Financing the Danish home

There is a surprising (to me at least) variety of ways that countries address the common problem of financing the purchase of residential property. To date, I have mostly approached the question from the perspective of trying to understand differences in mortgage risk weights across different banks in Australia (see here). The topic also has implications for cross border comparisons of capital adequacy ratios (see here and here).

Marc Rubinstein wrote a great piece looking at the mysteries of the the 30-year fixed-rate fully prepayable mortgage that finances the majority of home purchases in America. Marc noted in passing that Denmark is the only other country that offers a comparable form of mortgage financing. That is broadly true but I think the Danish mortgage financing system has some distinct and intriguing features of its own. A paper published by the New York Fed in 2018 comparing the US and Danish mortgage systems has been especially useful in gaining some deeper insights into the different ways that countries solve the residential property finance challenge.

This extract from the New York Fed paper gives you a flavour of the history and main features of the Danish system

In Denmark, mortgage lending has long been dominated by specialized mortgage banks. Denmark’s first mortgage bank was established in 1797, and Nykredit, the country’s largest mortgage bank today, traces its origins to 1851 (Møller and Nielsen 1997). Originally, these firms were set up as mutual mortgage credit associations with a local focus. But several waves of mergers—some encouraged or even prescribed by their then-regulator—led to the formation of the handful of large mortgage banks that today dominate mortgage lending in Denmark.


Because the original mortgage credit associations were founded by borrowers, lending terms were to a large extent designed to reflect borrowers’ objectives and interests. At the same time, the associations needed to build trust among the investors in covered bonds, and this led to a business model aimed at balancing borrower and investor interests (Møller and Nielsen 1997).

Key aspects of this business model included:

# Mortgage lenders could not call for early redemption of a loan unless the borrower became delinquent.

# Investors could not call the covered bonds.

# Homeowners had a right to prepay the mortgage loan at par on any payment day without penalty.

# Homeowners were personally liable for the mortgage debt.

# Homeowners were jointly and severally liable for the covered bonds issued by the mortgage credit association.

# Mortgage margins could be increased for the entire stock of mortgage loans—for example, if needed in order to increase capitalization or cover loan losses.

# Strict lending guidelines were instituted that were regulated by law (maximum LTV ratio, maximum maturity, and so forth).

With the exception of joint and several liability, these principles still apply to mortgage banks today.

Berg J, Baekmand Nielsen M, and Vickery J, “Peas in a Pod? Comparing the U.S. and Danish Mortgage Financing Systems”, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review 24, no. 3, December 2018

The paper summarises the comparison between the two systems as follows

The U.S. and Danish mortgage finance models both rely heavily on capital markets to fund residential mortgages, transferring interest rate and prepayment risk, but not credit risk, to investors. But in Denmark, homeowners can buy back their mortgages or transfer them in a property sale, avoiding the “lock-in” effects present in the U.S. system, and easier refinancing reduces defaults and speeds the transmission of lower interest rates in a downturn. Denmark’s tighter underwriting standards and strong creditor protections help limit credit losses, while its higher capital requirements make lenders more stable.

Worth reading.

Tony – From the Outside

Financing the American home

Marc Rubinstein has written a short piece on his “Net Interest blog” outlining some of the mysteries of the the 30-year fixed-rate fully prepayable mortgage that finances the majority of home purchases in America. Rubinstein draws on Bethany McLean (Shaky Ground: The Strange Saga of the US Mortgage Giants) and Sarah Quinn (Government Policy, Housing, and the Origins of Securitization, 1780 – 1968) as well as his own experience as an investor in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac junior preferreds (2011 – 2019).

This short extract will give you a flavour of of the piece but I recommend reading it in full

From the consumer’s perspective, it’s an amazing product. It’s a simple loan that offers stable repayments, kept low because they are spread out over such a long period of time. Its kicker is a free option to prepay, which shields the borrower from interest rate risk. If rates go up, borrowers can commend themselves on a great bargain; if they go down, stay calm—the loan can be refinanced without penalty. Win/win.

