Opinion

Felix Salmon

CEOs: Founders beat out managers

Felix Salmon
Nov 5, 2009 16:33 UTC

We’re less than two months from a New Year’s where a 9 ticks over into a 0, and so that means all manner of decade retrospectives. (And still we haven’t come up with a name for this decade!) Fortune is getting into the game early, naming Steve Jobs its CEO of the decade, for his work at Apple.

What’s more interesting to me is the list of 12 “also-rans” for the title: Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Warren Buffett, Bernie Madoff, Carlos Slim, Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, Andy Fastow, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Alan Greenspan, and Martha Stewart. Five of the 12 aren’t CEOs at all (Page, Brin, Skilling, Fastow, Greenspan); and not a single one of the 12 is a CEO who was hired to run a company by its board of directors.

Jobs, by contrast, is such a CEO, in a manner of speaking: although he did found Apple, he sold all his shares when he was ousted in the 80s, and was hired back by Apple’s board. (As a result, he’s made more money from Pixar than he has from Apple.)

It’s natural for company founders to give themselves the CEO job. But how come all of Fortune’s top CEOs seem to be founders, and none of them are in the much more common position of having been hired, by the board, to run the company?

COMMENT

Probably because there’s a vaccuum of true leaders in this planet now, evident from the crisis we’ve just been. No wonder founders/entrepreneurs have that intrinsic leadership in them that lifts them to Fortune 500 group.

Those lucrative interest-rate hedges

Felix Salmon
Nov 5, 2009 15:05 UTC

Peter Eavis notes something quite astonishing today:

The interest rate on [Goldman's] long-term borrowings was a minuscule 0.92% in the third quarter, down from 3.53% in the third quarter of 2008. This $203 billion of debt is Goldman’s largest single funding source, so as its cost plunges, its bottom line benefits…

Goldman has been helped by its use of interest-rate derivatives. When issuing long-term fixed-rate debt, Goldman has for years entered swaps that effectively convert nearly all of that debt to floating-rate. Thus, as interest rates plummeted, so did one of Goldman’s main expenses.

To put these numbers into perspective, a savings of 2.43 percentage points in one quarter amounts to $1.2 billion in saved interest costs on $203 billion. That’s over 40% of its third-quarter earnings.

Even so, Goldman’s hedging gains by converting fixed-rate into floating-rate debt pale in relation to $3.6 billion that Wells Fargo made on much the same trade, hedging its mortgage-servicing rights. Clearly much if not most of the US banking sector made enormous profits in Q3 on interest-rate swaps — profits which are the very definition of unsustainable.

And there’s another question, too: if the likes of Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs are making billions on these swaps, who’s on the other side of the trade? Who lost billions of dollars by swapping floating into fixed? Call it the Summers trade, after Larry’s disastrous foray into the rates market when he was at Harvard. It didn’t work then, and it clearly isn’t working now, either.

COMMENT

The continuous deregulation since the 1980s has turned the banking and market sectors into gaming tables with the odds tilted toward the house.

Posted by emil hess | Report as abusive

Counterparties

Felix Salmon
Nov 4, 2009 23:04 UTC

(With apologies for the excess Ben Stein quotient)

Konczal has a great quote from Elizabeth Warren’s personal-finance book. Yes you can spend more on the small things! — Rortybomb

Welcome to the Ben Stein Watch club, Paul! — Krugman

The W Union Square is in “imminent default” on its $115m loan. — ZH

Skype lawsuit was “primarily tactical”, aimed at getting stake & board seats — NYT

Autumn Trends in the Pirate War — Miller-McCune

Defending the squid. I, too, was very, very underwhelmed by the McClatchy story and its bensteinery. — Free Exchange

No one headlines a story like these guys — Bloomberg

Apple makes more EBIT from mobile phones than Nokia — Ultimi Barbarorum

One in five people invited to the White House have surnames beginning with “S”. Hey, where’s my invite? — Kedrosky

Thanks Ron Lieber for taking aim at the not-free credit-score companies. But sad you didn’t mention Ben Stein — NYT

S&P Puts AAA-Rated Berkshire On Watch For Downgrade — WSJ

Cohan on Summers. Nothing we haven’t read before. And it’s a real stretch to say that Iris Mack “was proved correct”. — VF

Steinberger hates the Nossiter book. Another reason I think I’ll love it. — Slate

Is the pro-anonymity (and friend of Equity Private) Shaen Bernhardt-von Bernhardi a key member of the Zero Hedge crew? — Washington Times

Carly Fiorina: Why I’m running for Senate — OC Register

Jay Batlle on the etiquette of the studio visit — Paper Monument

Stop whatever it is you’re doing, and check out The Alexander Hamilton Mixtape — YouTube

COMMENT

In the matter of Alexander Hamilton hip-hop: Bathetic, just bathetic.

