Gesture Politics Done Right

Bryan Caplan famously defended the economically-illiterate McCain-Clinton plan to suspend federal gas taxes on the grounds that it was the least bad way for Congress "to show the voters that it feels their pain". At a cost of just $9 billion, he said, the implementation of the plan might help avert much more expensive and counterproductive policies.

But gesture politics doesn’t need to cost anything at all! Look at the decision to stop sending oil into the US strategic reserve: it costs nothing, and in fact saves the government the money it would otherwise be spending on oil.

What’s more, according to Geoffrey Styles, there’s even a case to be made that "the results might be more dramatic than anyone expects, because of the limited size and nearly unlimited leverage of the domestic market for light, sweet crude oil." He reckons this move could actually result in a reduction of oil prices of a few dollars per barrel.

Of course, no one – not even Caplan – really took Caplan’s argument all that seriously. But still, it’s somehow comforting to know that even if you ignore Jeff Frankel’s complaints about it, Caplan’s piece doesn’t even stand up on its own merits. If you want to make a high-profile gesture in order to head off something worse, there’s bound to be something you can do which has some kind of upside.

Posted in Politics, taxes | Comments Off on Gesture Politics Done Right

Hot Ladies and Bald Dudes, Erin Callan Edition

I can’t remember a profile of a banker which ever quoted his tailor. But Susanne Craig is perfectly happy ending her profile of Lehman’s Erin Callan with a quote from her personal shopper:

Tina Sussman, her personal shopper at New York retailer Bergdorf Goodman, has started sending racks of clothes to Ms. Callan’s house because the CFO’s schedule is so hectic. Ms. Sussman describes Ms. Callan’s style as "classic and elegant."

Of course, this is entirely Callan’s doing:

Callan is wearing a short crocheted dress with a black belt slung low around her hips, gold hoop earrings, and knee-high caramel-colored high-heel boots. She seems to have rejected the path taken by some of her counterparts, who have erased all signs of their femininity to blend in with the pinstripes. "I don’t subordinate my feminine side," she says. "I’m very open about it. I have no problem talking about my shopper or my outfit."

Clearly this is working for Callan. But it does serve to perpetuate the idea of Wall Street as the home of "hot ladies and bald dudes".

Incidentally, just who are these Wall Street women who have "erased all signs of their femininity," anyway? In Wall Street’s world of hyper-masculine men, simply going the not-feminine route doesn’t seem like a particularly smart career strategy.

Posted in fashion | Comments Off on Hot Ladies and Bald Dudes, Erin Callan Edition

The New Realities of Personal Finance

Ron Lieber, Cubs fan and new personal-finance columnist for the NYT, has hit a home run with his first at-bat: "Five Basics for Building a Solid Financial Future" is top of nytimes.com’s Most Emailed list, not just for the Business section but for the site as a whole. In it, he does a good job of summing up his investment philosophy in seven words:

Index (mostly). Save a ton. Reallocate infrequently.

I like the fact that Lieber includes saving as a subset of investing. This is true for everybody, even people with eight-digit trust funds: the less money you spend today, the more money you’ll have tomorrow. But even Lieber doesn’t seem to like to dwell on this fact: he says that indexing, not saving, is "the hardest part of the mantra to accept"; he doesn’t mention that saving, not indexing, is the hardest part of the mantra to actually implement.

The long secular decline in the US savings rate is going to be a painful thing to reverse. The rest of the world has done a sterling job in doing our savings for us and then pouring all that liquidity down the ever-willing throat of the US consumer. But none of this is sustainable, and the housing crunch is just the beginning of the inevitable hangover.

In a world of easily available debt, everyday frugalities become forgotten about. The ubiquity of credit cards doesn’t help either: I’m in Berlin right now, where no one uses credit cards, and you really are much more aware of how much you’re spending when everything is paid for in cash. But I fear that credit cards did for US consumer expenditures what the CD did for music sales: plastic technology can boost them significantly on temporary basis, but after that it’s all over.

There’s also an element of all-American "yes we can" optimism to spending on credit cards. Amanda Clayman quotes Tad Crawford, who sees debt "not as merely an obligation to be paid but also as a statement about how our inner richness will be expressed in the future". One of the reasons that Americans don’t mind low taxes for the rich is that they hope and fervently believe that they, too, will be rich one day. And if you’re going to be rich in the future, it makes sense to borrow money in the present.

The problem, of course, is that generally the people who become rich in the future are those who save money in the present. Which is most inconvenient. That’s one reason the housing boom was so eagerly embraced: the people who took on the most (mortgage) debt were the people getting rich quick, as "buy the most expensive house you can afford" became a recipe not for losing everything but rather for becoming a millionaire.

