Extra Credit, Sunday Edition

Cable’s paper: Will Cablevision buy Newsday? Maybe: "They haven’t been able to agree with their board on more than one offer to take their company private; it’s almost as if they hope that a newspaper would be dead weight sufficient to lower the price of the empire so they could finally buy it."

67,024+ Pages of the US Tax Code vs Transparency: The myriad of US tax deductions end up reducing tax collection by over 30%. I’d note that the UK income tax system is much more transparent, which I suspect has something to do with the difference between a parliamentary system and one with a separate executive and legislature.

All Streets: In the USA.

Subprime RMBS: Expected Credit Losses vs Mark to Market Losses

Flock of Black Swans: ‘What the index makers are really saying is "we can’t model what we said we were going to model, because we’ve never seen it before, in all 7 years or our index’s existence."’

Improve the Real Estate Market, Make Mortgages Out of Corn

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

Extra Credit, Friday Edition

Posting’s going to be light today, when I resurface on Monday I’ll be blogging from Berlin. Earlier posts for you! But in the mean time:

The New Value of Value Consciousness: For the first time in many years, everybody’s starting to live frugally.

New York Rate System to Challenge Libor

There’s triple A and there’s triple A: Why the ABX triple-A tranches are trading so low.

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

The Healthy Side of the Media Business

Yesterday, we learned that Grand Theft Auto IV sold a record 609,000 copies, generating more $48.4 million, in one day – and that was just in the UK.

Today, it’s Viacom’s turn:

Entertainment company Viacom Inc. reported a 33 percent rise in first-quarter earnings Friday, lifted by stronger sales of the ”Rock Band” video game…

Revenues rose 15 percent to $3.12 billion from $2.72 billion.

Higher sales of ”Rock Band” and a 22 percent gain in home video revenues outweighed a 7 percent decline at the box office. Advertising revenues rose 8 percent on gains at the cable networks Nickelodeon, Comedy Central and TV Land.

All of this is good news not only for the videogame industry and for the media industry more generally, but even for beleaguered parts of it like the music industry, which provides the necessary soundtrack to all that other media. And that’s not where the synergies end, by any means. Look for instance at Viacom’s South Park franchise:

In its 12th season, South Park is multi-platform juggernaut for Comedy Central. South Park digital: the show is MTV’s best selling franchise on iTunes and Xbox, with 7 million copies downloaded.

Ten years ago, the stock market technology bubble was responsible for all manner of euphoria about the future of media. (And I do think that’s the way the causality flowed, rather than the other way around.) The difference now is that prices are much more realistic, even as real-money profits have finally started appearing on the bottom line of balance sheets.

The interesting twist, which people might not have expected ten years ago? The big media companies, with their unique ability to generate hits, are still in the driver’s seat. And when an independent company does manage to build a blockbuster franchise? You know it’s bound to be taken over sooner or later.

Posted in Media | Comments Off on The Healthy Side of the Media Business

Extra Credit, Thursday Edition

Sovereign wealth fund pushes back against EU regulation

Is Personal Consumption Really Up?

No Uptick Rule: Convenient Scapegoat? Related: A New Wave of Vilifying Short Sellers

For the record: stupidest moment in policy ever? I find it hard to believe that cap-and-trade will ever be effectively implemented when both Clinton and McCain support the idiotic idea to repeal the federal gasoline tax. Related, and much more sensible: What to Do About Gas Prices?

Finding The Time To Interview (How Many Trips To The Doctor Can You Have In One Week?): "Honesty can be the best policy here. I was upfront when I went to interview elsewhere and specifically told everyone on my team what I was doing (no, not where I was interviewing, just that I would be out for "private equity interviews"). No one ever made an issue out of it. The most I ever got was, “Ok, make sure someone else is covering your deals.”"

Bank Robbers Post Strong Quarter

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

Journalists at Conferences

Mark Thoma gets a taste of what it’s like to be a journalist at a conference:

Because I’m a blogger, they gave me a press pass. That’s kind of cool I guess, or so I thought at first, but it doesn’t give you any extra privileges except a separate work area I had no use for. It’s like a cat bell that tells people you might report on what they say, and that makes some of them reluctant to answer questions. It took me awhile to realize that.