The roots of the coming crash

Felix Salmon
Nov 4, 2009 20:08 UTC

I’ve had a vague sense of late that there’s a connection between the weak dollar, on the one hand, and rising asset prices, on the other. But I took some comfort in that: prices aren’t really going up as much as they look, it’s just that the dollar’s going down, so everything looks good in dollar terms.

Now, along comes Nouriel Roubini to burst my bubble. This isn’t a case of the weak dollar making asset prices look good; in fact, it’s the “mother of all carry trades”, setting up “the biggest co-ordinated asset bust ever”.

I believe him.

Nouriel’s analysis is quite compelling, given the way the carry trade works. In its most harmless form, people borrow at low rates in a funding currency and then invest the proceeds in a higher-yielding target currency. When that trade starts becoming crowded, the flow of money into the target currency causes that currency to rise, which makes the carry trade even more profitable — you not only pocket the spread between the two interest rates, but you also get a capital gain on the fx trade.

But this carry trade is even stronger still: not only are the target currencies rising, but the funding currency — the dollar — is falling. Players are making money on three different legs at once, and that means they can start investing not only in foreign currencies and local interest rates, but rather in a whole panoply of other asset classes, including commodities, energy, junk bonds, even equities. These assets might not yield much, but they don’t need to, if the funding currency is falling fast:

Investors who are shorting the US dollar to buy on a highly leveraged basis higher-yielding assets and other global assets are not just borrowing at zero interest rates in dollar terms; they are borrowing at very negative interest rates – as low as negative 10 or 20 per cent annualised – as the fall in the US dollar leads to massive capital gains on short dollar positions.

And it’s actually worse still:

The perceived riskiness of individual asset classes is declining as volatility is diminished due to the Fed’s policy of buying everything in sight… By effectively reducing the volatility of individual asset classes, making them behave the same way, there is now little diversification across markets.

We’ve seen this movie before, in 2006, and I, for one, have no desire to relive it. A market where everything is rising is not an efficient market: it’s a market which is failing to do its job of allocating capital efficiently to where it can be put to best use, and away from areas where it can cause big problems. But no one cares about that these days — not even Nouriel’s own chief strategist, Arnab Das:

Emerging markets are poised to extend their biggest rally in a decade as investors borrow dollars to buy stocks, bonds and currencies in the world’s fastest growing economies, according to Arnab Das of Roubini Global Economics.

Investors should take “overweight” positions in developing-nation assets, said Das, the London-based head of market research and strategy at RGE, the research and advisory firm founded by economist Nouriel Roubini. While emerging markets will have “occasional corrections,” the surge in asset prices “has many legs to go,” Das said in an interview.

Das, here, isn’t contradicting his boss. (Although having worked at RGE myself, I know that Nouriel doesn’t mind at all when that happens, and indeed encourages a wide range of views within the organization.) Nouriel isn’t saying when the current bubble is going to burst — and if history is any guide, it’s probably going to be a long time before the inevitable happens. Of course, the longer that a bubble continues to inflate, the more painful the subsequent bust.

In that sense, every move upwards in US stocks or gold or the Aussie dollar or junk-bond indices is another step in exactly the wrong direction: it’s a step towards yet another massive crash. And it’s all being turbo-charged by Fed policy. If there’s a painless way out of this situation, I can’t see it.

COMMENT

The USD will rally.

My long term USD indicator has been giving BULLISH warnings for a while.

I use technical analysis to identify trends.

My indicators can identify trend changes before they occur.

They warned me of an impending market crash back in early *2007*

The VIX continues to give bullish warnings as well.

The primary trend for stocks remains down, is the current bear market rally ending ?