Even Lieber is still in the mindset which treats a home as an asset, not a liability: "the housing downturn," he says, "has affected the largest asset in many portfolios". I’d take issue with him there: a house is not a portfolio asset. It’s true that paying down a mortgage is, over the long term, a pretty effective way of saving money – it’s a commitment device which forces homeowners to build wealth rather than spend. But note the real source of wealth creation here: it’s not buying the house, it’s paying the mortgage.

Lieber’s right, though, when he says that investing is hard, and that there are definite upsides to hiring a professional to help organize your financial life. If you’re investing your money with a fund manager, you should never pick someone who doesn’t have some kind of risk officer providing oversight of what he’s doing. Now those risk officers don’t always do their job, as we’ve seen. But every professional investor benefits from having a second pair of eyes which belong to someone who’s paid to worry about downside risk. And what’s true for professional investors goes double for amateurs. Individuals simply aren’t the best people to make their own investment decisions, most of the time. That’s why Bryan Lourd was an interesting person for Michael Lewis to profile: he isn’t smarter than his clients, and he’s certainly not out to provide alpha; but he helps enormously in terms of discipline, forcing them to invest sensibly.

Ultimately, of course, as the name of Lieber’s column says, your money is Your Money, and you’re responsible for spending it, saving it, and investing it. A financial adviser can help build a plan, but you will have to implement. That’s a bit scary, and a bit new. A generation ago, it was still quite common to find people who didn’t have credit cards (or outstanding credit-card balances, anyway), who balanced their checkbooks, who were slowly paying down a mortgage, and who belonged to a defined-benefit pension scheme. Their finances were generally pretty healthy, thanks to a fortuitous combination of circumstance and necessity. Such people don’t really exist any more. And we’re still struggling with the repercussions of that shift.

Posted in personal finance | Comments Off on The New Realities of Personal Finance

Pandit Skewered

Remember the stupid email with which Vikram Pandit spammed all his customers? Antony Currie has now published a pitch-perfect parody over at BreakingViews, while even getting some serious analysis in at the same time:

I have also created some new roles, like head of talent and head of innovation. Now, I know what you’re thinking: how on earth does that make it easier for me to move cash around, set up a local account if I move abroad, or just get my checks cleared more quickly? Well, it won’t – American banks just aren’t good at that stuff. But don’t those titles sound cool?

And hey, we’re Citi! We’re too big to fail! So stick with us. We need you. Seriously.

It’s becoming almost too easy to pile on to Pandit these days. I’d put him on deathwatch, if it wasn’t for the fact that neither Citi’s directors nor its shareholders have any appetite for yet another reshuffling of the C-suite.

Posted in banking, stocks | Comments Off on Pandit Skewered

Why GE’s Selling its Appliances Division

GE looks as though it’ll sell off its appliances business, and John Gapper wonders

why GE is not prepared to invest enough in the business to turn it into a global powerhouse when it clearly expects someone else to buy it for that reason.

I think the answer is the same as the reason why CBS bought CNet: publicly-listed companies, be they CBS or GE, feel the need to show impressive growth rates, not just in revenues but also in earnings.

A large investment in the GE appliances brand would certainly be expensive; it would also have a relatively low return even if it were successful, because appliances, even when you’re a global powerhouse, are a pretty low-margin business.

Haier, of China, by contrast, doesn’t have the same pressure from shareholders that GE has. It’s perfectly happy to slowly and steadily build a global brand, and it’s exported so much over the past few years that has lots of dollars to spend doing so.

The hardest nut to crack if you’re trying to build a global brand, of course, is always the USA, so buying GE’s appliances business would give Haier a very strong competitive footing against the likes of Korea’s LG – and it could get that position overnight, rather than having to build it organically like LG has done.

Meanwhile, GE can take the proceeds from the sale and invest them (if all goes according to plan) at an IRR well above anything Haier might require. Everybody’s happy – except, as Gapper notes, the GE Appliances brass in Louisville.

Posted in economics, stocks | Comments Off on Why GE’s Selling its Appliances Division

Extra Credit, Friday Edition

Lender’s goof slams credit scores: And the fix didn’t work well, either: Sallie Mae’s latest foul-up

Phillips: Tighter Sale, Fewer Fireworks

Philly’s $100 Cheesesteak: "On average, five or six customers order it per night."

I am a jelly donut: Krugman’s coming to Berlin. I never see him in New York, now I can not see him here in Berlin, too!

Brad Setser’s Blog: Has moved to its new home at the CFR. Feels lighter and airier (and of course as wonky as ever) – but it still has a truncated RSS feed, which I’m pretty sure is a WordPress issue and not the CFR being clueless.

