Opinion

Felix Salmon

Counterparties: Pandefenestration

Ben Walsh
Oct 16, 2012 21:47 UTC

Welcome to the Counterparties email. The sign-up page is here, it’s just a matter of checking a box if you’re already registered on the Reuters website. Send suggestions, story tips and complaints to Counterparties.Reuters@gmail.com

Just one day after his company reported third quarter earnings, Vikram Pandit is unexpectedly out as Citigroup’s CEO. Pandit and the board don’t agree on why. Pandit claims that resigning was his decision and that he “been thinking about this for a long time”. The board sees things differently. It reportedly ousted Pandit due to Citi’s subpar financial performance and his “poor execution”.

Pandit is being replaced, effective immediately, by Michael Corbat, the man who until yesterday was responsible for Citi’s business in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. As recently as August, such a change seemed unlikely. Pandit “told colleagues that he intends to stay [on as CEO] for several years”, according to Suzanne Kapner at the WSJ. Even then, however, there was increasing pressure from the board of directors to outline succession plans and groom his potential replacements.

Citi’s stock is down 90% since Pandit took over as CEO in late 2007, and has lagged all its rivals. More broadly, as the FT’s Tracy Alloway points out, Citi’s share price over Pandit’s tenure is worse than every other financial company in the S&P 500, save AIG. And beyond financial failings, Pandit also had the issue of “regulatory baggage” that he could never seem to shake.

In the past few months, there have been even more setbacks. In April, Citi failed the Fed’s stress test and had its $8 billion share buyback program rejected. In September, the bank was forced to take a $3 billion loss on the sale of its Smith Barney stake to Morgan Stanley. Citi also failed to spot on the surge in housing that drove JP Morgan and Well Fargo’s results. That lead to yesterday’s earnings, which Matt Levine characterized described as an “excellent 88% decrease in profit”.

Pandit worked for $1 in 2009 and 2010, but was awarded a $15 million pay package for  2011. Shareholders, in a move Credit Agricole’s Mike Mayo called a “milestone for corporate America… a wake-up call”, rejected it. That vote, however, was non-binding and Pandit’s pay package was essentially unaltered. In total, Pandit made $261 million while at Citi, including the $165 million he was paid when Citi bought out his hedge fund in 2007 to bring him on as CEO. In 2008, Citi shut down the fund and took a $200 million loss on its acquisition. Now, it appears Pandit isn’t in line to receive any severance pay, but he might get to use the corporate jet at a discounted rate.

It’s unlikely that the board and Pandit will ever get on the same page about who dumped whom. Regardless, both Felix and Dealbook’s Steven Davidoff think Pandit’s removal is a sign that Citi’s board, led by chairman Michael O’Neill, has found its spine. Now it’s up to Corbat to show, in the wake of large missteps by Sandy Weil, Chuck Prince, and Pandit, that Citigroup can too be managed. — Ben Walsh

On to today’s links:

Legalese
Mortgage lenders could be exempt from certain lawsuits for writing high-quality mortgages – WSJ

Wonks
Reinhart and Rogoff would like people to stop misusing their work – Barry Ritholtz

Long Reads
Romney’s Bain helped Philip Morris find a new generation of “replacement smokers” – Huffington Post

Cephalopods
Goldman Sachs’s revenue more than doubles in the third quarter – FT Alpaville
Goldman Sachs’s full 3Q earnings release – Goldman Sachs

Outrage!
Damien Hirst: butterfly-murdering monster – Telegraph

Strangely Existential
The shame and social estrangement of using a Blackberry – NYT

Yikes
Vice Chairman at Deutsche Bank said he used bath salts before violent encounter with LAPD – Bloomberg

Profiles
“The ladies who serve and prepare the food at Currier House all have crushes on senior Mike Corbat” – Harvard Crimson

New Normal
Japan is poised to overtake China as America’s top lender – Businessweek

Awesome
If foreign policy nerds wrote the questions for tonight’s debate – Foreign Policy

COMMENT

Ah the kleptocracy at work. Rich people voting to reward each other for performance no better than any random college graduate’s.

Isn’t corporate America great?

Posted by QCIC | Report as abusive

When bank boards flex their muscles

Felix Salmon
Oct 16, 2012 13:30 UTC

Vikram Pandit’s resignation might have come as a surprise to just about everybody, but the bank’s website seems to be fully updated: go to the board of directors page, and there’s Mike Corbat, CEO.

A couple of things are worth noting about that page. Firstly, Corbat is only CEO: he isn’t chairman as well. That would be Michael O’Neill, dubbed the “hands-on chairman” by the WSJ, who seems to be throwing his newfound weight around just seven months after taking on on the job. The rest of the board is reasonably impressive too: a good mix of independent thinkers from many walks of life. None of them can reasonably be considered to have been beholden to Pandit — and certainly none of them is beholden to Corbat.

That’s exactly as it should be. The CEO’s job is to run the bank, to answer to the board, and to get fired if he doesn’t perform. Which is what seems to have happened with Pandit.

Meanwhile, further downtown, the exact opposite is happening. Where Citi’s powerful board acted decisively after yet another set of weak results, Goldman’s powerless board is simply sitting back and watching their bank report a much more solid set of earnings. Just how powerless are they? Let me answer that for you:

Every day, on average, investors buy about $1.2 billion of Citigroup shares, and about $500 million of Goldman shares. Without that steady buy-side flow, the stocks — and the banks — would collapse. And while investors care about earnings first and foremost, they also want to know that they’ll ultimately receive those earnings, rather than just seeing them disappear into the pockets of management, or be wasted on silly acquisitions. Governance matters. And on that front, if on few others, Citi can credibly claim to be leagues ahead of Goldman.

As for Corbat, I have no idea how he will perform as CEO. But I can say that the choice of Corbat is clearly a vote for Citi’s global franchise. If Corbat cuts back anywhere, it will be domestically, in the US, rather than in the faster-growing regions of the world where the Citi brand remains strong. Much was made of the fact that Pandit was an Indian leading a big US bank, but in fact Corbat has more international banking experience than Pandit had. He’s also more wonk than visionary. Which is probably a good thing.

COMMENT

Speculators, I mean investors, are so used to getting little or no dividends they have forgotten why corporations even exist. It used to be to spread the burden of financing a company among many owners, but now they just exist as a vehicle for its management.

If the government stops the double taxation of corporate profits, publicly traded companies will have no excuse to not pay a reasonable dividend, and then there will be a great metric for those “investors” to judge performance.

Posted by KenG_CA | Report as abusive

Padraic Fallon, 1946-2012

Felix Salmon
Oct 16, 2012 01:21 UTC

Padraic Fallon died on Saturday night, age 66. The news came as a shock to me, not least because I was pretty sure that Fallon was 66 years old back in 1995, when I first met him. Euromoney, naturally, is the place to turn for a characteristically warm and spicy remembrance, but you can be sure that across London — and large swaths of Ireland, too — there are thousands more such remembrances being retold tonight, always with an alcoholic accompaniment.

It’s rare to find an English financial journalist who hasn’t intersected with Padraic at some point. (He’s one of those men known universally by their first names; one of the pleasures of working for Euromoney was listening to bankers mangle the pronunciation of “Padraic” while affecting a close friendship with the man.) Thousands of us went through the legendary Euromoney Publications graduate-trainee scheme, where the first thing we were told to do was to read his famous, and quite intimidating, style guide. And then, for those of us who worked on Euromoney magazine, there were the occasional editorial meetings chaired by the man himself in the company boardroom. The first words Padraic ever spoke to me were at one of those meetings. I remember those words to this day: “Are you wearing an earring??”