I did giggle a bit at the idea that a press pass would ever give anybody "extra privileges". But then I thought about it a bit more, and realized that sometimes those press rooms can be very useful (as a place to plug in your laptop, for starters), and that every so often, at larger conferences, there are press conferences which give journalists an opportunity to ask questions of otherwise largely inaccessible figures.

Sometimes, when a big-name politician is speaking, there will be a room full of conference delegates, and the press will be relegated to the back somewhere. The speaker will offer to take questions, and the press will be specifically barred from asking questions at that point: there will probably be a scrum later in any event. But non-journalists seem to be incredibly reluctant to ask any questions at all in such a setting, let alone the big questions which are on everybody’s mind: they seem to be quite happy to leave such questioning to the press.

The "cat bell" aspect of the press designation is very deliberate: it makes sense that people will talk differently when they think they might be quoted. It can be a bit annoying for we journalists, but you do get used to it after a while. What’s worse is when journalists are allowed only into certain sessions, or lazily told that everything is off the record, even when the speakers don’t actually mind being quoted. And don’t even get me started on Davos.

Then, of course, there are many conferences which are completely and genuinely off the record, where no journalists are even allowed. If you’ve been to such conferences, do tell: does the absence of journalists make a difference? Do speakers tend to be looser/juicier? Or are those conferences much like any other conference really?

Posted in Media | Comments Off on Journalists at Conferences

Preventing Banks From Getting Too Big To Fail

An intriguing idea from Alexander Campbell:

Why should we let banks get "too big to fail?" Why not simply impose exposure limits – not capital requirements, which can be gamed, but hard limits, backed by sanctions – set as a maximum possible share of the market? The government’s already in the business of deciding when banks (and other companies) are too big – by permitting or forbidding mergers that would give a single entity too much influence over its market, and by forcibly breaking up monopolies. All we need to do is focus in a little more, and we can avoid future equivalents of the discovery of Bear Stearns’ huge CDS counterparty position.

In practice this can’t really be done: there’s no way of getting there from here, since substantially all the major banks are at this point TBTF. And you can’t just break up a bank like you might break up a monopoly, along natural lines of business, since even if JP Morgan spun off its derivatives desk into an independent trading house, that independent trading house would still be TBTF.

All the same, I’d love to see an IMF paper on the financial systems of countries with many/few TBTF banks. If you were advising a developing country on bank regulation, would you advocate something along Cambell’s lines? Or do the advantages of having big banks outweight the disadvantages of having TBTF banks?

Posted in banking | Comments Off on Preventing Banks From Getting Too Big To Fail

Why Local Government is Unrepresentative and Uncreative

Many thanks to Harvard’s David Schleicher for letting me know about his wonderful new paper, "Why Is There No Partisan Competition in

City Council Elections?". This isn’t (only) dry political science, it can also be read as a call for a radical shake-up of the way that democracy works in cities. Let me skip straight to the most exciting idea:

A state could also take a more

dramatic step: it could bar any party that chooses to register for national

and state elections from getting a place on the ballot for local elections… Such

movement would require parties seeking to be competitive in local

elections to express policy preferences on local issues, which would permit

all voters to use the party identification of candidates as a good heuristic

for their policy views on local issues. Because of the use of single member

districts and first-past-the-post voting, local elections would likely result in

a two party system at the local level, too, but with parties that provide

relevant heuristics for the policy beliefs of the candidates.

I love this idea. Everybody complains about how politics is broken in Albany, but as Schleicher says, New York state elections are positively dynamic compared to elections at the city level. The party affiliation in any given seat never changes, which means that the only election which matters is the primary, in which only the most hardcore local party activists ever vote. And more to the point, the differences between Republicans and Democrats nationally simply aren’t the kind of differences which make much sense at a local level:

Beliefs about local politics do not strongly

track beliefs about national politics. There is substantial evidence that

Democratic or Republican voters (and politicians) in any locality, who

form relatively coherent ideological blocs on national issues, do not form

coherent ideological blocs about local politics. Put another way, the

information that a candidate is a Democrat or a Republican in a local

election does not reveal much information about her beliefs about local

issues.