Posted in remainders | Comments Off on Extra Credit, Friday Edition

Pricing Panmure House

The Adam Smith Institute reports that Edinburgh councillors have sold the great economist’s house to Heriot-Watt University:

They chose the £800,000 bid over a higher offer, on the grounds that the University would make the building more accessible to the public. The University plans to restore the house to promote the study of economics.

The sale has to be scrutinized by the Scottish Government in nearby Holyrood, but the Heriot-Watt bid is probably the best possible outcome for admirers of Smith.

Either that or taking the highest offer.

Posted in economics | Comments Off on Pricing Panmure House

Zimbabwe Datapoint of the Day, Banknote Edition

How does one pay for a $340 million beer? With a half-a-billion-dollar banknote, of course.

This is the fourth set of high denomination notes to be issued this year, the first being in January when a 10 million dollar note was put into circulation. The next was on April 2 when a 50 million dollar note came into being before the 100 and 250 million dollar notes were introduced on May 2.

That $10 million note introduced in January is now worth slightly less than a nickel.

Posted in emerging markets | Comments Off on Zimbabwe Datapoint of the Day, Banknote Edition

Great Ad Slogans Of Our Time: “Jump, Rabbit, Jump!”

rabbit.jpg

I kinda love the new advertising campaign from UniCredit. Here’s the copy from the ad above:

Success stories have always started with someone doing things differently and not saying

“Maybe”, but “Definitely”. So jump, rabbit, jump! This is the spirit which has advanced mankind and

our 40 million customers. We support them because we truly believe in them. So you can call us nuts.

Rabbits not your thing? Never mind, they’ve got squirrels, too!

squirrel.jpg

On the other hand, you could always try stock photos of shipping containers.

Posted in banking | Comments Off on Great Ad Slogans Of Our Time: “Jump, Rabbit, Jump!”

How to Default on Your Mortgage and Stay in Your House

Floyd Norris today finds one of the worst bonds ever underwritten: a securitization, by Merrill Lynch, of second-lien mortgages mostly originated by Ownit. The kicker? When the bond was sold, Ownit had already gone bust, a victim of the fact that far too many of its loans were delinquent out of the gate.

But what’s bad for bondholders might be good for homeowners.

Let’s say you’re a Californian who bought your $200,000 house with a $160,000 first mortgage at 6.5% and a $40,000 second mortgage at 11.2%. Your annual interest payments are $10,400 on the first, and $4,480 on the second, for a total of $14,880, or $1,240 a month.

When the housing market implodes, you can simply stop making payments on the second mortgage. As Norris explains:

“In light of the pressure on home prices and limited or negative borrower equity in their homes, many second liens were simply written off” after several months of payments were missed, Moody’s said.

With these loans, it turns out, foreclosure is seldom worth the effort, since all the money would go to the first mortgage holder.

With no fear of foreclosure and being kicked out of your house, your monthly mortgage payments have dropped from $1,240 to $867 – a fall of 30%. And that’s before you try to renegotiate your first-lien repayments.

It’s walking away without walking away: you can default on your second lien, stay in your home, and see a large reduction in your monthly nut. And since you’re in California, where mortgages are de facto non-recourse, you don’t need to worry about the owner of the second lien trying to get a court judgment against you.

Of course, as Floyd Norris points out, you do give up any upside if and when you decide to sell the house. The second lien is still there, and unpaid interest payments are accumulating: should the house ever get sold, the second lien owner will take anything the first lien owner doesn’t. And for the same reason, you’ll never be able to use your house as security for a new loan.

Even so, the idea of walking away from a second mortgage seems much more compelling, especially in California, than the idea of jingle-mail, or walking away from a first mortgage. Which is one reason, I’m sure, that this bond of Merrill’s is performing so badly.

Posted in housing | Comments Off on How to Default on Your Mortgage and Stay in Your House

Berkshire Hathaway Should Buy CBS

Evan Newmark has a very smart take on CBS’s acquisition of CNet. The main problem with CBS, he says, is that it’s a profitable but slow-growth company saddled with a public listing. Since no public company CEO is happy mapping out a future of slow yet profitable growth, Les Moonves feels forced to do silly things like pay 22x Ebitda for CNet when his own company is trading on a ratio of less than 8x.

Here is Les Moonves, “As you know, we’re always looking for strategic acquisitions in higher growth businesses.” And I thought, why? The business you’re in is pretty good at generating cash.

Newmark concludes:

The popularity of public companies going private over the last decade makes a lot of sense in this light. It can be viewed as the only way of saving a public company from its own growth-at-all-costs impulses.

But I’m not sure that CBS would make such a great private-equity target. As Newmark himself says, the private-equity playbook wouldn’t go down very well:

To continue to create shareholder value, you must have both of these constituencies come along with you. Do you cut costs and investments and pay out as much cash as you can? No, of course not. Employees, creative talent and advertisers would run from the company.