I realize now — and only now — that Padraic was still in his 40s at the time, but the cigar-chomping chairman was already a legend. Everybody who read his style guide knew that he was a fantastic writer, with a copy-editor’s eye for detail. But then he was so much more: a fantastic reporter, for one. And a fantastic editor. And an excellent publisher, who could sell and charm (or charm and sell) as well as anyone. And a highly-aggressive businessman, to boot, who always paid himself handsomely: last year alone he made about $8.5 million.

On top of that, Padraic was never a man shy about his opinions: one of the ways that he built Euromoney into a powerhouse in the first place was by being unapologetic about being a cheerleader for the then-nascent Euromarkets — basically, the market for offshore dollars, which weren’t taxed by the U.S. government. While at the same time relishing the scoop and the scandal as much as any journalist.

The opinionated founder-editor-publisher, of course, is the kind of person we see a lot of these days: think Mike Arrington, or Nick Denton, or Josh Marshall, or many others. In that sense it’s a very modern role, but it’s also as old as publishing itself, and Padraic was one of the masters. He also understood, long before the World Wide Web was even invented, the power of having multiple platforms: he was early to branch out into conferences, book publishing, and like. He also, I believe, was responsible for the Euromoney Awards: if you haven’t heard of Euromoney magazine, you’ve certainly seen the awards logo appear in the corner of hundreds of bank advertisements all over the world.

Padraic could make mistakes: his ideology and his ambition led him to the board of Allied Irish Bank, where he served from 1998 to 2007, overseeing the very years where the bank overstretched itself massively and then ultimately became insolvent. He also asked me to design a new publication he had decided to put out, called MTNWeek. But to err is human, and in many ways the most attractive thing about Padraic was just how human he was.

Every so often I’m asked how I ended up doing what I do; ultimately, the man responsible for my entire career, such as it is, was Padraic Fallon. He pretty much invented the idea that journalists could have huge success writing about bonds for a living, and he instilled in me a deep understanding of the bond market (and its corollary, a deep mistrust of the stock market) which served me very well indeed, first when I was writing about sovereign debt restructurings in the early 2000s, and then when I started blogging the financial crisis.

Padraic was very old-fashioned in many ways: the cigars, the dinners at the Savoy, the chauffeur-driven car. But he was also a great believer in modernity and change, and in particular the ability of small groups of badly-paid twenty-somethings to out-work, out-report, and generally beat much larger groups of much more well remunerated veteran reporters. Padraic gave thousands of us hugely valuable transferrable skills, as well as the idea the bond market is always the most important market, anywhere. He was surely right about that.

COMMENT

Vale Padraic. Memories of him striding down the hall revelling in the latest country to default in the early 80s. He couldn’t possibly have been in his mid thirties back then…

Posted by cdoherty | Report as abusive

Counterparties: Economists who did good

Ben Walsh
Oct 15, 2012 22:20 UTC

Welcome to the Counterparties email. The sign-up page is here, it’s just a matter of checking a box if you’re already registered on the Reuters website. Send suggestions, story tips and complaints to Counterparties.Reuters@gmail.com

Lloyd Shapley and Alvin Roth have won the Nobel Prize in economics “for the theory of stable allocations and the practice of market design”. To put it differently, they won the Nobel for their work on “matching markets” through investigations into marriage, or dwarf tossing, or illegal horse meat.

Alex Tabarrok of Marginal Revolution drills down into exactly why matching markets matter to our everyday lives: “Matching is a fundamental property of many markets and social institutions. Jobs are matched to workers, husbands to wives, doctors to hospitals, kidneys to patients.”

As Josh Gans explains in the best post on Shapley and Roth’s work, those are markets defined by their lack of prices. Shapley, a professor emeritus in the economics department at UCLA, is best known for creating, along with D. Gale Johnson, the Gale-Shapley algorithm that creates “stable allocations when two groups of people are to be matched with one another”.

This matching has big impact in the real world: Roth, a Harvard professor who is recently accepted a new position at Stanford, is most heralded for his development and implementation of Shapley’s theory in kidney donation waiting list policies. Roth’s key insight was figure out a practical way of expanding matching beyond pairs. Here’s Tabarrok again:

Your spouse is dying of kidney disease. You want to give her one of your kidneys but tests show that it is incompatible with her immune system. Utter anguish and frustration. Is there anything that you can do? Today the answer is yes. Transplant centers are now helping to arrange kidney swaps. You give to the spouse of another donor who gives to your spouse. Pareto would be proud. Even a few three-way swaps have been conducted.

But why stop at three? What about an n-way swap?

Catherine Rampell writes in the NYT the answer to this question is also the basis for an algorithm used by “New York, Boston, Chicago and Denver to… help assign students to schools”. This Forbes profile, and other great background on both Shapley and Roth (who blogs here), has been culled by Tyler Cowen and Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution. As you read though the quotes of adulation for both men from economists assembled by Mark Thoma, it’s hard to miss the pride they take in work with such clear social benefits. Steven Levitt offers this compliment: “When I talk about economists, one of the greatest compliments I give is to say that they changed the way people think about the world”. – Ben Walsh

Acquisitions
Sprint announces deal to sell 70% itself to Softbank for $20.1 billion – Dealbook

Good Questions
Will central banks cancel government debt? – Gavyn Davies

Distinctions
The thin line between makers and takers - Tyler Cowen

Billionaire Whimsy
“If a man is not an oligarch, something is not right with him” – Chrystia Freeland

Alpha
The buyback epidemic: Why corporate America is squandering its resources – Josh Brown
Get ready for the dividend cliff – WSJ

Housing
The joys of refinancing, where “everyday is Groundhog Day” – Chris Taylor
A detailed case against worrying about the housing market - Calculated Risk
A bubble we can use: mortgage refinancing – Ben Walsh

Tax Arcana
From lattes to losses: How Starbucks avoids UK taxes – Reuters

The Fed
On second thought, we should have done more to help the economy, Fed’s Dudley says – Binyamin Appelbaum

Helpful
Under Armour CEO: worrying about the fiscal cliff is “loser talk” – Business Insider

Old Normal
Ag bailouts, industrialization, and the rise of finance: Downton Abbey’s economics – Somewhat Logically

Crisis Retro
Up for bidding at $4.99: “Lehman Brothers fancy paper napkin” – eBay

Reminders
You can support Keynesianism without supporting big government – Stumbling and Mumbling

Reversals
Pizza Hut decides it shouldn’t bribe someone to ask a pizza-related question during the presidential debates – AP

Hackgate
Rupert Murdoch calls phone hacking victims “scumbag campaigners” – Guardian

 

COMMENT

Congratulations – you’ve managed a difficult feat – take a medioce blog-site and make it worse, without hardly tryin’. Small wonder then that you can find something allegedly good to say about economics as a profession and/or any of those who peddle it.

Suggest you emulate Felix – save it ’till they’re dead.

Posted by MrRFox | Report as abusive

Why there’s less high-frequency trading

Felix Salmon
Oct 15, 2012 16:50 UTC

Nathaniel Popper arrives today with something that looks like good news on the high-frequency trading front: there’s less of it!

Profits from high-speed trading in American stocks are on track to be, at most, $1.25 billion this year, down 35 percent from last year and 74 percent lower than the peak of about $4.9 billion in 2009, according to estimates from the brokerage firm Rosenblatt Securities…

The firms also are accounting for a declining percentage of a shrinking pool of stock trading, from 61 percent three years ago to 51 percent now, according to the Tabb Group, a data firm.

This is all true, and in fact it probably is good news, at the margin. But it’s not very good news, and it’s not as good news as it might look at first glance. Because while the number of trades is indeed going down, the number of orders is going through the roof. Here’s how I put it in my Radio 3 essay:

One reason that volumes are dropping is that the algobots are getting so sophisticated at sparring with each other that they’re not even trading with each other any more. They’re called high-frequency traders, but maybe that’s a misnomer: a better name might be high-frequency spambots. Because what they’re doing, most of the time, is putting buy or sell orders out there on the stock market, only to take those orders back a fraction of a second later, and replace them with new ones. The result is millions of orders, but almost no trades.