The results are far-reaching, and very important:

If the model is correct, there are dramatic implications. First, and most

importantly, it shows local elections are very inefficient means of

translating voter preferences into government policy. That is, local

government does not meet the most basic definitions of democracy–it

does not provide voters with the ability to replace incumbents with

opponents with different views and to have their views represented in local

policies. Further, a system that retards party competition also removes

from local politics the forces that create new political coalitions,

investments in the development of political ideas, and new leaders. The

lack of parties makes city government both unrepresentative and

uncreative.

What’s interesting is that at the mayoral level, where individuals really do run on their own ideas rather than on their party affiliation, people with new ideas – Ken Livingstone, Mike Bloomberg, even Rudy Giuliani, for that matter – can and do get elected. But the only time people can vote for those ideas is during mayoral elections. When it comes to electing a city council, the paradigm of voting for national parties effectively quashes any hope of originality or democracy.

Posted in cities, Politics | 1 Comment

Steve Ballmer, Fence-Sitter

The WSJ is reporting that Microsoft’s board, having met to decide what to do about the Yahoo bid, has decided, um, not to decide what to do about the Yahoo bid. Instead it’s punting the decision back to Steve Ballmer, who is himself not entirely sure what to do:

The apparent indecision partly reflects Mr. Ballmer’s personality, say people familiar with his thinking. He can be unpredictable and at times swayed by new information, say his friends and Microsoft colleagues.

Being swayed by new information, it goes without saying, is a good thing. But it’s unclear how much new information there really has been since Microsoft announced its bid. If there was a strategy which made sense then, what new information might be able to alter that strategy now?

This is very much a test of leadership for Ballmer, and so far he’s failing. If you make a hostile takeover bid and then fail to follow through aggressively, your stakeholders are going to start feeling that you’re not quite up to the job. Although I have to admit that it’s hard to think of anyone really qualified to run Microsoft right now. The present leadership was very aggressive during the company’s high-growth period, but hasn’t shown itself good at running a mature company; but it would take more than a change of CEO to really change the culture in Redmond.

Posted in leadership, stocks, technology | Comments Off on Steve Ballmer, Fence-Sitter

How a Weaker Dollar Can Mean a Bigger Trade Deficit

Tim Worstall, after leaving a semi-cryptic comment on my blog yesterday, explains himself in a bit more detail today. I was confused about how US net exports could deteriorate even as the currency was weakening, but it turns out that an initial deterioration is exactly what you’d expect in such an event. Says Tim:

It’s not “despite” the dollar only getting weaker over the course of the quarter, it’s “because” ditto ditto that export growth in cash terms is slowing even as imports in cash terms are rising again.

The point is that if the dollar is weaker, any given volume of imported widgets will be worth that more in dollar terms, and it’s only after the effects of that weaker dollar kick in (more widgets exported, fewer widgets imported) that you see the trade balance improve. This happens every time there’s a new deterioration in the currency, like there was in the first quarter, although ultimately the more your currency weakens, the stronger your trade balance will eventually be.

Eventually of course the longer term effects overcome even a succession of J Curves and the trade balance comes roaring back.

As I fully expect the US one to, indeed, I’d be really rather surprised if in 5 years time the US wasn’t running a trade surplus.

Yikes, a US trade surplus? Assuming that China too continues to have a big trade surplus, I guess that means that Germany would be swinging to a deficit.

Posted in economics | Comments Off on How a Weaker Dollar Can Mean a Bigger Trade Deficit

Brazil Finally Gets its Investment-Grade Credit Rating

File under "about time too": Brazil has finally been upgraded to an investment-grade credit rating by S&P. The stock market hit a new record high in celebration, and the bonds tightened in even further:

The yield to the 2015 call date on Brazil’s 11 percent bonds due in 2040 fell 23 basis points to 4.98 percent in New York, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Yep, Brazil’s bond yields are now lower than its spreads have historically been.