On the other hand, CBS would be a great acquisition for Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire doesn’t necessarily look for growth in the businesses it buys: it looks for cashflow, which it can profitably reinvest elsewhere. And CBS has lots of profits which Berkshire would love to be able to invest. It’s like See’s Candies: acompany which throws of lots of cash and has perennial appeal to Middle America.

When Berkshire acquires a company, it generally leaves management alone to run that company. The one thing it doesn’t do is push management to make "strategic acquisitions in higher growth businesses". CBS is perfect for that kind of oversight. And with the shares only just coming off their all-time lows (admittedly, all-time isn’t very long, CBS was only spun off from Viacom in 2006), shareholders might welcome a face-saving exit.

Posted in Media, stocks | Comments Off on Berkshire Hathaway Should Buy CBS

Why the Fed Won’t Raise Rates to Prick Bubbles

Justin Lahart has a front-page article today on a group of economists studying bubbles at Princeton. It’s a perfectly interesting piece, marred only by relative weakness on the monetary-policy front. Given that the piece is illustrated with a dot portrait of Ben Bernanke, I wanted more than just this:

The Princeton squad argues that the Fed can and should try to restrain bubbles, rather than following former Chairman Alan Greenspan’s approach: watchful waiting while prices rise and then cleaning up the mess after a bubble bursts.

If the tech-stock collapse didn’t make that clear, the damage done by the housing and credit bubbles should, argues Jose Scheinkman, 60 years old, a theorist Mr. Bernanke recruited in 1999 from the University of Chicago. "Advanced economies are very dependent on the health of the financial system. What this bubble did was destroy the capacity of the financial system to finance the U.S. economy," Mr. Scheinkman says.

When a lot of borrowed money is involved — as it often is in a bubble — once prices peak, the speed of their fall is intensified as investors sell urgently to pay down debt. That pattern offers a strong argument, in Mr. Hong’s view, for government to restrain bubbles and the borrowing that fuels them.

Yes, the housing bubble involved a lot of borrowed money. But most other bubbles, not so much. Tech stocks? Commodities? Stocks in China? None of them are or were debt driven. Indeed, Rick Mishkin made exactly this point in his speech last night:

The bubble in technology stocks in the late 1990s was not fueled by a feedback loop between bank lending and rising equity values; indeed, the bursting of the tech-stock bubble was not accompanied by a marked deterioration in bank balance sheets.

It’s a useful distinction to make: it can make perfect sense for central banks not to worry too much about asset bubbles, while still caring greatly about credit bubbles. And Mishkin’s clear that asset bubbles in and of themselves are no concern of the Fed’s:

To be clear, I think that in most cases, monetary policy should not respond to asset prices per se, but rather to changes in the outlook for inflation and aggregate demand resulting from asset price movements. This point of view implies that actions, such as attempting to "prick" an asset price bubble, should be avoided.

At the end of his speech, Mishkin even goes so far as to say that "central banks should recognize that trying to prick asset price bubbles using monetary policy is likely to do more harm than good".

In recent days, there’s been a lot of speculation about whether the Fed might start looking more seriously at asset bubbles, most of it tied to a Krishna Guha article in the FT on Tuesday.

One option would be for the Fed to tackle bubbles with monetary policy, setting interest rates higher than they would otherwise be when asset prices appear to be inflating beyond levels justified by economic fundamentals.

Mr Bernanke rejected this approach in 2002 but is willing to re-evaluate it in the light of recent events.

In the light of Mishkin’s speech, I think any re-evaluation would still come out opposed to such a policy.

Posted in fiscal and monetary policy | Comments Off on Why the Fed Won’t Raise Rates to Prick Bubbles

Extra Credit, Thursday Edition

Why H-P’s Stock Is Stuck: "Itßøßøs a well-run, slow growing giant of a company"

The New Peak Oil: Peak Demand

Chicago Overturns Foie Gras Ban

Is "the X-word" Dead? First it was XFRML. Then it was XBRL. Now it’s ID, or Interactive Data.

Icahn Sends Open Letter to Board of Directors of Yahoo! Related: Microhoodonald’s: "I am reminded of my long-standing hope that next on his list of takeover targets will be the McDonalds corporation. Because then, you see, every newspaper will do a headline saying Icahn has cheezburger?"

Posted in remainders | Comments Off on Extra Credit, Thursday Edition

How Often Would You Like to be Paid?

If you’re poor, you’re generally acutely aware of exactly how much money you have at any given time, and that amount is generally very low. Andrew Goodman-Bacon and Leslie McGranahan have a paper out now on the Earned Income Tax Credit, saying that one of the great things about it is that it generally arrives just once a year:

Because the EITC makes one relatively large payment per year, it may provide low-income, credit-constrained households with a rare opportunity to make important big-ticket purchases.