Call it the Stalemate of the Spambots: the HFT algos are all so sophisticated, now, that they just ping each other with order spam, rather than actually trading shares. Naturally, if you don’t trade shares, you can’t make money. But at the same time, anybody who does trade shares risks getting picked off by the very algorithms which are increasingly circling each other like prizefighters who never land a punch.

All of which is to say that just because HFT algobots aren’t trading as much any more, doesn’t mean that the waters are any safer for real-money accounts to re-enter. Indeed, the exact opposite is more likely: that the bots have poisoned the stock-trading waters so much that even the bots themselves fear to go in.

As a result, market regulators still have a huge amount of work to do, starting with a serious attempt to cut down on quote-spam. There’s no reason why regulators shouldn’t effectively ban the practice of putting in non-serious orders which disappear in the blink of an eye — although the risk, of course, is that if the algobots are banned from confusing each other with quote spam, then they’ll just revert to dominating trading instead. Which is why I still like the idea of a financial-transactions tax.

Popper says that “now that the high-speed firms are shrinking from the market, there are some indications that trading costs may again be rising.” This might be true, but it’s negligible: we’re talking here about a tiny uptick from 3.5 cents per share to 3.8 cents per share, after a long fall from a level of 7.6 cents in 2000. There’s no indication that this is either a trend or anything to be worried about.

In any case, let’s not assume that rising trading costs are always and necessarily a bad thing. Trading costs right now are incredibly low — low enough that they can, actually, rise a little bit without doing any visible harm. Fear of rising trading costs must not prevent us from continuing to prosecute the war on HFTs — especially if there are indications that we’re slowly beginning to win it.

COMMENT

This and other topics that are relevant for speed traders and institutional investors will be discussed at High-Frequency Trading Leaders Forum 2013 London, next Thursday March 21.

Posted by EllieKim | Report as abusive

Chart of the day, pumpkin edition

Felix Salmon
Oct 15, 2012 13:11 UTC

pumpkin.jpg

I have a short piece about pumpkin in the latest issue of New York magazine, trying to work out why has started to become almost as ubiquitous as bacon at this time of year. After all, bacon is delicious; pumpkin, not so much.

The secret, it turns out, is in the semiotics. No one ever feels virtuous eating bacon, but pumpkin has connotations of locavorism, as well as warmth, and sweetness, and family, and the toasty colors of fall. And yet the pumpkin in “pumpkin” dishes is even less healthy than the bacon in bacon dishes: it’s mainly sugar, along with autumnal spices like cloves, cinnamon, and nutmeg. Partly because few of us ever eat pumpkin straight, the taste of pumpkin in the public mind has basically just become a sugar-and-spice combo.

Which helps explain the chart. Pumpkin is found mainly in desserts (lots of sugar), and beverages (lots of sugar). A venti Pumpkin Spice Latte at Starbucks runs 470 calories — that’s double the 240 calories in an identically-sized 20-ounce bottle of Coca-Cola. Or, to put it another way, it’s the same number of calories that you find in seventeen rashers of bacon. Would that Starbucks were selling out of the stuff. (It isn’t.)

COMMENT

PS: My own recipe for Kadu can be found here:

auros.livejournal.com/322816.html

Posted by Auros | Report as abusive

Counterparties: The social network that’s three times larger than Facebook

Felix Salmon
Oct 12, 2012 22:18 UTC

Welcome to the Counterparties email. The sign-up page is here, it’s just a matter of checking a box if you’re already registered on the Reuters website. Send suggestions, story tips and complaints to Counterparties.Reuters@gmail.com

If you’re reading the Web version of today’s Counterparties email, there’s a good chance you got it from somebody else. That is to say, someone likely put this post on the “social web” of platforms like Facebook, Twitter or, if you’re cooler, younger and snarkier than us, Reddit.

For Web media companies, the social web has become the fastest-growing, most-obsessed-over method of distribution at a time when the online ad market is shifting away from display ads to “native advertising” and sponsored posts from advertisers. BuzzFeed put the rise of social media in chart form: For BuzzFeed and its 200 or so partners, more traffic is now coming from Facebook than Google.

But Alexis Madrigal has a fascinating new piece on why we’ve gotten the social web wrong. Madrigal argues that today’s web analytics programs miss the most common way we share stories. The largest social network, Madrigal writes, isn’t Facebook – it’s people sending things to each other directly (likely by email or IM). This is what he calls “dark social”: the articles and links you’re navigating to directly and not getting from a social networking site, or finding on some other web page.

Looking at data from the clients of the analytics firm Chartbeat, Madrigal found almost 69% of social web referrals were so-called dark referrals. Facebook accounted for 20% of social referrals from Chartbeat’s clients; Twitter referrals made up just 6%.

What does this mean for media companies? For one, it suggests that Facebook, which has been fighting to convince big corporations and small businesses that it’s the center of all social activity on the Web, isn’t our main way of sharing content. And, as Madrigal suggests, it means that there’s no real way to trick the world into sharing your stories, no matter how many rules you come up with or tweets you send in capital letters. “The only real way to optimize for social spread is in the nature of the content itself,” Madrigal writes. Quality matters. How refreshing. — Ryan McCarthy

On to today’s links:

The Fed
Why QE3 is a “masterstroke of market manipulation” by Bernanke – Quartz

New Normal
Economists to nation: Get used to 7% unemployment – WSJ

Wow. Just Wow.
Unmasking Reddit’s Violentacrez, the biggest troll on the web – Adrian Chen

EU Mess
The European Union wins the Nobel Peace Prize, despite record unemployment – NYT
How Switzerland is manipulating its currency and hurting the euro zone – Vox EU

Wonks
The final word on Mitt Romney’s tax plan: It was “plucked out of thin air for political reasons without regard to whether it was feasible” – Josh Barro

Taxmageddon
How going over the fiscal cliff will discourage people from working – WaPo

JPMorgan
JPMorgan reports record profits – JPMorgan

Ouch
Why are Indians getting poorer? – WSJ

Oxpeckers
Advice to publishers: “Atomize everything” – Matt McAlister

Quotable
Twitter’s CEO: Our company is “gritty like the city” – All Things D

 

COMMENT

“But Alexis Madrigal has a fascinating new piece on why we’ve gotten the social web wrong. ”

By “we” I assume you mean “you,” since this would be obvious to anyone who isn’t in marketing.

Posted by Moopheus | Report as abusive

When peace does not mean prosperity

Felix Salmon
Oct 12, 2012 20:08 UTC

The timing of the Nobel Peace Prize announcement was set in stone a long time ago, of course, but I love the way in which it comes just two days after EADS and BAE — two European arms-dealing behemoths — announced that their greatly-desired merger had been killed by European political infighting. Here’s the Nobel announcement:

The EU is currently undergoing grave economic difficulties and considerable social unrest. The Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to focus on what it sees as the EU’s most important result: the successful struggle for peace and reconciliation and for democracy and human rights. The stabilizing part played by the EU has helped to transform most of Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace.

And here’s EADS:

Notwithstanding a great deal of constructive and professional engagement with the respective governments over recent weeks, it has become clear that the interests of the parties’ government stakeholders cannot be adequately reconciled with each other or with the objectives that BAE Systems and EADS established for the merger.

The stock market, for what it’s worth, quite liked the failure of the deal: mega-mergers, after all, rarely work. Maybe they should send flowers to Angela Merkel, who bears most of the credit/blame. Meanwhile, as a proud EU citizen, I’ve been walking on air all day: I can now add the Nobel Prize to the Time Person of the Year award in the list of my personal achievements. Jose Manuel Barroso says so himself!