The upgrade is overdue if only because Brazil is now a net creditor nation, with reserves of more than $170 billion, and net creditors simply don’t default. But ratings are sticky things, and ratings agencies are generally reluctant to issue both upgrades to investment grade and downgrades from investment grade. Now Brazil has its triple-B credit rating, it’s extremely unlikely to lose it at any point in the foreseeable future.

Posted in emerging markets | Comments Off on Brazil Finally Gets its Investment-Grade Credit Rating

The US Economy Reaches a Fork in the Road

There’s been a lot of good stuff written on the GDP report, much of it on the slightly boring question of whether it means we’re in a recession. To me, the answer’s pretty simple: you have to be clear about what you’re forecasting, and anybody who predicted that we would have negative growth in the first quarter was wrong. (Unless the report gets revised massively downwards, which is improbable but not impossible.) And there aren’t many people out there who said that we would be in the kind of recession where the GDP figures record 0.6% growth.

Still, by no means is this an encouraging report. I’m particularly disheartened by the figures for net exports:

Real exports of goods and services increased 5.5 percent in the first quarter, compared with an

increase of 6.5 percent in the fourth. Real imports of goods and services increased 2.5 percent, in

contrast to a decrease of 1.4 percent.

So export growth is slowing, even as imports are rising again, despite the dollar only getting weaker over the course of the quarter. I have no idea why this might be, but I’m now less hopeful that the US economy is going to rescued by the weak dollar.

In any case, GDP growth remaining stubbornly in positive territory should, finally, make it possible for the Fed to stop cutting rates. If Fed funds stay at 2% for the foreseeable future, then Bernanke’s accommodative monetary policy will eventually feed through into growth – although of course it will only exacerbate the already-significant inflation problem.

I feel like we’re at a fork in the road right now. There are two possible outcomes: either the crisis will remain contained within the housing and finance sectors, in which case we should be able to bounce back, or else it will feed through into the economy more generally, in which case defaults will rise, employment will fall, and a nasty recession, complete with negative official growth rates, will bite right in the middle of the presidential election campaign. The Fed has done what it can; the dice are rolled. All we can do now is watch to see what happens.

Posted in economics, fiscal and monetary policy | Comments Off on The US Economy Reaches a Fork in the Road

Why Some Countries Find it So Hard to Get Rich

Nobel laureates are always a big draw at the Milken Conference, so it wasn’t much of a surprise that the room was full when Michael Spence moderated a panel on the relationship between growth and development featuring Myron Scholes. It also wasn’t much of a surprise, however, when the star of the show turned out to be neither of the Nobelists but rather Harvard development economist Ricardo Hausmann.

Spence kicked things off by saying that sustained high growth does produce dramatic reduction in poverty. But that’s harder than it sounds: there have been 13 instances of sustained high growth in the history of the world, if by "high growth" you mean 7% or above and by "sustained" you mean for a period of 25 years or more. People in China and India are now hopeful, given their present growth rates, that they and their children and grandchilden will be reasonably well off; "the issue is," said Spence, "whether they can sustain that".

It fell to Hausmann to inject a dose of realism. Looking at the 24 OECD countries, he said, not one had its peak GDP per capita before the year 2000. But out of 112 developing countries, 58% had their peak GDP per capita before the year 2000, and many of them had their peak GDP per capita in the late 1970s, 30 years ago. In all those countries, the decline in exports was bigger than the decline in output. And if you take a snapshot of what countries exported in 1992, their future growth was very strongly correlated with the sophistication of those exports.

Hausmann then embarked upon something of a tour de force presentation, where he talked about clusters of industries and how easy or difficult it is for someone to do one job if he can already do another. There’s an apparel cluster, for instance, and a large industrial/manufacturing cluster. But other sectors, especially those related to natural resources, are out on their own. In those cases it’s not easy, when one of those export sectors declines, to move into something else.

Hausmann has run the empirics on this, and it turns out that rich countries generally find themselves in dense areas of the map, where there are lots of options, while poor countries tend to have very few options.

Poorer countries tend to be located

in the periphery, where moving toward new

products is harder to achieve. More interestingly,

among countries with a similar level of development and seemingly similar levels of production

and export sophistication, there is significant

variation in the option set implied by their current

productive structure, with some on a path to

continued structural transformation and growth

and others stuck in a dead end.

