goal of having political candidates that are right for the job? The job of course being to visibly and tangibly advance social welfare and involves:
a- decreasing price (in caloric energy spent) while increasing quality/quantity of food, electrical output, transport, shelter, education
b- decreasing necessity for backbreaking work and subsistence living
c- increasing safety from violence and coercion and advancing interethnic harmony
d- preserving and even expanding human autonomy during the process of all of the above
Yes, very difficult and definitely not the type of job that morons, pandering charismatic narcissists, rich man's stooges, and quick fix/gimmick driven individuals should engage in. Unfortunately, very often these days these 4 types are blended into one toxic package. To know what we want from candidates is to conceptualize a way to screen them. The public desires 3 basic simultaneous things from a person seeking power:
1) sufficiently competent to run and evolve technologically complex and very populous (over 10 million people) social units
2) sufficiently independent of oligarchic corporate influence
3) sufficiently legitimate in eyes of the public without it minimizing 1) and 2) (successfully approved by some sort of democratic input)
It is becoming very clear that neither public or private financing of candidates is achieving these. Rather than engaging in a futile task of tweaking an easily abused system (more public financing, ban on ads, regulating funds, etc), it is possible to cut off degradation and corruption of the candidate pool at the root. What needs to be made structurally obsolete is a need for money in politics in the first place. This in turn eliminates the need for advanced election marketing propaganda, fund raising pandering, and for extremely self absorbed individuals that possess a solid acting/lying/showmanship ability.
Screening method 1: Technical Exam
As I have previously written, since economics is an engineering challenge, it is imperative to dramatically increase the quantity of candidates with scientific, civil engineering, and technical backgrounds. This calls for a comprehensive examination that candidates have to pass. Unlike the 1920s progressive era desire to screen voters via literacy tests and such, screening of ambitious power hungry candidates will find a lot more support. Relatively unbiased apolitical technical exams can rapidly be formulated and mandated for those who are to appear on the ballot the same way signature collection is.
The difficulty of the examination process can depend on the level of responsibility the candidate will possess. Perhaps the highest offices in the land may mandate taking a general exam, then secondary more closely watched exam for top 10% of scorers, and finally a final filtering test for 10% top scorers of surviving group. The last individuals left standing (say 10 people) can then be put under rigorous investigation of their personal and psychological backgrounds and be made to engage in debates before the public finally votes for who they want.
"But who controls the process! Who makes the exams! Wouldn't rich people just have super specialized prep schools to create super engineers that always pass! We're back to where we started!"
Sigh. The rich ivy leaguers are nowhere near as advantaged under the examination system since they would not get the automatic social networking and money raising boost. The materials to pass would be much more diffused and available in society (unlike the ivy social networking advantage many politicians have that prevents average people from even trying to run for office). This means that more people can try their luck at higher office. Additionally, due to the color blind nature of the meritocratic candidate selection process, the chances are a lot better for a highly qualified individual to make it into the final candidate pool (who would otherwise not get there due to voter bias against race, gender, ethnic group, age, class, etc).
We must keep in mind that the goals of candidate competence and independence from corporate control determine the means of candidate selection. If for example, one looks at a hypothetical proposal where some sort of social networking-video presentation candidate selection method is implemented, it becomes clear that once again the visually presentable and narcissistic are at an advantage. Visual selection of candidates via videos of speeches filters out the potentially far more competent individuals who may be camera shy, not be sufficiently attractive, not possess superb verbal eloquence, and so on. As of today, politics is dominated by extroverted semi psychopathic backstabbing individuals who are very eloquent and presentable. This corporate type led our society to disastrous consequences on a planetary scale. Reducing reliance on video presentation and increasing other ways of evaluation is key.
The exam itself would consist of sections such as systems thinking, civil engineering, organizational architecture, basic materials science, energy science, history, systems analysis, organizational psychology, infrastructure design, etc. If children of rich people do have some advantage of specialized prep schools, so be it, they'll be better occupied than snorting coke and becoming lawyers.