Mark Thoma isn’t very impressed:

This is like forced saving, requiring households to give up monthly consumption for one large annual payment. The fact that they are able to buy more durable goods – cars – with the one time payment is nice, and the argument is that this helps them find employment, but we need to know what they gave up each month before we can conclude they are better off…

Tthere are arguments that can be made here, but the particular argument ought to be made explicit. Why is it better to force people to save? Unless there’s some good reason for the government to step in and make choices for people, I’d rather not have the government get in the habit of thinking it knows better than I do what is good for me.

And I’d note that given the choice, people nearly always prefer their income more frequently rather than less frequently. In some situations, workers are now being paid daily, and that’s a good thing:

Upon completion of a daily work shift, an employee’s payroll card account is credited with salary payment as quickly as two hours after an approved time card is submitted.

Temporary workers can receive payments on the day that a shift is completed, giving them faster access to funds to pay basic living expenses such as groceries, gas and utility bills.

If it’s a good idea for income to arrive on a daily basis, why is it a good idea for the EITC to arrive only on an annual basis? Or is there a useful distinction to be made between income, on the one hand, and a tax credit, on the other?

Update: It did occur to me, after posting this, that there is a good reason to be paid biweekly or monthly rather than daily: you don’t want to be saving up constantly just to make rent. Better to pay your rent out of your paycheck, and then live on what’s left over.

Posted in pay | Comments Off on How Often Would You Like to be Paid?

NYC Bike Datapoint of the Day

Joshua Benson, the bicycle program coordinator for the New York City Department of Transportation, mentions a startling statistic without even seeming to realise how startling it is:

As the number of cyclists in New York City has grown (75 percent increase in the last seven years), so has the demand for more parking.

Clearly, the growth in cyclists is much, much faster than NYC’s population growth, and I have no idea why that might be. The past seven years have seen a few new bike lanes, but nothing very much until the past year. Most people I meet still say – with good reason – that they’d never bike in NYC, it’s far too dangerous. And I don’t think that public transport has got a great deal worse. So what’s caused the huge rise in cyclists?

Posted in cities | Comments Off on NYC Bike Datapoint of the Day

Pandit Spams his Customers

Logging on to my Citibank account this morning, I found this, which recapitulates an email I received a few days ago:

pandit.jpg

The link takes you here, to a letter which simply begs for parsing.

But before we get to the (ahem) substance of the letter, it’s worth asking what on earth it’s doing existing in the first place. "An important message"? Pandit is starting out on the wrong foot, since 100% of the people reading this will know that by "important" he means precisely the opposite. And "an important message", of course, is how television stations used to refer to advertisements: "We’ll be right back after these…"

Most people who see this link won’t click on it, so the message of the link itself is paramount. And that message is basically "Vikram Pandit is dissembling already". Remember there’s even an entire book called Your Call Is Important to Us: The Truth About Bullshit.

It’s no secret that banks are pretty unloved, even by the standards of big corporations. Pandit, here, is clearly piloting the oil tanker Bullshit, which shows no sign of turning around.

The letter itself only makes things worse.

Dear Valued Customer,

I want you to be among the first to know about the bold steps we are taking at Citi to be the premier, global, fully integrated financial services firm.

Our objective is to create for our customers an experience in which services are seamless, payments and transfers effortless, and distances meaningless. My commitment–and the commitment of everyone at Citi–is to work tirelessly around the world and around the clock to deliver outstanding value and service as we continue to earn your trust and that of every customer we serve.

We are proud of our enduring strength as a global financial institution, striving to successfully meet the needs of clients like you in more than 100 countries. As always, we look forward to continuing to serve you–wherever you are and wherever you need to be.

It’s a concatenation of marketing slogans all tied up in a remarkably defensive package: does a successful CEO ever boast of taking "bold steps"? No – and certainly not without actually mentioning a single one of those steps.

The letter is entirely bereft of any specifics; instead, it manages to use the word "serve" or "service" or "services" five times in three paragraphs. The whole thing reads like a clumsy ex-post rationalization of the new-old "Citi never sleeps" slogan, even as it announces impossible objectives like making "distances meaningless". (Try telling that to the man who laughed in my face a couple of days ago, at Citibank in Berlin, when I inquired as to whether I might be able to open an account denominated in euros.)

Worst of all, the number one thing which Pandit claims he’s trying to do is create an experience. No! I don’t want my bank to create an experience! I want my bank to do things like extend me a loan when I need one, be open and transparent about its costs and fees, and give me a straight answer when I have a simple question. Oh, and admitting that it is occasionally fallible might be nice, too.