These findings have important consequences

for economic policy, because the incentives to

promote structural transformation in the presence

of proximate opportunities are quite different

from those required when a country hits a dead

end. It is quite difficult for production to shift to

products far away in the space, and therefore

policies to promote large jumps are more

challenging. Yet it is precisely these long jumps

that generate subsequent structural transformation, convergence, and growth.

Picking up Hausmann’s language about long jumps, Maria Eitel of the Nike Foundation talked about one of the longest jumps of all – changing how a country educates and more broadly treats its girls and women. "It’s a short-term/long-term thing," she said. In the short term there are benefits to girls getting pregnant early rather than getting educated and getting work. In the long term, of course, the latter is the much more economically beneficial course. But the long term is often very long – much longer than most investors’ time horizons, and indeed much longer also than most governments’ time horizons. The benefits of educating girls today are often felt in decades’ time, when most of today’s leaders will almost certainly be out of power and when many of them might be dead.

But Eitel did hold out some hope for shorter-term payoffs, thanks largely to microfinance. If small loans to girls can help that individual make enough money to pay for school, the father, it turns out, can move from being opposed to being in favor quite quickly: Eitel talked about impressive results in just three years from such projects in Bangladesh.

I did wish that Myron Scholes would have taken Hausmann’s points on board a bit more when he talked about sovereign wealth funds and the way in which they serve as a relatively easy way for developing countries to diversify. The problem of course is that such funds only help in terms of financial diversification: they don’t help to diversify the country’s citizens’ skillsets. If a country has a lot of natural resources and is making a lot of money right now, should it invest that money internationally? Or should it do something riskier, which is try to invest that money domestically in helping its citizens make the long jumps necesssary for development? Ricardo Hausmann is talking about that very question in great detail with the South African government right now; it will be fascinating to see the outcome.

Posted in development, economics, education, milken 2008 | Comments Off on Why Some Countries Find it So Hard to Get Rich

Quote of the Day: Frictionlessness

Eric Feng of Hulu, on the digital innovation panel:

Media is an impulse business. It’s foolish to expect that the user is going to climb mountains and cross hurdles to get to that content.

This is very broadly applicable. Clearly it’s the driving force behind Hulu, which is delivering television content to people when, where, and how they want it. But it’s also the reason why wsj.com should go free, it’s the reason why RSS feeds should never be truncated, it’s the reason why people are buying music on iTunes rather than at Amazon.

The buzzword on this panel was "frictionless," and tiny bumps which were ignorable yesterday are big sources of friction today. Media companies have been slow in actively trying their hardest to smooth out those bumps; rather, they’ve been forced to do so by the market. That’s understandable, given that one of the biggest bumps has been the fact that these companies charge for their content. But with any luck, that’s going to start to change. The most successful media companies of the future will be the ones who are best at reducing any friction between the consumer and her media.

Posted in Media, milken 2008 | Comments Off on Quote of the Day: Frictionlessness

What the Internet Doesn’t Transform

The PR panel in some ways encapsulated the weird nexus between corporate America and internet-era technology which has characterized a large part of the Milken Conference. Monday it was newspapers, Tuesday it was music, Wednesday it was PR: in each case the industry, we were told, is being transformed by the internet, and in each case the dinosaurs in charge are failing to keep up.

The difference with the PR panel was that it was dominated, as panels featuring him are wont to be, by Jason Calacanis, who proved himself to be as quotable as ever: "If you’re a CEO and you cannot blog and you cannot use Twitter, you should be fired," he said. "You’re antiquated." And in general the panel did grok the changes to the industry and understand the power of blogs and the internet to shape public perception of companies.

But the audience was another matter: when the moderator showed the famous iPhone "will it blend" video, it was clear that most of the audience had not only never seen it, but had also never seen anything like it.

And the PR industry, if Hope Boonshaft of Hill & Knowlton is representative, sees itself as providing a familiar corporate face to senior management and lowering them gently into the chaos of the internet. Boonshaft might not be an expert on the web, but she knows a little more than her clients, and that’s important. "The people at the opera, they didn’t even know what YouTube was," she said.