Screening method 2: Psychiatric Exam
This would test candidates for psychopathy using cutting edge medical and psychological means. This is a very serious if not the most critical issue for leadership filtering in terms of preventing damage to society. There has been a substantial volume of literature written in recent years concerning the societal justification for separating psychopathic individuals from vital public organs. Foot in the door towards mass scale screening can start with public school educators. It will be socially doable.
A hypothetical argument against this can be made from certain possibility that as the ability to pass the technical exam increases, the ability to pass the psychiatric one decreases. This may be true to a degree considering schizoidia leaning introverted individuals with low empathy may excel more at engineering and systems analysis the colder their temperaments are. What has to be kept in mind is that a degree of physiologically determined empathy and emotional intelligence is not in conflict with competence but is a significant characteristic of it (especially for a political leader). Even emotionality can be taken into consideration when determining policy in a group context (or even formulating a candidate exam).
The reader can be assured that humanity can overcome the problem of balancing the need to screen out genuine psychopaths (who are not likely to be synonymous with advanced technical/analytic ability to begin with according to Lobaczewski) from the candidate pool while allowing very cold but harmless people to participate in evolution of social policy.
Final thoughts:
It is worth noting that technical and psychological exams can be applied to all levels of public recruitment even if the leadership is still selected completely democratically. A council of engineers instead of council of economists by the side of the mayor, governor, or president would go a long way. Some countries have already engaged in trying to screen out psychopaths during hiring of new police officers. This can be expanded easily to entry level positions within all public hierarchies. If we are to have proper reindustrialization of the Western world, the public cadres must be up to the level of the task.

In Times of Financial Uncertainty and Political Confusion Wise Leaders Need to Get Effective Answers

As soon as I returned from that excellent Day Conference with international leader Gary Kah that I turn to Psalms 120 and 121. We had been hearing about what was going on behind the scenes politically and financially. I have checked up on the various organisation to which he referred and they all exist and they all appear to be involved in what could be classed by that overarching phrase, New World Order.

Psalm 120 encourages us to see things as they really are and one of the lessons in Psalm 121 is "Learning where to get answers". These are vital lessons leaders need to understand and teach.
Do you want answers to some of the serious issues going on the political and financial world? Then, read on. It will not be possible to give a comprehensive answer in one brief article but there is a satisfactory and satisfying answer available. I lift up my eyes to the hills. Where does my help come from? My help comes from the Lord. As we travel along the pilgrim road faith gives rise to many questions. There are problems, struggles, battles and even Jesus Christ had to face Calvary. When troubles come we have to look at little higher than the hills. The Psalmist knew that only too well. We have to look to God, and that is where we learn to get answers. Wise leadership will recognise and share this with others.
In a sense we are not just being given an apple here, but we are being taken into the orchard, where we can eat and be satisfied whenever we have that need. There are three hazards which travellers faced as they ascended the slopes in their approach to Jerusalem and that is the setting for these Psalms calls Songs of Ascent. Travellers could stumble over a stone. They could trip and hurt themselves. Many financial leaders and bankers have done just that over the past year and they have also cause hurt to many others.
Severe exposure to the sun was a real danger. Sever exposure to lust and greed are also real dangers and many have fallen seriously as result of the love of money. To love money is a tragedy of the most immense proportions. That is serious sin And, there was the effect of the moon on the emotional system, and this has been feared for centuries. This is far too serious a subject to be material for humour.
Yes, our God protects us, and watches over us, and shades us from harm.
It is part of life, even as disciples of Jesus Christ, that things can happen to us, physically, and in all kinds of ways. Paul experienced this and so did Peter and John and many others, and men still do. We have to set these words in the whole context of Scripture. This is not 'a being spared' from trials and hardships and sorrows. It is more a reassurance that none of these things can bring us under the domination of sin or Satan. Learn where to get answers and understand how to get answers, especially when it comes to the big issues of life. If you are a leader then exercise sound positive leadership and help those in real trouble at this particular time. Ease the dilemma which many are facing.