All the characteristics that make it terrific for the consumer make it terrible for a traditional lender. Thirty years is a long time to have something sitting on your balance sheet, watching the credit risk compound. Especially something that’s loaded with as much interest rate risk as this. If it’s win/win for the consumer, somebody has to be on the other side of that trade.

Sustaining such a one-sided design clearly requires work. An entire ecosystem of complex financial instruments provides one layer of support. But underneath that sits another: the US government, which now controls two-thirds of the market. By removing the credit risk and dispersing the interest rate risk inherent in long-term fixed-rate mortgages, the US government gives them life. As Bethany McLean says, they “accomplished something that Rumpelstiltskin would envy. They took the worst possible investment – a 30-year fixed-rate fully prepayable mortgage – and turned it into the second most liquid instrument in the world, just behind Treasuries.”

To many, the idea that the US, a beacon of the free market, should support its mortgage market so directly seems odd. The former Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, once remarked: “You Americans are so strange. Most countries have socialised healthcare and a private market in mortgages. You have socialised mortgages and a private market in healthcare.”

Tony – From the Outside

Friedman’s Legacy: From Doctrine to Theorem

This essay by Luigi Zingales (University of Chicago – Booth School of Business) offers a useful assessment of the rights and wrongs of Friedman’s shareholder responsibility doctrine.

Zingales argues that part of the problem with Friedman is that his argument is treated as a statement of doctrine to which one pledges allegiance as opposed to a theorem that can be used to analyse and understand what is happening in the real world.

Zingales therefore restates Friedman as a theorem for analysing the conditions under which it would be socially optimal for corporate executives to focus solely on maximising corporate profits. He refers to this as the “Friedman Separation Theorem” and argues that it holds if the following three conditions are met:

First, companies should operate in a competitive environment, which I will define as firms being both price and rules takers. Second, there should not be externalities (or the government should be able to address perfectly these externalities through regulation and taxation). Third, contracts are complete, in the sense that we can specify in a contract all relevant contingencies at no cost.

“Friedman’s Legacy: From Doctrine to Theorem” – Zingales – Pro Market 13 Oct 2020

Whether you agree or disagree with it, one of the great attractions of this doctrine/theorem is that it makes the life of a corporate executive much simpler. That gives the idea an obvious appeal.

Zingales notes that on a technical level, the Friedman Separation Theorem is a restatement of what economists refer to as the “First Welfare Theorem” (also known as the “Invisible Hand Theorem”) which holds that markets produce socially optimal outcomes under certain conditions.

Zingales argues that Friedman also recognised that he needed something catchier for his argument to impact public debate so he framed the argument around an appeal to the core American values of freedom, independence and the principle of “no taxation without representation” embedded in the story of the American Revolution.

Zingales works through each of the three assumptions he has identified as underpinning the Friedman Separation Theorem, highlighting the ways in which the are not valid descriptions of how the economy actually operates.

Zingales sums up his review by posing the question how should we interpret the practical implications of Friedman’s idea in 2020? His answer has two legs. Firstly he argues that we need to distinguish between small to medium size companies and their larger cousins which have power in various forms:

If you are a small to medium-sized company, .., a company with no market power and no real power to influence regulation or elections, maximizing shareholder welfare is the right goal to follow. Especially if this goal is pursued with attention not only to legal rules but also ethical customs, like Friedman advocated, but most companies ignored.

However, Zingales argues that we should also recognise the limitations of the Friedman Separation Theorem when we are dealing with corporate entities, and their executives, which have real power.

When it comes to super corporations, corporations that have market power, like Google and Facebook, or political power, like BlackRock or JP Morgan, or regulatory power, like DuPont or Monsanto, a single-minded pursuit of shareholder value maximization can be extremely bad for society.

This, Zingales argues, is the reason why he and Oliver Hart have advocated requiring boards of monopolies, like Google, or of firms too big to regulate, like Blackrock, to maximize social welfare, the utility of society as a whole, not shareholder welfare.