This prize belongs in much the same category as Barack Obama’s, or Paul Krugman’s: it’s designed to push a certain vision of how the world should look in the future, as much or more than it is designed to recognize some achievement which happened in the past. But there’s a problem here: the things which worked in the past won’t work in the future. The Nobel committee surely has a vision of prosperity and unity — as Dylan Matthews explains, the two have gone hand-in-hand for the past 60 years. But where they used to work together, they’re now working against each other: as Gary Cohn says, there’s a good chance that the EU, or at the very least the eurozone, is going to break up precisely in order to generate the kind of prosperity which no longer seems possible anywhere south of Milan.

All of which is to say that fractiousness, these days, seems to be more remunerative than unity. We’re becoming a go-it-alone, winner-takes-all world, where opposition beats cooperation — and that, in turn, bodes ill for peace and for federalism wherever it’s found. There’s no chance of outright war within the EU: that particular achievement is nailed down, and has been for decades now. But riots and unrest and national-independence movements are on the rise, in large part because the European project of ever-greater integration and unity has stopped producing wealth and started destroying it instead.

The dot-com boom of the late 1990s was financed in large part by the peace dividend of the early 1990s: money which used to get poured into the Cold War could be spent much more productively elsewhere. Indeed, for most of the past 50 years, western Europe has been steadily moving money out of swords and into ploughshares and the welfare state. But that trend has been taken about as far as it can go, at least in Europe. And so while peace and prosperity have historically been aligned, as the consultants might have it, that alignment is getting thrown out of whack right now.

Which is why I think the Nobel committee decided to give the EU its gong this year. It’s their way of saying that the European project is a worthy and noble one regardless of whether it creates wealth and prosperity. In reality, however, if a European economy falls into a deep recession where the only visible way out is exit from the euro, then that economy will inevitably exit the euro. Politics might sometimes trump economics, but economics nearly always trumps ethics. Almost everybody likes the EU in theory. But unless it works for them in practice, it will certainly fall apart.

COMMENT

“The Germans will soon learn that the fruits of their labor lent instead of spent will not be repaid in full.”

That’s a beautiful line, Kurt; so is this -

“Smart rats know when to leave ship.” (Charlie Chan)

Posted by MrRFox | Report as abusive

Why Margaret Sullivan is right to be wrong

Felix Salmon
Oct 12, 2012 16:25 UTC

I was one of the “oxpeckers” quoted by Joe Coscarelli giving the new NYT public editor, Margaret Sullivan, a “rapturous reception” — not on the grounds that she was particularly spot-on in her judgments, but rather on the grounds that she has been infinitely better than her predecessors when it comes to engaging with the enormous range of voices with an interest in the NYT’s content, both on her blog and on Twitter.

Sullivan was unknown to the New York oxpecker crowd when she was appointed, and as she engages, her views are, naturally, coming into focus. She hails from Buffalo, which is much more conservative than New York City in both senses of the word. That was a good choice: I suspect that she’s more representative of the NYT’s broad national readership than just about any long-term Brooklynite would be.

For instance, on Tuesday Sullivan criticized the newspaper for running a quirky photo illustrating a quirky story; it was taken inside a men’s bathroom, and Sullivan declared that she “could have easily done without” it. More substantively, a substantial part of Sullivan’s harsh take on Andrew Goldman was based on the fact that “he used a strong obscenity” in a Twitter exchange. Indeed, she said that “given the level of obscenity” in his tweets, the NYT should think about setting up “a clear social media policy”.

Later, on Twitter, Sullivan clarified her thoughts a bit: she wasn’t necessarily into micro-managing what NYT staff and freelancers think, but does reckon that there should be “no blatant misogyny, no raging racism, that kind of thing”.

Personally, I think that by the time you need a social media policy to tell your journalists not to put raging racism on Twitter, it’s already far too late. But what’s interesting to me is the ease with which Sullivan lumped Goldman’s “strong obscenity” in with misogyny and racism, and the vehemence with which she reacted against it. While no New Yorker that I know would consider the tweet obscene at all. Here’s the single tweet she reacted so strongly against:

goldman2.tiff

Sullivan’s column on Goldman was notable for the fact that she didn’t actually talk to him. That’s fine, in principle: you don’t need to talk to people before you criticize them, and Sullivan did tell Goldman that she would be “glad to consider” a followup if he had anything to add. But if there’s one small criticism I would make of Sullivan, it’s that she’s too shy when it comes to engaging with people she disagrees with.

The most obvious example, here, is her verdict on the term “illegal immigrant”. After asking for a discussion of the debate about the use of the term, Sullivan received — on nytimes.com, no less — a long and sophisticated answer from NYT reporter Lawrence Downes. He uses the phrase himself, but with many reservations, since it “defines an entire person,” he says, “not merely an unlawful act”.

The word turns 11 million people into a suspect class of quasi-criminals. It is a class-action adjective. It is the reason the country has not yet passed sweeping immigration reform, which in theory should be an easy thing to do.

Downes’s essay deserved a thoughtful response; in the end, it didn’t even get a link from Sullivan. Instead, after stating that “I’ve thought a great deal about this volatile topic”, she simply declared that the term “illegal immigrant” is “clear and accurate”, and that readers would not benefit were it banned from the paper. That’s a reasonable conclusion to come to, but a bit more detail on how she got there, or what she thought of what Downes wrote, would have enriched her piece significantly.

Every public editor shapes the job as he or she sees fit. Sullivan’s conception of the job is that she should be an engaged media pundit, not afraid of her own opinions — and that’s very welcome and refreshing. Her predecessors felt too constrained by the role: they worried about the weight their pronouncements would carry both inside and outside the newsroom, and were therefore too cautious when it came to doling them out willy-nilly. Sullivan doesn’t have that worry: she knows that the newsroom will feel free to ignore her. And that gives her latitude to be much more approachable and opinionated, both about the NYT and about other news organizations.

The result is that she’s turning into what you might call a media pundit with a bully pulpit. Ed Champion could never get a response from NYT Magazine editor Hugo Lindgren to his questions; Sullivan can. She has her own opinions — but she’s also responsible for representing the public inside the newsroom, and so she can extract answers from journalists and editors where very few others could. It’s a power and a privilege, and I’m glad that Sullivan is putting to full use her newfound ability to exercise it.

One of my slogans is that “if you’re never wrong you’re never interesting”, and Sullivan is a great example of that in action. I disagree with her on some things; I think she’s downright wrong on others. (A formal social-media policy encompassing even freelancers? No good could come of such a thing, quite aside from the fact that it would give the NYT’s legion of haters a bottomless well of potential ammunition.) The thing is, I’m happy that she’s wrong. Because it means that she realizes that the real value of her output is not in what she says, but rather in the way in which she can act as a venue for a fascinating conversation between the NYT and its many critics. Debates are always more interesting than pronouncements, and Sullivan’s hugely welcome innovation is to encourage the former, while effectively downplaying the importance of the latter.

COMMENT

Re: “quasi-criminals”

Nothing quasi- about it. If they are in the country legally the term is invalidated. If they are not in the country legally then it stands.

I’m surprised the topic is still discussed. Neither major political party has demonstrated intent to enforce existing law or write new law. All four combinations (RR,RD,DR,DD) have occupied congress and the white house with the operative phrase has been in play. The science appears to be settled.

Posted by KevinMc | Report as abusive

Why prepaid debit needs deregulation

Felix Salmon
Oct 11, 2012 23:12 UTC

On Tuesday, CardHub’s John Kiernan wrote up an excellent list of the pros and cons of the new Walmart/Amex Bluebird debit card. And one of the cons took me by surprise:

No Automatic Loading of Federal Benefits: Recipients of federal benefits such as Social Security, a federal pension, or VA benefits won’t be able to have them automatically deposited into their Bluebird Prepaid Card accounts.