Sandy Shaw is Pastor of Nairn Christian Fellowship, Chaplain at Inverness Prison, and Nairn Academy, and serves on The Children's Panel in Scotland, and has travelled extensively over these past years teaching, speaking, in America, Canada, South Africa, Australia, making 12 visits to Israel conducting Tours and Pilgrimages, and most recently in Uganda and Kenya, ministering at Pastors and Leaders Seminars, in the poor areas surrounding Kampala, Nairobi, Mombasa and Kisumu.
His M.A. and B.D. degrees are from The University of Edinburgh, and he continues to run and exercise regularly to maintain a level of physical fitne 

Why TARP Was a Taxpayer Failure But a Political Class Success

Almost two years ago, the political class was in a tizzy, claiming that if the Congress and the President did not immediately pass the massive TARP program to bailout out the country's financial institutions, the entire world banking and economic system would collapse. And when they said immediately, they did not mean in a few months. At that time, the politicians of the time were frantically claiming that the bill had to be passed in a few days, weeks at most, to avoid financial catastrophe.
At the time, however, there were two major questions regarding the haste that the politicians said was required. First, if this disaster was so large and so imminent, how could the political class have been so blind and ignorant not to see it coming? Second, even when the political class has years to study a problem, they rarely get the solutions right so the odds were definitely stacked at them getting a hastily written, voted, and implemented TARP right, both from a waste and fraud perspective.
Now that we are almost two years removed from the TARP implementation, it might be a good time to see if the program actually did any good and whether or not the hundreds of billions of dollars involved were well spent. Now, I am not an expert on sophisticated financial and government Treasury concepts, I am ignorant of what the warrants were that the Treasury Department purchased, and other high finance tools. However, I do understand the following facts:
- According to Wikipedia, the TARP legislation was signed on October 3, 2008.
- Fortune magazine reported on October 29, 2008, that the biggest financial institutions received their first TARP payments.
- On June 17, 2009, a New York Times article reported that JP Morgan and nine other banks had already repaid their TARP money.
- In that article, JP Morgan chief executive, Jamie Dimon, said that his bank never needed the money in the first place.
- A similar article on CNNMoney.com reported that Chicago based bank, Northern Trust, also confirmed it was going to pay back the Treasury Department the $10 billion TARP payment it received. However, contrast this action with a recent article in the August 16, 2010 issue of Fortune Magazine which stated that Northern Trust has had twenty two consecutive years of profits (including the years of "The Great Recession"), it's savings deposits were up 50% in 2009 vs. 2008, and during the financial crisis, Northern Trust customers waited in long lines to deposit about $90 million a day that those customers were bringing in from other financial institutions.
- This CNNMoney.com article also reported that the larger lenders had been working hard to get out from under the TARP requirements and restrictions for several months and that many had raised billions of dollars in fresh capital ands had issued debt without government backing.
- Several months prior to the onset of the TARP payments, the Associated Press reported that many of the big financial institutions that received government bailout money had made big contributions to each political party's Presidential convention. Four of these companies alone, AIG, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Freddie Mac donated a combined $3.1 million. Note that three of these four, the exception being Goldman Sachs, turned out to be in the most dire financial straits when the the bailout money became available.
- The Center For Responsive Politics posted an interesting article on its website on February 4, 2009 which listed out how much money each financial institution received from the TARP fund and how much money those companies had spent in lobbyist expenses and campaign contributions, contributions that were made to the very same people in Congress who would decide how much taxpayer bailout money those companies would receive. According to the website, "members of Congress were able to specify to some extent where the money should go, and they have lobbied regulators to urge them to inject funds into specific banks and financial institutions including those in their own districts." In other words, taxpayer money was not distributed on need and merits but on political considerations.