Instead, we get Vikram Pandit sticking his bright-idea marketing spiel into all of his customers’ inboxes. Vikram, you’re an investment banker by trade; your venture into fund management was a disaster, and there’s absolutely no reason for you to think that you know the first thing about retail banking, let alone the best way of marketing Citibank. But you’re obviously one of those CEOs who needs to learn things the hard way.

If there’s one thing which we can actually learn from this letter, it’s that Pandit is finding it so impossible to delegate and to trust his lieutenants that’s he’s becoming personally involved in decisions well below his exalted pay grade. I’m quite sure that no one who actually knows and understands Citi’s branch network thought it was a good idea to spam all the bank’s customers with a vapid message from the new CEO. But those people don’t matter, Vikram’s in charge now, and he clearly has no idea what he’s doing.

Posted in Portfolio | Comments Off on Pandit Spams his Customers

Zimbabwe Datapoint of the Day

Ian Brakspear:

During the meal, one of my mates was drinking beer – 750ml bottles of Castle Lager (fondly called bombers) he ordered a 5th one, was advised that the price, which when he ordered his 1st, 2nd 3rd and 4th ones was 160 million per bottle, had gone up to 340 million per bottle.

Is this the same business model used in strip clubs?

(Via HM)

Posted in emerging markets | Comments Off on Zimbabwe Datapoint of the Day

Leverage Datapoint of the Day

I’ve somehow managed to avoid so much as mentioning the Clear Channel saga on this blog until now; for some reason I just couldn’t get excited about it. But Heidi Moore gets a good quote in her summing up today of why it was so difficult to get a deal done:

“The irony was that the banks were more overleveraged than the company.”

Remember, we’re talking about a leveraged buy-out here. Says it all, really.

Posted in banking, private equity | Comments Off on Leverage Datapoint of the Day

How Unleaded Gasoline Slashed the Violent Crime Rate

The paper, from the NBER, is 70 pages long, but the conclusion, from Jessica Wolpaw Reyes, is simple, and stunning:

The main result of the paper is that changes

in childhood lead exposure are responsible for a 56% drop in violent crime in the 1990s.

What are those "changes

in childhood lead exposure"? Primarily the move to unleaded gasoline, which happened in the US between 1975 and 1985.

This result is not entirely surprising: I blogged a similar finding, by Rick Nevin, last summer. Nevin’s paper is more international in scope: it covers the

USA, Britain,Canada, France, Australia, Finland, Italy, West Germany, and New Zealand. But it also uses a less rich dataset: the new paper really nails this finding down.

What I learn from this paper is that sometimes the Law of Unintended Consequences can mean unintended positive consequences: the 1970 Clean Air Act had a much more beneficial effect on America than anybody guessed it would at the time. (Today, of course, we’re living in a country where the federal government is suing California not to impose stricter emissions standards on automobiles, which is depressing.)

And as Shankar Vedantam of the Washington Post noted when writing about Nevin last year, these findings make politicians’ claims to have reduced crime much less compelling, especially when you combine them with Steve Levitt’s findings about the effect of abortion on crime. Here’s Wolpaw Reyes:

The elasticity of violent crime with respect to childhood lead exposure is estimated to be

approximately 0.8. This implies that, between 1992 and 2002, the phase-out of lead from gasoline

was responsible for approximately a 56% decline in violent crime… The effect of legalized abortion

reported by Donohue and Levitt [2001] is largely unaffected, so that abortion accounts for a 29%

decline in violent crime (elasticity 0.23), and similar declines in murder and property crime.

Overall, the phase-out of lead and the legalization of abortion appear to have been responsible for

significant reductions in violent crime rates.

Significant? I’ll say. 56% plus 29% is 85%, which means that the overwhelming majority of the reduction in crime can be attributed to exogenous factors for which local politicians can take no credit. Not unless they were involved in the Clean Air Act or Roe vs Wade, anyway.

Posted in crime | 1 Comment

Art: The Last Unburst Bubble

Christie’s sale on Tuesday night was a stunning success, ratifying the ridiculous levels to which contemporary art has soared in recent years. The Sotheby’s sale on Wednesday night, by contrast, took the market to a whole new level. Not only isn’t this market crashing, it looks very much as though the bubble is still inflating.

The big news of the evening was the $86.3 million fetched by Francis Bacon’s Triptych, 1976 – a sum which alone accounted for 24% of the $362 million total from 73 successfully-sold lots. (Or, to put it another way, if it weren’t for that one Bacon, Sotheby’s would have once again fallen behind Christie’s in value of art sold at the flagship contemporary sale.) Bacon seems to be moving well into the A-list, alongside the likes of Picasso, Matissse, Pollock, and Johns. And in the wake of the sale of a Lucian Freud painting for $33.6 million on Tuesday, one could almost spot an Old British Artists trend going on. I wonder if a major Hockney might come up for auction soon.