Zingales concludes that “Friedman was more right than his detractors claim and more wrong than his supporters would like us to believe”:

His “theorem” has greatly contributed to determining when maximizing shareholder value is good for society and when it is not. The discipline imposed by Friedman’s theorem also forces greater accountability on managers. In the world of 2020, the biggest shareholder in most corporations is all of us, who have their pension money invested in stocks. We are the real silent majority. Corporate managers finance political candidates, lobby for self-serving legislation, and capture regulation. They have the power to use our money to fight against our own interest. While Friedman did not anticipate these degenerations, he warned us against the risk of unaccountable managers. This warning will remain his most enduring contribution.

Irrespective of whether you agree or disagree with the proposed solution to the big company problem, Zingales essay is one of the better contributions to the Corporate Social Responsibility and Shareholder Value Maximisation debate that I have come across. It is a short read but worth it.

For anyone wanting to dig deeper, the collection of 27 essays that Zingales references in his essay can be found here.

Tony – From the Outside

What is the alternative to Friedman’s capitalism?

I have been digging into the debate about what Milton Friedman got right and wrong about the social responsibility of business. I am still in the process of organising my thoughts but this discussion on the “Capitalisn’t” podcast is, I think, worth listening to for anyone interested in the questions that Friedman’s 1970 essay raises.

You can find the podcast here

podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/what-is-the-alternative-to-friedmans-capitalism/id1326698855

Tony – From the Outside

Why ESG Investors Are Happy to Settle for Lower Returns – Knowledge@Wharton

I recently flagged a post by Aswath Damodaran on his “Musings on Markets” blog which offered a sceptical perspective on the claims being made in favour of ESG based investing.

The Knowledge at Wharton website has a summary of some research that offers another perspective on ESG and Socially Responsible investment approaches. The research is described as providing “… a theoretical framework for how ESG (environmental, social and governance) investing affects stock prices and corporate behavior.”

The research paper is behind a paywall but you can find the Knowledge at Wharton summary here – knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/esg-investors-happy-settle-lower-returns/

Tony – From the Outside

Corporate social responsibility – going back to the source

The 50th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s 1970 essay has triggered a deluge of commentary celebrating or critiquing the ideas it proposed. My bias probably swings to the “profit maximisation is not the entire answer” side of the debate but I recognised that I had not actually read the original essay. Time, I thought, to go back to the source and see what Friedman actually said.

I personally found this exercise useful because I realised that some of the commentary I had been reading was quoting him out of context or otherwise reading into his essay ideas that I am not sure he would have endorsed. I will leave my comment on the merits of his doctrine to another post.

Friedman’s doctrine of the limits of corporate social responsibility

Friedman’s famous (or infamous) conclusion is that in a “free” society…

there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception fraud.”

My more detailed notes on what Friedman wrote can be found here. That note includes lengthy extracts from the essay so that you can fact check my paraphrasing of what he said. My summary of his argument as I understand it runs as follows:

  • Friedman first seeks to establish that any meaningful discussion of social responsibility has to focus on the people who own or manage the business, not “the business” itself.
  • If we focus on the corporate executives who manage the business as agents of the shareholders, Friedman argues that these executive should only use the resources of a company to pursue the objectives set by their “employer” (i.e. the shareholders).
  • What do the shareholders want the business to do?
  • Friedman acknowledges that some may have different objectives but he assumes that profit maximisation constrained by the laws and ethical customs of the society in which they operate will be goal of most shareholders
  • The key point however is that corporate executives have no authority or right to pursue any objectives other than those defined by their employer (the shareholders) or which otherwise serve the interests of those people.
  • Friedman also argues that the expansion of social responsibilities introduces conflicts of interest into the management of the business without offering any guide or proper process for resolving them. Having multiple (possibly ill defined and conflicting) objectives is, Friedman argues, a recipe for giving executives an excuse to underperform.
  • Friedman acknowledges that corporate executives have the right to pursue whatever social responsibilities they choose in their private lives but, as corporate executives, their personal objectives must be subordinated to the responsibility to achieve the objectives of the shareholders, their ultimate employers.
  • It is important to understand how Friedman defined the idea of a corporate executive having a “social responsibility”. He argues that the concept is only meaningful if it creates a responsibility that is not consistent with the interests of their employer.
  • Friedman might be sceptical on the extent to which it is true, but my read of his essay is that he is not disputing the rights of a business to contribute to social and environmental goals that management believe are congruent with the long term profitability of the business.
  • Friedman argues that the use of company resources to pursue a social responsibility raises problematic political questions on two levels: principle and consequences.
  • On the level of POLITICAL PRINCIPLE, Friedman uses the rhetorical device of treating the exercise of social responsibility by a corporate executive as equivalent to the imposition of a tax
  • But it is intolerable for Friedman that this political power can be exercised by a corporate executive without the checks and balances that apply to government and government officials dealing with these fundamentally political choices.
  • On the grounds of CONSEQUENCES, Friedman questions whether the corporate executives have the knowledge and expertise to discharge the “social responsibilities” they have assumed on behalf of society. Poor consequences are acceptable if the executive is spending their own time and money but unacceptable as a point of principle when using someone else’s time and money.
  • Friedman cites a list of social challenges that he argues are likely to lay outside the domain of a corporate executive’s area of expertise
  • Private competitive enterprise is for Friedman the best way to make choices about how to allocate resources in society. This is because it forces people to be responsible for their own actions and makes it difficult for them to exploit other people for either selfish or unselfish purposes.
  • Friedman considers whether some social problems are too urgent to be left to the political process but dismisses this argument on two counts. Firstly because he is suspicious about how genuine the commitment to “social responsibility” really is but mostly because he is fundamentally committed to the principle that these kinds of social questions should be decided by the political process.
  • Friedman acknowledges that his doctrine makes it harder for good people to do good but that, he argues, is a “small price” to pay to avoid the greater evil of being forced to conform to an objective you as an individual do not agree with.
  • Friedman also considers the idea that shareholders can themselves choose to contribute to social causes but dismisses it. This is partly because he believes that these “choices” are forced on the majority by the shareholder activists but also because he believes that using the “cloak of social responsibility” to rationalise these choices undermines the foundations of a free society.
  • That is a big statement – how does he justify it?
  • He starts by citing a list of ways in which socially responsible actions can be argued (or rationalised) to be in the long-run interests of a corporation.
  • Friedman acknowledges that corporate executives are well within their rights to take “socially responsible” actions if they believe that their company can benefit from this “hypocritical window dressing”.
  • Friedman notes the irony of expecting business to exercise social responsibility by foregoing these short term benefits but argues that using the “cloak of social responsibility” in this way harms the foundations of a free society
  • Friedman cites the calls for wage and price controls (remember this was written in 1970) as one example of the way in which social responsibility can undermine a free society
  • But he also sees the trend for corporate executives to embrace social responsibility as part of a wider movement that paints the pursuit of profit as “wicked and immoral”. A free enterprise, market based, society is central to Friedman’s vision of a politically free society and must be defended to the fullest extent possible.
  • Here Friedman expands on the principles behind his commitment to the market mechanism as an instrument of freedom – in particular the principle of “unanimity” under which the market coordinates the needs and wants of individuals and no one is compelled to do something against their perceived interests.
  • He contrasts this with the principle of “conformity” that underpins the political mechanism.
  • In Friedman’s ideal world, all decisions would be based on the principle of unanimity but he acknowledges that this is not always possible.
  • He argues that the line needs to be drawn when the doctrine of “social responsibility” extends the political mechanisms of conformity and coercion into areas which can be addressed by the market mechanism.
Friedman concludes by labelling “social responsibility” a “fundamentally subversive doctrine”.

But the doctrine of “social responsibility” taken seriously would extend the scope of the political mechanism to every human activity. It does not differ in philosophy from the most explicitly collectivist doctrine. It differs only by professing to believe that collectivist ends can be attained without collectivist means.

That is why, in my book “Capitalism and Freedom,” I have called it a “fundamentally subversive doctrine” in a free society, and have said that in such a society, “there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception fraud.”