Steve Rubenstein was on the panel too, and he told the audience that his clients still generally say "I want to be in the Wall Street Journal". Those clients are the kind of people who attend a Milken conference, or indeed the kind of people who run the Milken Institute itself – a think tank which still seeks to control its output very carefully, and which is a very long way from hosting blogs or even distributing slightly rough-at-the-edges working papers.

Across town in Santa Monica, PaidContent had a one-day conference on the economics of social media. In a place like that, it’s easy to forget just how far from the web the people who actually run America really are. At the Milken Conference, it’s in your face. In a conference featuring the likes of Quincy Jones – someone who knows what a mass audience can really be – a video which has been seen 5 million times by a very young-skewing internet audience does rather shrink in importance.

One thing I’d love to see at Milken – maybe this could be a panel next year – would be a discussion of the limits of the internet. At the moment there seems to be a huge disconnect: the technoutopian geeks are convinced, with good reason, that the world is undergoing an enormous revolution, even as most large businesses can quite successfully ignore all of that. If you’re a bank or a pharmaceutical company or a steelmaker or even a consumer-facing business like Procter & Gamble or WalMart, the old paradigm of learning about the world by reading the Wall Street Journal is still very much in effect.

Jason Calacanis has been in the information/media industry for his whole career, and that industry has certainly been the most transformed by the internet. I do think, however, that it’s easy to overstate the importance of the consumer-facing internet to most of the rest of the business world.

Posted in economics, Media, milken 2008 | Comments Off on What the Internet Doesn’t Transform

The State of Catastrophe Bonds

The panel on catastrophe bonds coincided with the release of a Milken Institute report on the topic.

Catastrophe bonds make a huge amount of sense, in theory. The cost of Hurricane Katrina was over $65 billion in insured losses alone. And that’s a fraction of potential damages: coastal property in Florida is worth $1.9 trillion, compared to just $66 billion in Louisiana and Mississippi, where Katrina hit. Values in earthquake-prone California are, if anything, even higher. What’s more, uninsured losses, especially in areas of the world which have recently been hit by hurricanes and the 2004 tsunami, are higher still: globally about 25% of catastrophe risks are insured, and in the emerging markets it’s 7%.

The problem is that the risk of bearing the costs of catastrophes tends to be borne either by private reinsurers, whose capacity tends to top out at about $150 billion, or else, ultimately, by national governments, many of whom in places like Honduras or Sri Lanka simply don’t have the fiscal capacity to recover from a major disaster.

Where to turn? Capital markets: they should have much more ability to provide extremely large amounts of money than do reinsurers and other traditional risk takers. But although the issuance of catastrophe bonds has been growing, it’s still tiny:

catissuance.jpg

In 2007, which was a record year for cat bond issuance, the total fell just shy of $7 billion. Dan Ozizmir of Swiss Re talked about these numbers growing exponentially in the future, especially if catastrophe bonds expand to include not only earthquakes and hurricanes but also catastrophic mortality risk. Life insurers often have $1 trillion of face value in written life insurance policies, and a major wipeout of human life, like a big terrorist attack or a bird flue pandemic, could destroy the life-insurance industry.

Even bigger sums could be in play with drought insurance – something which Swiss Re has already started offering to Jeff Sachs in conjunction with his Millennium Villages project. There, satellite imagery is used to measure total vegetation, which is an excellent proxy for crop yields. So far, this kind of risk hasn’t been securitized, but there’s no reason in theory why it shouldn’t be.

All of these trillions of dollars in potential catastrophe bonds, then, not to mention associated derivatives, which could be even bigger, have yet to appear. Some of the obstacles to growth in this market are slowly falling away: one, for instance, is the fact that most of these bonds are written and structured by reinsurance companies, and investors are worried about adverse selection: the risk that reinsurers are selling off their worst risk. Slowly independent catastrophe risk rating agencies are appearing, which should help assuage such concerns, although clearly quantifying the risk of future catastrophes is very difficult indeed.