The whole point of prepaid debit cards in general, and of the Bluebird card in particular, is to help bring checking-like financial services to the unbanked and underbanked. In turn, the main source of income for many of the unbanked and underbanked is federal benefits. It just doesn’t make sense to put out a prepaid debit card and then to say that it can’t be used with federal benefits. So what’s going on?

The answer, it turns out, is something called 31 CFR 210.5 (b)(5)(i): “Where a Federal payment is to be deposited to an account accessed by the recipient through a prepaid card”, says the statute, the account has to be at an insured institution, and it has to have FDIC insurance.

The government is OK paying out benefits onto prepaid debit cards, be they its own card, Direct Express — which has 3.6 million users — or someone else’s, like the new Liquid card from Chase. But if the money’s going onto a prepaid card, that card account has to be FDIC insured. Direct Express, like Bluebird, has no monthly fee, which is great, but it also isn’t reloadable by the consumer: only the government can add new money to it. I should just Venn this, maybe?

debit.tiff

I’ve put Simple in the middle, there, because it’s the only solution which covers all the bases — it has no monthly fee, it’s FDIC-insured, and it’s reloadable by the consumer. But good luck getting a Simple account: the waiting list is long, and for the time being you need to have an iPhone. What’s more, people who get federal benefits aren’t exactly a huge proportion of Simple’s young, tech-savvy customer base.

I should note here that all of the options in this diagram are attractive on their own terms; it’s also no coincidence that three of them — Bluebird, Simple, and Liquid — are very new products. The world of prepaid debit cards is evolving very quickly, and if you have an old card, there’s almost certainly a newer card out there which is better. Bluebird and Liquid both go to great lengths to solve the biggest problem with most debit cards, which is that it can be very hard and expensive to reload them when you come into some money: Liquid can be reloaded at any Chase branch or ATM, and Bluebird at any Walmart, for free.

What I worry about, at least a bit, is the way in which Bluebird is being left out in the cold when it comes to the direct deposit of federal benefits. It’s a worthy competitor to Liquid and Direct Express, and it should be allowed to compete on a level playing field. Bluebird, of course, can compete on price. And Liquid can compete on the fact that it’s offering a full-on relationship at Chase, complete with teller access, as well as on the fact that its Mastercard is accepted at more places than Bluebird’s American Express. Certainly if you compare Bluebird to Direct Express, Bluebird looks like a significantly better option, assuming you’re OK with not being accepted at a few Mastercard-but-not-Amex places.

But instead of that kind of vibrant competition, Bluebird is not being allowed onto this particular playing field at all.

Is it reasonable for the federal government to effectively prevent the recipients of federal benefits from getting those benefits deposited directly onto their Bluebird cards? I suspect it probably isn’t. American Express is a trusted vendor: the money on your Bluebird card is just as safe as the money in your American Express travelers checks — and that money has been perfectly safe since they were first introduced in 1891. What’s more, under current money-transmitter regulations, Amex keeps all the money on Bluebird cards in highly liquid form, ringfenced so that it can’t be used for anything else. There are perfectly reasonable reasons not to get a Bluebird card, but lack of FDIC insurance really isn’t one of them.

But that isn’t to say that Amex is some kind of victim, here. After all, American Express owns a very large bank, called American Express Bank, where all deposits are FDIC-insured. If they wanted to, they could have made American Express Bank the issuer of the Bluebird card, rather than American Express Travel Related Services Company. But if they’d done that, there would have been at least two substantial downsides for them.

Firstly, they would have had to start paying into the FDIC insurance fund. Amex won’t reveal how much it pays for FDIC insurance, but that’s certainly an expense which Liquid has to pay and Bluebird doesn’t. More importantly, because American Express Bank has more than $10 billion in assets, it’s covered by the Durbin Amendment, which allows prepaid debit cards to charge premium interchange fees — but only so long as the physical card itself is used in every transaction. As a result, Liquid can’t offer things like online bill-pay, which Bluebird does offer.

Big banks, then, are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to the prepaid space: while companies like American Express Travel Related Services Company can offer cards with bill-pay, because they’re not banks, and while companies like Simple can offer cards with bill-pay, because they have less than $10 billion in assets, companies like Chase cannot offer cards with bill-pay, because they’re both banks and big.

I very rarely favor financial deregulation these days, but this is one area where I do. The more competition there is in the prepaid space, the better prepaid cards become for consumers: that’s clear. And in order to encourage competition, it makes sense to lose two different regulations. The first is 31 CFR 210.5 (b)(5)(i): the federal government should be able to pay benefits onto any approved debit card, whether it’s FDIC-insured or not. I don’t have a simple criterion for which cards should get approval, but in general, if there’s basically zero counterparty risk on the part of the cardholder, then the card should be OK. After all, for years the government was happy mailing out paper checks using the US Post Office, and that was much less reliable as a payment mechanism than a direct deposit onto a Bluebird card.

And secondly I think that big banks, including Chase, should be allowed to offer prepaid cards on the same basis that small banks like Simple can. Ban the practice of charging overdraft fees on prepaid debit cards — which none of these cards offer in the first place — and say that if you’re offering a prepaid card rather than a fully-fledged checking account, then you can still charge the higher prepaid interchange rates.

I’ll admit that the distinction between a prepaid card, on the one hand, and a checking account, on the other, can be a difficult one to discern; Simple, for instance, has elements of both. But if you can write checks on an account, then it’s clearly a checking account; and similarly, if you can transfer money easily from one account to a different one at the same institution, then that looks very much like a bank account as well. More generally, there aren’t all that many banks with assets over $10 billion: there are few enough, in fact, that regulators ought to be able to have a quiet word with them and say listen, we’re doing you a favor here, so don’t try any silly business about reclassifying vast numbers of checking accounts as prepaid debit cards en masse. If someone with a bank account would prefer a prepaid card instead, they’re going to have to close their bank account and open up a debit-card account.

With those two changes in place, a third change would become possible: the federal government could start giving benefits recipients a real choice when it comes to debit-card direct deposit. At the moment, while it’s theoretically possible for people to get their federal benefits directly deposited onto their debit card, in practice it’s vanishingly rare, because the government pushes the Direct Express card quite hard, and says very little about alternative options. But if a number of cards like Bluebird and Simple offer all of the benefits of Direct Express and many more on top, then it seems churlish of the government to steer millions of Americans away from those cards and towards Direct Express instead.

Still, first things first: in terms of sequencing, the sensible place to start here is 31 CFR 210.5 (b)(5)(i). Right now, the federal government is basically making a public pronouncement that the Bluebird card isn’t safe, that it doesn’t trust American Express to look after cardholders’ money, and that people receiving federal benefits shouldn’t have those benefits paid onto the Bluebird card. I see no good reason for those pronouncements to be made, and to weight the scales so strongly in favor of FDIC-insured card issuers. Anybody who wants FDIC insurance, of course, can have it. But if you don’t want it, I don’t see why the government should try so hard to force you to have it anyway.

COMMENT

@dnorris, So Simple is going through the expense of opening 2 accounts for each customer and in reality still giving the customer a prepaid account?

Highly unlikely.

I think Simple is confused about what they want to be.

Posted by OuterLimits | Report as abusive

Counterparties: Small enough to fail?

Ben Walsh
Oct 11, 2012 22:13 UTC

Welcome to the Counterparties email. The sign-up page is here, it’s just a matter of checking a box if you’re already registered on the Reuters website. Send suggestions, story tips and complaints to Counterparties.Reuters@gmail.com

Too big to fail is a problem that has ostensibly been solved, thanks in part to banks’ “living wills”. But, as Sheila Bair has argued, simply saying that you’re no longer too big too fail does little to remedy the market’s perception of an implicit government backstop.

Daniel Tarullo, the Fed’s expert this thorny issue, has a simple proposal – he wants to limit the amount that banks can borrow from the markets.