Schwab’s ETF innovation

Felix Salmon
Nov 4, 2009 17:44 UTC

Charles Schwab has an interesting new idea: ETFs which are commission-free for Schwab brokerage clients. Ron Rowland is enthusiastic:

Just as no-load no-transaction fee mutual funds changed the mutual fund landscape, commission-free ETFs will forever alter the way that ETFs are perceived. With this one change, nearly every argument in favor of mutual funds instead of ETFs goes away. Dollar cost averaging? No longer costly with commission-free ETFs. Small account size? Not a problem anymore.

This isn’t entirely true. There are two main costs involved when you buy or sell equities, including ETFs. One, yes, is the commission. But the other is the bid-offer spread. And if the new Schwab funds remain relatively small and illiquid, it’s still going to be a bad idea to buy them, just as it’s a bad idea to buy any ETF with less than a billion dollars or so in assets.

That said, Schwab is big enough that it should be able to get there pretty quickly. And at that point, if you’re a Schwab client, these things will look very attractive indeed.

COMMENT

RE: Small ETFs

I don’t understand the reasonings for avoiding small ETFs. Yes, I agree they are usually illiquid and so often have wide bid/ask spreads and that is a reason to avoid. But, your reasoning in the PCY post is puzzling. Avoid them because they can be pushed by large panic sellers? That seems like a great opportunity rather than a problem. Panic can push the ETF significantly below its NAV. However, panic is temporary. You get to buy it at a discount and make a fortune when the panic subsides. Check out the chart of PCY since your post. The price fell of a cliff, but has since fully recovered.

Posted by JackL | Report as abusive

A brief history of Goldman Sachs heads

Felix Salmon
Nov 4, 2009 15:50 UTC

With Jon Corzine losing the governorship of New Jersey yesterday, it was yet another bad day for former heads of Goldman Sachs. It’s worth running down the list, since the venerable pairing of John Weinberg and John Whitehead came to an end in 1990.

First up there was the pairing of Robert Rubin and Stephen Friedman. Both of them attempted to become venerable eminences grises, but neither succeeded, in the end. Friedman became chairman of the New York Fed, where he helped to which put together the deal under which AIG’s CDS counterparties, foremost among them Goldman Sachs, got paid out at 100 cents on the dollar, He was also involved in approving and which also approved Goldman’s request to become a bank holding company. He then inexplicably bought tens of thousands of shares Goldman shares in the open market — a clear conflict of interest given his position at the Fed — resulting in his resignation shortly afterwards.

Rubin, of course, looks even worse. As arguably the most Wall Street-friendly Treasury secretary ever, he helped to inflate the deregulatory financial-services bubble on the basis that big banks were extremely sophisticated and more than capable of looking after their own risk books. He then moved to the ultimate cushy job at Citigroup, where he got paid $10 million a year despite having no employees, no P&L, and no defined responsibilities. In hindsight, his main contribution to the bank was to be the biggest internal cheerleader for the fixed-income group, which he encouraged to take on ever-greater amounts of risk despite the fact that no one in senior management (including himself) really had a clue what they were doing. Result: disaster.

Rubin and Friedman were succeeded by Corzine, whose post-Goldman career has been spent almost entirely in politics. He was pretty ineffective in the Senate, before moving to the governorship of New Jersey. (In a classic case of the squid’s tentacles being everywhere, he there helped oversee the incoherent mess at Ground Zero, due to New Jersey’s 50% stake in the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The chairman of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, charged with rebuilding at the site, was former Goldman senior partner John Whitehead.) Never much of a natural politician, he basically bought both jobs, which at least meant that he wasn’t corrupt. But after he was almost killed in a 91 mile-an-hour car crash where he wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, he lost a large chunk of whatever leadership ability he had formerly held. His political demise yesterday, at the hands of an oafish opponent, comes as little surprise.

Corzine, in his turn, was replaced (indeed, ousted) by Hank Paulson. Paulson’s post-Goldman career, of course, was spent as the Treasury secretary who oversaw the biggest financial meltdown since the 1929 crash. Reading Andrew Ross Sorkin’s Too Big To Fail, which was clearly written with a lot of help from Paulson, he comes across as a man who was always at least one step behind the curve, someone who could never get ahead of the unfolding crisis, who was prone to inconsistent and ad hoc decisionmaking, and who went out of his way, even before getting a waiver allowing himself to talk to Goldman Sachs, to be as helpful to them as he possibly could.