The most astonishing datapoint, however, was not the Bacon, but rather the $15.2 million paid for Takashi Murakami’s My Lonesome Cowboy – a kitschily unforgettable piece which I doubt the NYT would ever illustrate. Kelly Crow reports that Murakami, watching from a skybox, hollered “Banzai!” when the sculpture was sold: good for him, there’s no reason to pretend to be blasé about such a spectacular price. (The estimate was just $3m-$4m.) It’s worth bearing in mind that there are five of these sculptures in existence (one’s at the Brooklyn Museum right now) and that really each one is only half of a pair. If a genuine Murakami masterpiece came up for auction, it would probably fetch substantially more, but I don’t think Stevie Cohen is selling.

Besides Bacon and Murakami, sixteen – count ’em – other artists set new auction records, many with works which were far from their best. Robert Smithson’s Alogon #3 obliterated its $1m-$2m estimate, selling for $4.3 million. And a fair-to-middling Brice Marden, Glyphs, sold for $4.3 million, probably one of the works that collector Adam Lindemann was talking about when he said that “not all the works were the best”. The sum might be an auction record, but I’m quite sure Mardens have privately changed hands for more.

The part of the auction I’m happiest about is the eight-figure sums being fetched by European minimalists finally getting their due. A Piero Manzoni white monochrome sold for $10.1 million, while an Yves Klein gold monochrome was bid up to an astonishing $23.6 million. That’s pure art-historical importance right there: anybody can cover a canvas in gold leaf.

So far, I haven’t seen much speculation as to who bought the Bacon, but it’s bound to emerge sooner rather than later. The buyer helped make a little bit of history last night; I hope he’s not regretting it this morning.

Posted in art | Comments Off on Art: The Last Unburst Bubble

The Beginning of the End of the Credit Crisis?

David Gaffen is watching the VIX decline to levels well off its March highs, and back towards its lowest point of the year to date. Meanwhile, Alea is watching financial-instution credit default swap spreads decline to levels well off their March highs, and back towards the lowest point of the year to date. Could it be that we really are at the beginning of the end of the credit crisis? Has Ben Bernanke been successful in averting disaster?

"For the most part, investors appear to view the credit crisis as having passed over," says Gaffen – and this of course is one of the areas where investor sentiment has a tendency to become self-fulfilling. Of course, it helps that the Fed has turned the faucets wide open and is likely to keep them that way for the foreseeable future: if Ben wan’t dropping money from helicopters, things would surely be very different.

Still, if Nassim Taleb is to be believed, the time to worry is not when volatility is high, but rather when volatility is low.

Also, he says, people do not understand the link with the concept of volatility. In a market, if returns do not follow a “normal” bell curve distribution (as appears to be the case), volatility will actually be less than the bell curve would predict. For much more than the predicted two-thirds of the time, returns will be very close to the average. Such low volatility, counter-intuitively, is a danger sign that there is a greater risk of true “black swan” events, when returns do deviate from the norm, because it shows that returns do not follow a normal bell curve.

His geopolitical analogy is with Italy and Saudi Arabia. Italy has had many different governments since the war, while the same family has retained power in Saudi Arabia. This means that Italy is the more volatile but, he says, that Saudi Arabia is more risky, because if something does change in the political situation there, it will have much greater consequences.

On the other hand, if Saudi Arabia goes volatile and then settles down again, it’s likely to be in a more sustainable place than it was originally. The people who mistrusted the Great Moderation were right. But if the world is really de-risking right now, rather than just mispricing risk, then this time around volatility might be falling for all the right reasons.

Posted in bonds and loans | Comments Off on The Beginning of the End of the Credit Crisis?

Why Agricultural Subsidies Don’t Mean Lower Food Prices

Do agricultural subsidies lower food prices? When I looked at this question last month, I dismissed it as a second-order effect: they might, they might not, either way it’s not going to be a big deal when compared to the enormous swings in food prices that we’ve seen of late.

But Dean Baker is still bashing his drum, and now, after what I learned yesterday about rice in Japan, I’m much less indulgent of this sort of thing:

The truth is that the U.S. and European subsidies that cause the Post, the NYT, the World Bank and many NGOs to get apoplectic have the effect of lowering world food prices. That means that fewer people go hungry than would be the case without these subsidies.

This isn’t rocket science, it’s almost definitional. The U.S. and European effectively pay their farmers to keep farming, thereby producing more food than otherwise would be produced. This may have negative consequences for farmers elsewhere in the world, but it does mean that supply is greater and prices are lower than they would be in the absence of the subsidies.