In addition to the virtue of simplicity, this approach has the advantage of tying the limitation on growth of financial firms to the growth of the national economy and its capacity to absorb losses, as well as to the extent of a firm’s dependence on funding from sources other than the stable base of deposits.

Of course, the difficult question would be the applicable percentage of GDP. The answer would depend on a judgment as to how much of an impact the economy could absorb. It would also entail a judgment as to how large and complex a firm needs to be in order to achieve significant economies of scale and scope that carry social benefit. Depending on the answers to these questions, there may be a need to balance the relevant costs and benefits… Even good answers to all these questions would produce a policy instrument that could seem excessively blunt to some. But this is a debate well worth having.

Simon Johnson made the same proposal in November 2009, and senators Sherrod Brown and Ted Kaufman even proposed legislation to that effect in 2010. But nothing came of it, and the WSJ’s Victoria McGrane has a great chart detailing where we are now, in terms of non-deposit liabilities as a percentage of GDP. JP Morgan leads the pack with 6.3%, closely trailed by BofA at 5.7%, and Goldman Sachs and Citgroup each at 5.2%.

The FT’s Shahien Nasiripour notes that Tarullo’s proposal comes in addition to the current cap on banks holding no more than 10% of the country’s deposits to more market-based metrics. This makes sense: Tarullo is a long-time critic of the risks posed by the shadow banking system. Capping banks’ exposure to things like the shadow banking system could, the argument goes, make them just small enough to fail. — Ben Walsh

On to today’s links:

Financial Arcana
Searching for profit, banks turn to rainy-day reserves - WSJ

New Normal
Every economic recovery looks exactly the same – and that stinks - Derek Thompson

The Airing of Grievances
The 12-year-old son of a Wall Street trader texts Michael Lewis, complains about his dad - Michael Lewis

Self-Loathing
Even rating agencies are unimpressed by rating agencies - Matt Levine

Loopholes
Bank of America’s “independent foreclosure review” mostly being done by Bank of America - Paul Kiel

Crisis Retro
The case against JP Morgan and Bear Stearns offers a “facsimile of justice” but little else - Bethany McLean

Taxmageddon
It’ll help you lose 10 pounds, but “pre-commitment” is a disaster for Congress – James Surowieki

Alpha
Emails suggest private equity titans are kind to each other (with respect to price-fixing) - Dealbook
Full text: The lawsuit against private equity’s biggest players - Dealbook

Servicy
Are you on the Internet right now? - Choire Sicha

Hubris
“Ezra Pound wrote to [Huey] Long in 1935 offering his services as future U.S. Secretary of the Treasury” - Neoamericanist

Liebor
US borrowers would have saved if loans had not been tied to Libor - Cleveland Fed

Be Afraid
The coming dementia plague - Technology Review

Niche Markets
The supply, demand, and monopolization of in-flight Wi-Fi - BuzzFeed

JP Morgan
JPMorgan’s CFO is stepping down - WSJ

Alternative Currencies
Hobbit coins become legal tender in New Zealand - AFP

Yikes
Zynga’s stock falls below the value of its cash and real estate - LAT

Cephalopods
Goldman’s employee email search turns up 4,000 mentions of the word “Muppet” - FT

 

COMMENT

K.

Posted by MrRFox | Report as abusive

Counterparties: Wall Street’s oddly lucrative malaise

Oct 10, 2012 22:16 UTC

Welcome to the Counterparties email. The sign-up page is here, it’s just a matter of checking a box if you’re already registered on the Reuters website. Send suggestions, story tips and complaints to Counterparties.Reuters@gmail.com

Wall Street is having a hard time enjoying itself these days. Bloomberg recently reported there was “no sexiness … no fun … no intellectual intrigue” left for some bankers, and wrote that $63 billion in big bank profit somehow just isn’t enough. New York magazine declared that, faced with tighter regulations and falling profits, Wall Street had been fully emasculated.

Which is strange because on aggregate Wall Street pay actually rose 4% last year – this despite, as DealBook notes, the industry losing a net of 20,000 jobs since late 2007. Over the past two years, according to data compiled by the New York State Comptroller’s Office, securities industry salaries rose 16.6% to an average of $362,950 – or 5.3 times the average New York City worker’s salary.

Total compensation is up, but this year’s bonuses may be down, partially because of the rise of deferred compensation. Cash bonuses – for work done in 2011 – are projected to be down 13.5%, and Mark Decambre reports that traders could see their bonuses slashed by as much as 35% this year, after cuts of up to 30% last year.

Are Wall Street’s CEOs happy with ever-rising salaries? Morgan Stanley chief James Gorman isn’t. He’s cutting 7% of his workforce, and told the FT last week:

There’s way too much capacity and compensation is way too high. As a shareholder, I’m sort of sympathetic to the shareholder view that the industry is still overpaid.

A new report by McKinsey, also coming from the point of view of shareholders, argues that banks are merely “belt-tightening” rather than instituting more difficult cost-cutting. And when it comes to headcount, there’s a big difference between western Europe — which is shedding 30,000 banking jobs this year alone — and the US. A recent report by Nomura analyst Glenn Schorr noted that several large banks had actually added jobs this year.

And if you believe banks’ employees, the current trends will stay in place. 48% of respondents to a new survey expect their bonuses to be higher this year; 58% said they expect their bonuses to increase or stay the same over the next three years. – Ryan McCarthy

On to today’s links:

Facebook
Facebook tried to hide crucial details of its mobile ad sales from the SEC before its IPO - Bloomberg

Hackers
Why is the government afraid of this iPhone app created by ex-Navy Seals? - BuzzFeed

Regulations
Goldman thinks it may have found a loophole in the Volcker Rule, shocking no one - WSJ
Capital rules for UK banks are being quietly relaxed - FT

Wonks
The US economy may have slipped into a new, lower-employment equilibrium - Tyler Cowen
Financial regulators all “want to ringfence something. They just can’t agree on what.” - Perry Mehrling
The most overrated intellectual in the world - World Affairs Journal

Amazing
A hapless Bain Capital analyst wrote to Nick Denton about investing in Gawker - Gawker

Legalese
US sues Wells Fargo for allegedly lying about the condition of its mortgages for over a decade - DealBook
The complete US lawsuit against Wells Fargo - Department of Justice

Charts
Why America’s underemployment problem isn’t as bad as you think - FT Alphaville
Single moms more likely to work than married moms and just as likely to work as single women without children - Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Gloomy
JPMorgan’s growth forecasts: even worse than the IMF’s - Sober Look

Data Points
Mexico City’s 1,300 street markets, captured by Google Earth - Edible Geography

Billionaire Whimsy
The CEO who built himself America’s largest house threatened to fire his employees if Obama wins - Gawker

Alpha
AOL’s stock has outperformed Apple, Google and Microsoft over the last 12 months - Bloomberg

The Fed
How Ben Bernanke turned America into refi-nation - Businessweek

COMMENT

the WSJ article re GS and Volcker was locked; GS sent an SEC comment letter that explains their position in February. link:

http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-41-11/s74 111-353.pdf

Posted by jpe12 | Report as abusive

Conspiracy Jack

Felix Salmon
Oct 10, 2012 02:00 UTC

Why has Jack Welch doubled down on the false, inflammatory, and slanderous tweet that he sent out five minutes after the jobs report came out on Friday?


I was one of thousands who called Welch out on this at the time, both in terms of its substance and in terms of its hypocrisy — coming, as it does, from a particularly notorious earnings massager. Others took his side, or at least suggested that there might be something to what he was saying. And undoubtedly the fact that we’re in the final month of a presidential election campaign served to make everything rather more feverish than it might normally be.