But more profoundly, the market in these bonds at the moment is dominated by hedge funds, who generally require much higher returns than do reinsurance companies. It shouldn’t be that way: Pimco’s

John Brynjolfsson pointed out that total catastrophe exposure globally of about $4 trillion pales in comparison to the $100 trillion in global debt and equity markets. According to his study, on average global markets are a bit higher after a natural disaster than they were before the disaster, which means that catastrophe bonds really are completely uncorrelated to global markets – something very valuable to any institutional investor.

On the other hand, there are some spillovers between capital markets and catastrophe bonds. Catastrophe bonds need to put their principal into collateral, for instance, which needs to be liquidated in the event of a catastrophe, and during a credit crisis there can be concerns over the quality of that collateral.

That said, there does seem to be more demand for catastrophe bonds than there is supply. Right now, the market isn’t clearing very well, partly because the transaction fees on these bonds can be very high. I’ve been hearing a lot of hopeful projections of how fast the catastrophe bond market is going to grow for many years now, and so far it hasn’t really happened. This issue was addressed by

Jose Siberon of Merrill Lynch, who called for government to help: the state of Florida, he said, should lead the way by insisting on using capital-market structures to help insure its hurricane risk.

One big issue seems to be endemic, however, and that’s the difference between parametric risk and indemnity risk. Bond investors want to pay out based on science: earthquakes as measured by the Richter scale or amount that the ground moved; hurricanes as measured by wind speed and the like. Insurers and insured, by contrast, want their payouts based on losses. The basis risk between the two is large: everybody can think of large losses from relatively small events, or small losses from relatively large events. And it’s not easy how that basis risk can be reduced.

Posted in bonds and loans, insurance, milken 2008 | Comments Off on The State of Catastrophe Bonds

The State of the Music Industry

The music panel featured Andy Lack, the chairman of Sony BMG, who somehow contrived to be reasonably upbeat about the recorded-music industry. It was his misfortune to be sat next to Quincy Jones, who lost no time in bursting his bubble: "Old lions, new lions, middle-aged lions, none of them have a clue," he said, saying that right now he hasn’t seen a single idea. "There’s not one solution. We’re not even close right now."

The thing which interested me about the panel was that there was a general agreement that the music labels are still necessary: no one has yet really managed to break through and become a popular artist without their help. I think that’s partly a function of the sheer size of the US market, along with the number of media outlets: while the Arctic Monkeys, say, or Lily Allen, can become overnight sensations in the UK, that kind of thing is almost impossible in the US without an expensive and sophisticated media strategy.

While the labels might be necessary, however, there was also agreement that they won’t ever be the powerhouses that they used to be. Small bands will essentially hire the labels in order to make themselves big bands, but once they’ve achieved a critical mass, they can jettison the labels and go it alone if they like. "The role of a record company is to discover new music, to find all those artists whose names you don’t know, and help them become big stars," said Lack. "At a certain point they’re going to leave you, and all power to them."

So the slow and steady decline of the record labels does not necessarily mean a similar decline for recording artists, who were historically treated pretty badly by the labels, and who are often doing quite well for themselves these days as the internet helps them to connect with their fans in a much more immediate and frequent way than they ever could before.

Meanwhile, the explosion of video content means that film and television are using – and paying good money for – more music than ever before: as the consumer channel declines, the rights channel is doing very well indeed. And of course the live-music industry, too, has never been healthier, across the spectrum from big stadium shows and festivals to smaller gigs promoted at zero cost through email lists.

The Milken Institute did miss an opportunity, I think, by not putting Peter Chernin on the panel, since by the end of it News Corporation emerged as the most important single entity in the music industry. That’s partly due to the astonishing success of Fox’s American Idol – the most popular television programme in the history of television, and a surefire generator of huge hit records – but mainly due to MySpace, which has brought music into the social-networking era in a way that the record labels have signally failed to do. There are 9 million artist profile pages on MySpace now, and the labels have reached the point at which they’re hoping that MySpace, along with mobile phones, will somehow be the new revenue stream which will save them.

In the long run, I don’t think that the record labels have a great deal of hope. They dominate iTunes at the moment, but that won’t last forever, and when anybody can upload their songs onto iTunes as easily as uploading a video onto YouTube, one of their last remaining moats will be gone. But I do think that the music industry more generally has a bright future ahead of it.