- The article goes on to say that some of the top recipients of campaign donations from those companies were the people in the most powerful positions in Congress to decide where TARP money went.
The article's analysis shows that, with some exceptions, those companies with the highest amount of money spent on campaign donations and lobbying received the most TARP money.
- News reports have already reported that at least two members of Congress, a Hawaiian Senator and a California Congresswoman, allegedly and personally lobbied the Treasury Department to save local banks in which these two members of Congress held considerable personal financial stakes.
- A Huffington Post article from November, 2009 reported that the TARP Inspector general was actively investigating 65 cases of fraud regarding TARP payments.
- And finally, an article in the August 16, 2010 issue of Fortune magazine wrote about how "upstart investment banks are taking business and bankers from battered larger competitors." In other words, new financial institutions have sprung up to fill the void left by the demise of failed financial institutions. It's called the free market.
What should we conclude from these know facts? With all due respect to those that think TARP saved the world, we really should conclude that TARP was an unnecessary waste of taxpayer money. Consider the following conclusions:
- Within three or four months of receiving the billions of dollars from the government, most financial institutions were already working on ways to give it back, mostly succeeding, by June, 2009, barely seven months after the program began. If these financial institutions were in such bad shape, how were they able to pay back the money so quickly? I think the Jamie Dimon quote above says it all, many of the financial institutions really did not need the money. I believe they thought they were getting a free lunch and belatedly found out how many restrictions came with the bailout, including the all important executive compensations limits, and quickly decided that this was not a free lunch after all. This conclusion is confirmed by Northern Trust's performance through the past few years, they continued to thrive despite the recession, maintaining their two decade run of profitability. They also could not wait to return the unnecessary money.
- A cynic could conclude that the political class saw an opportunity in two areas. First, they could use taxpayer money to both pay back those banks that had helped them celebrate and party at their Presidential conventions and and also provide themselves a new source of slush fund campaign donations, directing TARP money to those companies that donated the most to their re-election campaigns. Second, some politicians saw an opportunity to bailout local banks to the politicians' personal benefit. Neither of these factors were to save the world's financial markets, it was to benefit the political class.
- A free market advocate would step back from the tizzies and realize that there were just a few financial institutions that actually were in deep, deep trouble. Nowhere above do you see where Bank of America and Citigroup were first in line to pay back their TARP money. These two banks probably were in serious danger of bankruptcy but their horrendous business performance was saved by the American taxpayer, i.e. they and their shareholders were rewarded for the incompetence of their management. If you believe the first conclusion above, most banks did not need the bailout, then we should have allowed Citi and Bank of America to crumble and fail, it's a natural process in the free market. Or, they themselves could have taken drastic steps that other companies take when in financial straits (e.g. lay off employees, cut dividends, sell more stock, sell off assets, look for someone to buy them, etc.) in order to raise money to get out of debt. At least them the shareholders would have suffered the pain, not the taxpayer. They made bad business decisions they should have went out of business, and allowing for more efficient and smarter competitors to take over their business or for new competitors, as listed in the Fortune article mentioned above, to arise from the ashes to start doing business. There would have been plenty of healthy financial institutions, new and old, to take up the slack if Citi or Bank of America failed.
- Given that there are dozens of cases of fraud being investigated, it is also probably a safe bet that many of the smaller TARP recipients did not need the bailout money from a bank operations perspective but the owners of those smaller banks so the opportunity to defraud the government and its taxpayers.
Fraud, lack of respect for the free market to take care of the strong businesses and punish the weak ones, a new source of campaign funding for politicians, and a potential source of free money, courtesy of the American taxpayer, were the reasons for TARP's existence, not the saving of the world's banking system. A lot of this waste from TARP is driven by insipid relationship between campaign donations, politicians, and companies. That is why the implementation of term limits for Congressional members is so important. Term limits would remove the incentive for politicians to use taxpayer money to fund their re-election campaigns, to the detriment of the American taxpayer.