Hopefully what I have set out above offers a fair and unbiased account of what Friedman actually said. If not then tell me what I missed. I think he makes a number of good points but, as stated at the beginning of this post, I am not comfortable with the conclusions that he draws. I am working on a follow up post where I will attempt to deconstruct the essay and set out my perspective on the questions he sought to address.

Tony – From the Outside

A sceptical look at ESG

Anyone with more than a casual interest in business will be familiar with the increased focus on Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) issues. There are sound arguments being made on both sides of the debate but I will admit upfront that I approach the topic with a somewhat ESG positive bias. Given my bias, it is all the more important to pay attention to what the sceptics are calling out rather than looking for affirmation amongst the true believers.

A post by Aswath Damodaran titled “Sounding good or Doing good? A Skeptical Look at ESG” is one of the better contributions to the ESG debate that I have encountered. I discussed one of his earlier contributions to the debate here and it is clear that he is not a fan of ESG. I am still working through his arguments but I like the analytical framework he employs and the way in which he supports his arguments with evidence.

I intend to do a couple of posts digging down into the ESG debate using Damodaran’s post and few other sources but want to start by laying out his arguments with some very limited comments.

Damodaran starts by framing ESG as part of a tradition of business ideas that have tended to prove to be more noise than substance, describing the ESG “sales pitch” as follows

“Companies that improve their social goodness standing will not only become more profitable and valuable over time, we are told, but they will also advance society’s best interests, thus resolving one of the fundamental conflicts of private enterprise, while also enriching investors”

There is no doubt that ESG, like many other business ideas, is prone to being over-hyped. There is room to take issue with the question of whether this is a fair description of the ESG movement as a whole. My gut feel is that presenting the “sales pitch” version is not representative of ESG advocates who genuinely believe that ESG can address problems in the ways the market currently operate, but it will be more productive to focus on the specific weaknesses that Damodaran discusses.

Damodaran starts with the problem of measurement

“Any attempts to measure environment and social goodness face two challenges. 

– The first is that much of social impact is qualitative, and developing a numerical value for that impact is difficult to do. 

– The second is even trickier, which is that there is little consensus on what social impacts to measure, and the weights to assign to them.”  

Assuming the measurement issues can be resolved, the second problem is identifying exactly how incorporating ESG factors into the business model or strategy contributes to improving the value of a company. Damodaran uses the following generic model of value drivers to explore this question

Figure 1: The Drivers of Value

Using this framework, Damodaran identifies two ways in which a company can derive benefits from incorporating ESG principles into its business strategy

  1. Goodness is rewarded – i.e. companies behave in a socially responsible way because it creates positive outcomes for their business
  2. Badness is punished – i.e. companies behave in a socially responsible way because bad behaviour is punished

Damodaran also identifies a third scenario in which “The bad guys win”

“In this scenario, bad companies mouth platitudes about social responsibility and environmental consciousness without taking any real action, but customers buy their products and services, either because they are cheaper or because of convenience, employees continue to work for them because they can earn more at these companies or have no options, and investors buy their shares because they deliver higher profits. As a result, bad companies may score low on corporate responsibility scales, but they will score high on profitability and stock price performance.”

Damodaran argues that the evidence supports the following conclusions:

  1. A weak link to profitability

“There are meta studies (summaries of all other studies) that  summarize hundreds of ESG research papers, and find a small positive link between ESG and profitability, but one that is very sensitive to how profits are measured and over what period, leading one of these studies to conclude that “citizens looking for solutions from any quarter to cure society’s pressing ills ought not appeal to financial returns alone to mobilize corporate involvement”. Breaking down ESG into its component parts, some studies find that environment (E) offered the strongest positive link to performance and social (S) the weakest, with governance (G) falling in the middle.”