But surely that was only to be expected. When someone of Welch’s stature accuses a sitting president of deliberately manipulating economic statistics for political purposes, just a month before an election, you have to live in a pretty astonishing bubble of flattery and denial not to know exactly what’s going to come next.

The thing about Twitter is that it has a way of piercing such bubbles. Welch is active on Twitter: he has tweeted 1,717 times since he joined Twitter on April 28, 2009. That’s an average of 1.4 tweets per day — and all of them were written by Welch personally, rather than coming automatically from some robot. He particularly likes bashing the Obama administration and supporting Republicans like Herman Cain; what’s more, he has even attacked the unemployment rate, in the past, as being the “most political number out there”.

Such activity, along with his quasi celebrity status, means that he has accumulated more than 1.3 million followers, many of whom are quite vocal. So when he tweets like the grumpy Republican partisan he is, he will immediately see a pretty angry stream of at-replies. Those replies will come from Democrats, of course; but they will also come from people who think that it’s a good idea to have some evidence before accusing the president of a felony that could result in a jail term and/or impeachment; and generally from technocrats on both sides of the aisle who have great respect for the excellent job that the Bureau of Labor Statistics does every month in an enormous and highly complex economy. On TV, Welch is treated with a modicum of respect; on Twitter, he sees real people’s real feelings about him. That’s likely a new experience for him.

A humble man, in such a situation, might have backtracked, realizing that he had gone way too far. But Jack Welch is not a humble man, and so instead he decided to bluster his way through. Hence the bizarre references to Soviet Russia and Communist China, and the way in which he describes his critics as “mobs of administration sympathizers”. (In fact, of course, only in highly autocratic societies could a business leader expect respectful agreement at all times, no matter how stupid his statements.) Hence the brazen — and clearly false — declaration that the reference to “these Chicago guys” in his tweet was in no way about the Obama administration or the White House. And hence his decision to depart the reality-based outlets of Fortune and Reuters, and move instead to the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, where he can offer up his opinions to the right-wing echo chamber rather than to the public at large. Welch’s choice to appear on the WSJ editorial page — underscored by a declaration that he’ll get better “traction” that way — is a demonstration that Welch is embarking on a new career as a mascot of the right, rather than trying to stretch out his fading post-retirement career as would-be management guru. Welch has chosen the WSJ editorial page much in the way that he hand-picked the Office of Thrift Supervision to supervise GE Capital back in the day: it’s the place where he’ll get maximum  adulation and minimum pushback.

Welch devotes much of his WSJ op-ed explaining why he considers America’s 7.8% unemployment rate to be “implausible”. That’s fine — economic statistics are always inexact, and Welch might well have some insight as to why the real unemployment rate is higher than that. Except, as it turns out, Welch’s unique insight here is wonderfully self-centered and incoherent:

I sat through business reviews of a dozen companies last week as part of my work in the private sector, and not one reported better results in the third quarter compared with the second quarter. Several stayed about the same, the rest were down slightly.

Is there any reason to believe that the dozen companies Welch looked at are representative of the US economy as a whole? Is Welch really saying that looking at these 12 companies gives a better insight into the economy than the official establishment survey, which looks at 141,000 businesses covering 486,000 different worksites? And that aside, if businesses were indeed hiring again, and using their cashflow to employ people rather than just sending it into an ever-growing bank account, you’d expect their profits to go down rather than up. Welch didn’t say that the companies he looked at weren’t hiring; he just said they were making less money in net profit. Which could well be a positive sign.

Welch has statistical-methodology quibbles, too; these are nothing new. Indeed, as he points out in his column, as long ago as 2003 Austan Goolsbee was explaining in the NYT how Democrats and Republicans both have swelled the rolls of the disabled, with the effect that millions of people don’t turn up any more in the official unemployment rate. If you’re collecting disability, you don’t count as unemployed — and the number of people collecting disability today is much greater than it was 30 years ago. As a result, it’s difficult to compare today’s unemployment rate with 1982′s.

But that kind of stats geekery will never set off the kind of Twitter firestorm that greeted Welch on Friday. The slanderous part of Welch’s tweet was his assertion that the White House both could and did “change the numbers” for political gain. Not change the methodology, in some kind of public manner which statisticians could argue about — but instead pull some kind of shady Chicago political move, and release headline unemployment rate just under 8% in much the same way that Welch would regularly release earnings a penny above expectations.

And on that front, Welch is not apologizing in the slightest. Instead, he’s just grudgingly diluting the suggestion a tiny bit:

If I could write that tweet again, I would have added a few question marks at the end, as with my earlier tweet, to make it clear I was raising a question.

Does he have any evidence that the Chicago guys might be manipulating data? No. Does he think it’s even possible for the Chicago guys to be manipulating the data? Evidently, he does. What makes him say that? He won’t say. But is it a legitimate question to raise? In Welch’s eyes, absolutely, yes. If you’re Jack Welch, it seems, any time there’s US data which makes the government look good, the question can and probably should be raised: might the data be wrong? Or, might the government be manipulating it?

The paranoid style in American Politics is nothing new: it was famously diagnosed by Richard Hofstadter in 1964. It has a storied and ignoble history, and Welch is merely the latest in a very long line of American conspiracists. (And yes, of course, you can count Donald Trump in as a bedfellow.) Sometimes the paranoiacs are mostly on the left; these days, they’re mostly on the right. But as with all conspiracy theories, nothing they say can ever be constructive: these are people who will attack empirical evidence long before they use it to help shape their view of the world.

And so, with one unretracted tweet, Welch has effectively rendered himself irrelevant in the so-called thought-leadership world he has dominated for so long. It’s fine to have unusual or minority opinions. What’s not fine is to base those opinions on nothing but ideology, and admit of nothing which could make you change your mind. At that point, you’re not a thinker any more; you’re a theologian. Welch has clearly decided that he would much rather be a pastor, preaching to a like-minded flock of WSJ op-ed page dogmatists, than a participant in substantive debate. The sad thing is that he received much more attention for his outbreak of crazy than he received in response to any of his less-bonkers pronouncements. Which is probably only going to encourage him, going forwards.

COMMENT

Hilarious. Make fun of idiot conservatives for suggesting BLS data was fudged. These people are loony! Update: Oops, the BLS data was fudged. Never mind. Move along: these aren’t the droids you’re looking for.

Posted by solotar | Report as abusive

Counterparties: Angela’s murky trip to Athens

Ben Walsh
Oct 9, 2012 22:00 UTC

Welcome to the Counterparties email. The sign-up page is here, it’s just a matter of checking a box if you’re already registered on the Reuters website. Send suggestions, story tips and complaints to Counterparties.Reuters@gmail.com

During Angela Merkel’s six-hour visit to Athens today, her first in three years, she was officially given the “red carpet treatment”, Reuters’ Noah Barkin and Harry Papachristou write. The purpose of her trip was a symbolic show of support for Prime Minister Antonis Samaras and his government’s reforms aimed at turning around the country’s battered economy. Ordinary Greeks seemed intent on producing a different kind of symbolism:

Tens of thousands of demonstrators defied a ban on protests, gathering in Syntagma square to voice their displeasure with the German leader, who many blame for forcing painful cuts on Greece in exchange for two EU-IMF bailout packages worth over 200 billion euros.

Some pelted police with rocks, bottles and sticks, and tried to bust through a barricade set up to protect Merkel and her delegation.

Some 7,000 police were needed to control an estimated 50,000 protesters, some of whom burned Nazi flags or clashed with police. (As usual, the Guardian’s excellent live-blog has full details on the day’s events.) Merkel attempted to convince Greeks that she understood there were “many people suffering in Greece” due to EU-mandated austerity measures, and said she hoped and wished that Greece would stay in the euro zone.