Dean seems to live in some kind of frictionless econoworld where prices fall as supply rises. But the world of agricultural subsidies is anything but frictionless: for one thing, it’s dominated not by direct subsidies so much as by tariffs. And so you end up in a situation where Japan is sitting on 1.5 million tons of rice, which it’s not allowed to sell at any price to, say, the Philippines, which is in desperate need of it. Instead, the rice will be allowed to rot to the point at which it’s useful only for pig food. High rice prices aren’t a function of low supply – rice production is at record highs. But the market is broken, thanks largely to the system of subsidies and tariffs which distorts incentives and prices around the world.

As Paul Collier says, what’s needed is much more large-scale agricultural production in developing countries. The model he uses is Brazil, which by no coincidence is a major agricultural exporter. In order for the supply of agricultural goods to rise substantially, we need much more in the way of agricultural exports, especially from the developing world. And one way to get there is to increase the demand for agricultural imports from Europe, Japan, and the US. No one in Africa is going to bother trying to grow sugar for export to the US, not with the present subsidies and barriers in place. But if they came down – then we might see some large-scale agricultural investment in Africa.

Of course, none of this would change food prices overnight. But if our goal is feeding the planet over the long term, then it would be a great idea to abolish agricultural subsidies and tariffs. Defending them on the grounds that they lower food prices is therefore counterproductive, and largely wrong. They might lower food prices in theory; in practice, I doubt they do.

(Is this the same argument which I dismissed last month as being "all a bit vague and hopeful"? Yes. The rice-bubble paper changed my mind on this one, and moved me from the subsidies-are-irrelevant camp and into the subsidies-are-actively-harmful camp.)

Posted in food | Comments Off on Why Agricultural Subsidies Don’t Mean Lower Food Prices

Why Bank Debt Looks Attractive

Pimco’s investment professionals spent three days this month with the likes of Alan Greenspan, Nassim Taleb, and Mike Spence in something the bond manager calls its "Secular Forum". It fell to Mohamed El-Erian to sum it all up, and to draw some investing ideas from the discussion. The most interesting one, to me, is that this might be a great time to buy bank debt. Writes El-Erian:

As investment banks are forced to converge over the next few years towards the lower leverage model of commercial banks, they will seek ways to secure a deposit base that can reduce their cost of funding, including through merger and acquisition. This process of de-leveraging and, if done properly, de-risking will have a number of implications for investors…

Expect us to search for value in the re-alignment of the financial system that is heavily influenced by regulatory-induced de-risking: The regulatory reaction serves to clip part of the tail risk of institutional failure but at the cost of an unambiguous decline in the expected return on capital – a phenomenon that will tilt relative value in the direction of bond holders and away from equities.

While there might yet be a few unexploded grenades in banks’ balance sheets, I think El-Erian is probably right that over the foreseeable future, banks are likely to become safer, not riskier, institutions. If that’s the case, then buying bank debt now, when spreads are extremely wide, makes a lot of sense. Yes, there’s risk involved – but you’re being compensated for the risk with the spread. And over the medium term, those spreads are likely to come in substantially – even if the share prices of the banks in question don’t recover at all.

(Plus, of course, there’s the moral hazard play. If Bear Stearns and Northern Rock bonholders came out of an ignominious collapse whole, then the chances are most other bank bondholders are likely to get bailed out as well.)

Posted in bonds and loans | Comments Off on Why Bank Debt Looks Attractive

Extra Credit, Wednesday Edition

The Discord in Similarity: John Thain is doing a better job than Vikram Pandit.

Of Hedges, Hot Dish, and Hogwash: The Ben Stein Watch to end all Ben Stein Watches.

Australian Bank Acquires Rival for $17.5 Billion: Apparently there’s a bank in Australia called St George. Which is worth $17.5 billion. Good to see some banks are still spending their capital, rather than raising it.

FHA Chief Criticizes Rescue Plan: "I think the president is right to veto" Barney Frank’s bill, says the man who would largely be in charge of enacting it.

Bubble Land: On the semiotics of the Blackstone annual report. Wherein Blackstone Goes “Reservoir Dogs”:

blackstone.jpg

Posted in remainders | Comments Off on Extra Credit, Wednesday Edition

Martin Sullivan Deathwatch

In terms of Jack Flack’s five levels of CEO media hell, AIG’s Martin Sullivan has now graduated from "on the ropes" to "dead man walking". The WSJ’s headline says it all: "AIG’s Chief Faces Worries

Of Investors and Directors" – which means that board members are now grumbling to the press, rather than to the CEO directly. When that happens, it’s all over – especially with Hank Greenberg grumbling loudly on the sidelines:

Several top shareholders of AIG have called me expressing deep concern about the persistent and seemingly endless destruction of value at AIG. They, and I, are deeply distressed by the excessive loss of value…

AIG is in crisis.

There’s no way that Sullivan can survive this. The question isn’t whether he’ll be ousted, only when.

Posted in defenestrations | Comments Off on Martin Sullivan Deathwatch