2) A stronger link to funding costs

Studies of “sin” stocks, i.e., companies involved in businesses such as producing alcohol, tobacco, and gaming, find that these stocks are less commonly held by institutions, and that they face higher costs for funding, from equity and debt). The evidence for this is strongest in sectors like tobacco (starting in the 1990s) and fossil fuels (especially in the last decade), but these findings come with a troubling catch. While these companies face higher costs, and have lower value, investors in these companies will generate higher returns from holding these stocks.”

3) Some evidence that ESG focussed companies do reduce their risk of failure or exposure to disaster risk

“An alternate reason why companies would want to be “good” is that “bad” companies are exposed to disaster risks, where a combination of missteps by the company, luck, and a failure to build in enough protective controls (because they cost too much) can cause a disaster, either in human or financial terms. That disaster can not only cause substantial losses for the company, but the collateral reputation damage created can have long term consequences. One study created a value-weighted portfolio of controversial firms that had a history of violating ESG rules, and reported negative excess returns of 3.5% on this portfolio, even after controlling for risk, industry, and company characteristics. The conclusion in this study was that these lower excess returns are evidence that being socially irresponsible is costly for firms, and that markets do not fully incorporate the consequences of bad corporate behavior. The push back from skeptics is that not all firms that behave badly get embroiled in controversy, and it is possible that looking at just firms that are controversial creates a selection bias that explains the negative returns.”

Damodaran sums up his argument

“There is a weak link between ESG and operating performance (growth and profitability), and while some firms benefit from being good, many do not. Telling firms that being socially responsible will deliver higher growth, profits and value is false advertising. The evidence is stronger that bad firms get punished, either with higher funding costs or with a greater incidence of disasters and shocks. ESG advocates are on much stronger ground telling companies not to be bad, than telling companies to be good. In short, expensive gestures by publicly traded companies to make themselves look “good” are futile, both in terms of improving performance and delivering returns.”

There is a lot more to say on this topic. The evidence that certain types of companies do get punished for failing to be socially responsible is especially interesting. I see a fair degree of cynicism applied to the ESG stance adopted by the Australia banks but I suspect they are a good example of the type of company that will in fact benefit from making real investments in socially responsible business strategies.

Tony – From the Outside

Martin Wolf discussing the history of how we got to here

podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/economics-beyond-with-rob-johnson/id1509092730

This interview with Rob Johnson (Institute for New Economic Thinking) does not contain any revelations but it does offer a good history of the politics of how the financial system was deregulated.

Tony – From the Outside

Restructuring Basel’s capital buffers

Douglas Elliott at Oliver Wyman has written a short post which I think makes a useful contribution to the question of whether the capital buffers in the BCBS framework are serving their intended purpose.

The short version is that he argues the Countercyclical Capital Buffer (CCyB) has worked well while the Capital Conservation Buffer (CCB) has not. The solution he proposes is that the “the Basel Committee should seriously consider shrinking the CCB and transferring the difference into a target level of the CCyB in normal times”. Exactly how much is up for debate but he uses an example where the base rate for the CCyB is 1.0% and the CCB is reduced by the same amount to maintain the status quo.

The idea of having a non-zero CCyB as the default setting is not new. The Bank of England released a policy statement in April 2016 that had a non zero CCyB at its centre (I wrote about that approach in this post from April 2018). What distinguishes Elliott’s proposal is that he argues that the increased CCyB should be seeded by a transfer from the CCB. While I agree with many of his criticisms of the CCB (mostly that it is simply not usable in practice), my own view is that a sizeable CCB offers a margin of safety that offers a useful second line of defence against the risk that a bank breaches its minimum capital requirement. My perspective is heavily influenced by a concern that both bankers and supervisors are prone to underestimate the extent to which they face an uncertain world.

For anyone interested, this post sets out my views on how the cyclical capital buffer framework should be constructed and calibrated. This issue is especially relevant for Australian banks because APRA has an unresolved discussion paper which includes a proposal to increase the size of the capital buffers the Australian banks are expected to maintain. I covered that discussion paper here. A speech that APRA Chair Wayne Byres gave in May 2020 covering some of the things APRA had learned from dealing with the economic fallout of COVID-19 is also worth checking out (covered in this post).

Tony – From the Outside