Two more reasons why investors shouldn't trust governments

By MoneyWeek Editor John Stepek Dec 02, 2009

John Stepek

Share with
friends:

Comments (8) Print this article

The key lesson from the Dubai debacle is this: don't put your faith in governments.

Earlier this week, the Dubai government said that it didn't have to stand behind Dubai World, its commercial arm. And, it said, if investors had only read the small print, they'd have known that all along.

But investors hadn't read the small print. They'd assumed that state-owned meant state-backed. And no one had said anything to dissuade them during the good times.

It goes to show the dangers of trying to invest alongside the government. And it's not restricted to Dubai.

In fact, over here in Britain, RBS shareholders have just had a nasty reminder that government promises are frequently broken...

Investors can't trust governments

Dubai's decision not to stand behind Dubai World clearly came as a big surprise to some investors, as the market reaction last week showed. But it's a reminder of one of the most important rules when doing any deal: "always get it in writing".

As David Robertson points out in The Times, "in the past loans had been arranged on 'a nod and a wink' because it was assumed that state-owned companies would be backed by their governments." Not any more (at least, not until the next big bull market, or until Abu Dhabi bails them out).

It's a reminder that as an investor, you can't trust governments. That's not cynicism speaking, it's just the way things are. A government's job is not to serve shareholders or bondholders in a specific company. Its main goal – democracy or dictatorship – is to stay in power for as long as possible. This goal doesn't always coincide with the best interests of the companies it runs, as Royal Bank of Scotland shareholders have just discovered.

RBS institutional shareholders are up in arms over the government's demand to have approval over both the structure and size of this year's bonus payouts. They put forward all the usual arguments – it'll be hard to hold on to good staff, pay decisions can't be dictated by the government, etc. But regardless of what you think of the rights and wrongs of these arguments, it's hard to have sympathy for anyone still hanging on to RBS shares.

RBS is 70% owned by the government, and is dependent on it for its continued existence. More than any other British bank, it symbolises the folly of the banking sector and the huge costs that have been dumped on British taxpayers.

Sure, Lloyds is heavily government owned too. But at least Lloyds has some political leverage, in that it only sank itself because it stupidly agreed to do the government a favour and mop up the toxic mess that was HBOS.


Special FREE report from MoneyWeek magazine: When will house prices bottom out - and how will you know?

  • Why UK property prices are going to fall 50%
  • When it will be time to get back in and buy up half price property


RBS - a political football

But RBS beat its own path to hell. So you'd have to be naïve in the extreme to imagine that the bank wouldn't become a political football. And with 'ordinary' people up in arms over bonuses being paid out by banks which have chewed up billions in taxpayers' money, this is the high-visibility issue that the government really cares about, regardless of the impact on the overall business.

The pro-bonus arguments do seem somewhat overstated. How much genuine star 'talent' is left at RBS anyway? Most financial whizzkids would surely have recognised the dangers inherent in working for what is, in all but name, a nationalised bank. I'd be surprised if all the top headhunter fodder hadn't already been poached by other banks. And the list of countries for disillusioned financiers to flee to is shrinking by the day. When the initial furore over bonuses began, many threatened to head to Dubai. You won't be hearing that particular threat for a long time.

Of course the government shouldn't be directly setting pay policies in what is ostensibly still a private sector company. That should be up to management and the shareholders. But with a 70% holding, like it or not, the government owns RBS, just like it owns the NHS, and the school system. It can do what it wants with it. Not all of those decisions will be sensible ones. And as we can see from the way the public sector works, most decisions will be made on the basis of maximising short-term political gain, rather than shareholder returns, or efficiency, or customer satisfaction. But the minority shareholders should have known that from the minute RBS went bust.

Avoid gilts and buy gold

This is one reason why at MoneyWeek, we prefer to invest in markets that aren't being manipulated by governments. For example, we don't like the market for UK government debt (gilts). As well as being historically over-priced, we don't like the idea that ongoing demand turns largely upon the Bank of England's next decision on quantitative easing.