Paulson seems to have spent a large amount of the crisis throwing up in his office bathroom, and even into Nancy Pelosi’s wastebin. Of course, he couldn’t simply go see a doctor, like the rest of us, because he’s a Christian Scientist. Similarly, he hobbled his ability to communicate by refusing to ever touch email: instead, any time he wanted to say anything to anybody he’d have to do so over the phone or in person. No wonder he was semi-permanently hoarse, and his phone records are insane.

Paulson’s biggest failure, of course, was that of Lehman Brothers: he set up an emergency weekend confab at the New York Fed in an attempt to save it, but refused steadfastly to ever consider any public help at all, and also failed to keep British regulators in the loop, despite the fact that their assent would be needed in the event that Barclays were to acquire Lehman. In fact, when the fateful phone call to the Brits was made, it was the hapless Christopher Cox who made it, rather than Paulson. In general, Paulson was more of a bully than a leader, and he managed to be equally unpopular both on Capitol Hill and at the White House.

Looking at the list, it seems to comprise men who are very long on hubris, and who have no doubt that if they can run Goldman Sachs, they can do anything else, with normal rules not really applying to them. All of them, post-Goldman, have been tarnished. If Lloyd Blankfein has any sense, he’ll retire quietly.

Update: Goldman calls to say that Friedman, as chairman of the New York Fed, was not personally involved in the decisions that the Fed made involving Goldman. I’ve updated the post accordingly.

COMMENT

When Clinton let Goldman Sachs into Government via Robert Rubin, isn’t that when kids started to have to take a million vaccinations? Aren’t they making Billions as a vaccine broker? Follow the money.

Posted by Lila Cardiff | Report as abusive

Building boring nationalized companies

Felix Salmon
Nov 4, 2009 13:25 UTC

I’m back, relaxed, after the longest amount of time I’ve spent off-blog in three years. Trying to get back up to speed this morning, I noticed an interesting twist in the annals of bailed-out too-big-to-fail companies: RBS is being forced to sell some core assets, like its auto-insurance operations, which give stability to its earnings. At the same time, GM has managed to unsell Opel, an equally-core asset which had been going to Canada’s Magma Magna.

I like both of these developments. There’s a big difference between a too-big-to-fail bank and a too-big-to-fail automaker: leverage. GM’s failure would have devastating repercussions in terms of midwestern unemployment, which is why the US government bailed it out. But it wouldn’t threaten the international financial architecture in the way that the failure of RBS would. So the world’s taxpayers have more interest in shrinking RBS than they do in shrinking GM.

Opel is GM’s best hope for the future, in that it’s very good at making small, fuel-efficient cars. Selling it makes much less sense than trying to import that technology into the US. If GM’s management can work out a way in which keeping Opel costs less than selling it, that’s a great result for the company.

At RBS, by contrast, it’s long past time that the financial-supermarket model is broken up. If RBS can really manage its retail banking network as well as it says it can, that should be just as much of a source of stable and predictable earnings as the auto-insurance business is. And no one’s telling RBS to sell of the disastrously-acquired ABN Amro branches, which means that the bank can evolve into becoming another strong Anglo-Dutch giant like Unilever or Shell.

If all goes according to plan, both GM and RBS will end up as large, successful, boring companies — the kind of companies that Warren Buffett has made his fortune by buying-and-holding. Both have a macroeconomic tailwind behind them right now: GM in the form of a natural rebound in car sales from their depressed 2008-9 levels, and RBS in the form of an extremely low cost of funds. If these were private companies, they might use that tailwind to make big and risky bets. But because they’re state-owned, instead they’re using it to simply get into a position where they can become established and profitable enough to let their respective governments sell down their stakes sooner rather than later. Although even after that happens, regulators will continue to keep a close eye on RBS, and the amount of risk it’s taking on.

Update: As John notes in the comments, RBS didn’t get ABN Amro’s branches. Those went to Fortis, which then also ended up nationalized.

COMMENT

“If RBS can really manage its retail banking network as well as it says it can, that should be just as much of a source of stable and predictable earnings as the auto-insurance business is. ”

Well, yes, but they’ve been forced to sell 14% of their branches.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | Report as abusive
  •