That optimistic message was undercut by a new IMF report that reduced the Fund’s projected 2013 growth rates for advanced economies to 1.5%, from 2%, and highlighted the issues that remain unresolved among euro zone members. The report’s title, “Coping With High Debt and Sluggish Growth,” pretty much says it all. In terms of economic policy, the IMF growth forecast assumes the US will prevent itself from falling off the fiscal cliff, that euro zone crisis measures will be effective, and that long-term solutions to thorny issues like fiscal transfers and a banking union will be achieved.

FT Alphaville’s Kate Mackenzie thinks that with that kind of optimism, the IMF may just be setting itself, and the rest of us, up for “probable disappointment”. — Ben Walsh

On to today’s links:

Taxmageddon
Goldman: Whatever you do, don’t let the payroll tax cut expire - WaPo
Regardless of who wins the election, you can kiss the payroll tax cut goodbye – Annie Lowrey
America, don’t worry: There is a fiscal cliff, but Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein are ON IT - Ben White

Alpha
Mysterious algorithm accounted for 4% of trading activity last week - CNBC

Long Reads
How Bain made millions convincing Russians they should smoke - Huffington Post

Big Ideas
Ireland’s bold, simple plan to fix housing: reduce homeowners’ debt - DealBook

TBTF
After four years, banks and regulators are still squabbling over annual stress tests - WSJ

New Normal
Total US debt is at a six-year low, and everyone still loves Treasuries - Bloomberg
Investment-grade companies issue record amounts of long-term debt - WSJ

Politicking
How Washington’s Grand Bargaineers are hurting America - Matt Yglesias
How Congress Turns Deficit Reduction Into a Videogame - Kevin Drum

Wonks
In defense of idleness (economically) - Stumbling and Mumbling

Data Points
There are some countries where government-produced economic data is suspicious. The US is not one of them - Mark Thoma
Jack Welch quits writing for Fortune and Reuters after jobs conspiracy tweet - Fortune
Why unrevised jobs numbers matter - Ben Walsh

Remuneration
Wall Street bonuses could fall 35% in 2012, after being cut 30% in 2011 - NY Post

Alpha
UK universities respond to government cuts by entering the bond market - WSJ

Simulacra
Baudrillard, The Matrix and the postmodern economy - FT Alphaville

Secular Declines
Americans making fewer Americans - New Scientist

Help Wanted
The worst writing job ever offers to pay writers between .009 and .02 dollars per word - Gawker

Why banks shouldn’t trade

Felix Salmon
Oct 9, 2012 17:14 UTC

Mark Gongloff has found a new IMF working paper, by Arnoud Boot and Lev Ratnovski, which basically comes to the conclusion that banks shouldn’t be trading in financial markets. This is a conclusion others have come to as well, of course — most prominently, the Volcker Rule in the US and the Vickers Report in the UK both attempt to legislate such things, on the grounds that it’s simply not just for banks to engage in risky trading activities, safe in the knowledge that if they blow up they’ll end up getting bailed out by the government.

The IMF paper, by contrast, takes a different approach. It just looks at the way that banks work, under a few simplified assumptions. Let’s say, for instance, that banking — lending money to steady customers — is a profitable business to be in. And let’s say that a large part of what banks do is to offer credit lines. At any given point in time, the bank will have a large number of undrawn credit lines outstanding. And so it’s easy to see how the bank would be tempted to take that money, before it’s drawn down by the customer, and use it to make some short-term profits in the markets. If your trading book is closed out every day, then as soon as your customer asks for the money, you can provide it. And in the meantime, you’ve made a bit more money.

Even if trading is less profitable than banking, then, it still makes sense to trade — as a use for surplus cash which might be waiting to get put to good use.

On top of that, trading is a way of giving excess risk-adjusted returns to shareholders. Let’s stay in the world where banking is steadily profitable — if you hold on to your loans to maturity, and develop healthy relationships with a diversified group of customers, then you’ll end up with a valuable long-term franchise, where shareholders take a certain amount of risk and get a commensurate return. Meanwhile, the bank itself borrows cheaply in the wholesale market, just because it’s so safe.

Once again, at the margin, it makes sense to put a little money into trading. The bank’s cost of funds is low, for one thing. And for another thing, the risks of trading are asymmetrical. If it works, the shareholders make money. But if it fails, the losses can be so huge that the whole institution blows up — which means that not only do shareholders lose money, but so do bondholders. This, weirdly, is a good thing from the shareholders’ point of view, because it means they don’t need to bear the full cost of trading blowups. And just about any bet, if you don’t have to bear the full potential downside, thereby becomes much more attractive.

So banks therefore have two big reasons to move into trading: the paper calls the first one “time inconsistency”, and the second one “risk shifting”. The problem is that both of them make only a limited amount of sense at the margin, in small doses. In large doses, the benefit goes away — as we can see by the fact that trader-heavy investment banks nearly always trade on the stock market at very low multiples of earnings or of book value. (Even mighty Goldman Sachs, these days, is trading at less than its book value.) But the problem is the inexorable logic of marginal thinking: wherever a bank might be, a tiny bit more trading is perceived to be a good thing rather than a bad thing. And so the amount of money the bank trades just goes ever upwards, long past the point at which it’s actually a good idea.

The IMF paper does a good job of listing the consequences. UBS. Barings. Citi. Bear Stearns. Lehman Brothers. Merrill Lynch. Washington Mutual. Wachovia. Even JP Morgan, with its infamous Whale trade. Not all of them were commercial banks, but all of them got far too exposed to tradable market instruments, and suffered enormous damage as a result.

The problem here, as I see it, is that it’s pretty much impossible for banks not to be exposed to tradable market instruments. Call it the curse of the credit default swap: ever since JP Morgan invented the synthetic CDO, bank risk managers have been able to mark their credit portfolios to market, and to hedge those portfolios using derivatives.

I should take this opportunity to plug, not for the first time, Nick Dunbar’s wonderful book about the financial crisis, The Devil’s Derivatives. It is very rich on many levels, but one of the things that Dunbar does in his book is give the best explanation I’ve ever read for why it’s incredibly dangerous when banks start marking their portfolios to market.

Once again, the logic is invidious: if no bank marks its credit portfolio to market, and then one bank comes along and starts doing exactly that, the one bank which is marking to market is likely to have a significant advantage over everybody else. And so one bank moves to a mark-to-market system, and then the other banks have to follow suit to remain competitive, and the result is that everybody ends up in a state where they’d all be better off if none of them did it.

According to Gongloff, the IMF paper says that banks “should be allowed to hedge their bets” with “small trading positions”. But hedging is trading — as we saw, most clearly, at JP Morgan’s Chief Investment Office. And trading is just as dangerous when it’s done for hedging purposes as it is when it’s done for absolute-return purposes.

In an ideal world, then, banks simply wouldn’t be allowed to trade at all. What’s more, in that world the banks would quite possibly make more money than they’re making right now. But you’d need globally-coordinated regulation to get there, and it’s simply not going to happen. Which is why trading blow-ups are here to stay — and regulators are always going to be on the back foot when it comes to trying to prevent them.

COMMENT

BTW, you probably also ought to read “How Basel 2.5 beached the London whale”
http://www.risk.net/digital_assets/5926/ jpm.pdf

I thought this was the money quotes:
“There is a danger that banks shift from controlling risk to controlling RWAs. They are not the same thing. It’s a logical response to new regulation, but it’s not prudent risk management,” says Alistair McLeod, head of portfolio analytics at Barclays in London. “If you have an environment where return on capital is a principal, perhaps even the main driver of profitability, which is definitely what we are moving towards, then the motivations and priorities of an individual trading desk don’t necessarily result in an optimal risk management strategy for the whole of the house. If you pursue a strategy that controls or limits a specific risk target,
and you can do that independently of the impact that strategy has on other risk measures, or the principles of common sense risk management, then that creates a huge problem.”

Posted by ExaminerCarter | Report as abusive
  •