And it's one reason that we do like gold. As my colleague Dominic Frisby regularly points out, unlike paper money, gold's value isn't dependent on a government promise. Gold's rising price is largely because investors are concerned, not about inflation or deflation as such, but about the undermining of paper currencies.

Getting back to the Dubai situation, investors already seem to be sweeping it under the carpet somewhat. But a lot of promises that couldn't be kept were made during the bull market. We suspect Dubai is far from being the last nasty shock of the credit crunch. We've more on Dubai in this week's edition of MoneyWeek magazine, out on Friday – if you're not already a subscriber, claim your first three issues free here.

Our recommended article for today

Debt will drag the dollar down

America's debt is spiralling out of control, and the risk of default is increasing. Porter Stansberry explains why, what that means for the dollar - and your investments.

Comments (8)

Share with
friends:

Comments

  • 1. terry

    (02 December 2009, 11:40AM)  Complain about this comment

    everybody is saying that the best current investment is gold and could go as high as $5000, in the future, so my question is where is the best place or company to invest with as there are so many

  • 2. val

    (02 December 2009, 11:57AM)  Complain about this comment

    My question is - is it safe to buy gold stored in the UK or would Zurich gold be safer - in case our government chose to plunder it?

  • 3. Andrew

    (02 December 2009, 12:09PM)  Complain about this comment

    Good article on America's short term debt problems.

    Would be very interested to see a quick review of where UK plc sits w.r.t. the "Greenspan-Guidotti rule" - how do our hard currency reserves stack up against our short-term foreign debt maturities?

    Something for a future Money Morning?

    Thanks.

  • 4. gotgold

    (02 December 2009, 03:55PM)  Complain about this comment

    John,
    Dubai never promised that it would back anything and it acted responsibly in the interest of its shareholders - the ruling emir and his interests. Why is that so surprising when a company does the same.

    Next RBS sucked. completely different situation from Dubai. The UK govt did not roll heads as I would have it I had invested 45 billion of my money. The govt is enforcing bonus rules as agreed at G20. What did you think the G20 was ? All the suckers who blew up billions can go look for an interesting job in serving tables or polishing shoes. That is quite some talent. let me know who is hiring there.

  • 5. Roberto Birquet

    (02 December 2009, 04:46PM)  Complain about this comment

    Whereas leaving markets, with such astute agents as bankers, corporate borrowers, house buyers and the rest of the human chain of irrresponsibility, to get on with it unhindered is evidently how an economy should be run.

    For pity's sake, change the record!

    We need to find a more productive balance between government and the markets, and not rabbit on with our political prejudices.

  • 6. NVP

    (03 December 2009, 09:01AM)  Complain about this comment


    John - forget even getting it on paper anymore if a government or company goes bancrupt the legal agreement is worth nothing !

    NVP

  • 7. NVP

    (03 December 2009, 09:03AM)  Complain about this comment

    answer to comment 1 in this thread...?

    Terry - I would advise the compnay to invest in itself.....

    NVP

  • 8. Jeremy

    (03 December 2009, 10:48AM)  Complain about this comment

    I agree with Andrew (3) and would very much like to see a follow-up article now that shows how the UK rates when you apply the "Greenspan-Guidotti rule". How 'bout it guys?

Leave a comment

This will be the name displayed with your comment.

This helps us verify comments are genuine. It will not be displayed anywhere on the site and is stored confidentially.

Please keep your comment within 1,000 characters and relevant to the main topic. We encourage healthy debate, but we don't allow insults or bad language. Anything off topic or unpleasant, we'll remove. Enjoy the conversation! Thank you.

captcha To prevent spam-related comments please enter the characters shown in the 'Captcha' box to the left.

By leaving a comment you accept our terms and conditions.


FREE - MoneyWeek's daily investment emailJohn Stepek

Our free daily email, Money Morning, is an informative and enjoyable analysis of what's going on in the markets. Written by our Editor, John Stepek, and guest contributors.
Sign up FREE to Money Morning here.

>