Posted in Media, milken 2008 | Comments Off on The State of the Music Industry

The Unintended Consequences of Water Pricing

I didn’t manage to catch all that much of the water panel, but I was struck by Israel’s Booky Oren, who said that 38 of the US states are coping with drought, but that if US agriculture used 50% reused water rather than drinking water, there would be no water problem in this country at all.

While there was of course talk of technological advances, especially on the desalination front, the main message seemed to be that simple is a better idea than complicated. Reuse waste water? Yes! Price water so that you encourage investment and discourage waste? Yes! Set up water futures contracts, or trust in technology to solve the world’s water problems? No.

That said, pricing water can have interesting and not necessarily intended effects. In Australia, for instance, water rights can be traded. When the country was hit by drought, the price of those rights rose, and wheat growers started selling their water rights to the vineyards, because doing so was more profitable than growing wheat. And that, in turn, contributed substantially to the rise in global wheat prices.

The world would be better off right now if Australia’s wheat growers had continued to grow wheat, and if Australia’s wine growers had simply produced less wine. But that’s not how the market incentives played out.

Posted in milken 2008, water | Comments Off on The Unintended Consequences of Water Pricing

The State of Private Equity

Apollo’s Leon Black (#6 on the latest private equity league table) kicked off an interesting discussion on the private equity panel this morning, when he said that the backlog of leveraged loans held by banks has come down from over $300 billion to $125 billion now. It’s halved in the past month, he said, and it should be cleared entirely in the next few months, at which point the banks will start lending again.

"The banks are open for the right deal, even today, and even in size," said Black, pointing to the Mars-Wrigley deal.

Thomas Lee (#32), on the other hand, was more skeptical: "I’m not sure the banks will be lending until the CLO market comes back," he said. Just like in the mortgage-origination industry, the banks were all happy to lend just so long as they weren’t going to be keeping any of the debt on their own balance sheet; now that the securitization market seems to be completely broken, it’s a very different world.

David Jackson, of Dubai’s Istithmar World Capital, sided with Black "There’s an attention deficit disorder on Wall Street," he said, and as soon as the backlog clears, they’ll be lending again.

It fell to David Solomon of Goldman Sachs to respond, basically agreeing with Lee. "The capital structures will fit investors’ appetites to hold risk," he said, and while there’s still clearly appetite at the bottom of the capital structure, from things like PIPEs, the appetite for leveraged loans, which was largely fueled by the growth of CLOs and other structured securitization deals, is much more limited. "I don’t think there’ won’t be a $20 billion deal over the next five years," he said, "but those transactions are going to be hard to execute."

Black, an equity investor by nature, was cautious. He’s been buying (back) debt of late, because he thinks that equity is overvalued relative to debt. "The credit markets have been priced at a recession level and the equity markets haven’t: the math just doesn’t work if you look at these price levels," he said. "Until prices come down, those deals aren’t going to happen."

But those prices are on bigger, public companies. In the mid-market space, where Lee is playing, there are still attractive deals, he said, in sizes of between $300 million and $2 billion. What’s more, they can be financed: one bank told him that its balance sheet is wide open, up to $1 billion. And the debt isn’t that expensive, either: "the spread is higher, but at these low rates we’re actually spending less money for it," said Lee.

And of course not all private-equity deals need debt: some need none at all. Black invested $4 billion into Norwegian Cruise Lines to bolster their balance sheet: a deal which required no debt or credit. Still, he said, "the conventional buyout business" is slowing down, at least in the US.

Brazil, however, is a different story, said Jackson. Private-equity shops are being set up in Brazil by sophisticated and experienced financiers who have worked at places like Goldman Sachs, and they’re getting local Brazilian banks to do leveraged loans. "You can find people in Sao Paulo or Mumbai who know how to do this kind of stuff," said Jackson. Brazilian banks, of course, are awash in liquidity, and haven’t had anything like the balance-sheet problems experienced by their northern-hemisphere counterparts.

Black ended the panel by saying that it’s very difficult to do a financial and operating turnaround simultaneously: "in our experience that’s a recipe for disaster," he said, although he did concede that others, like David Bonderman in the airline industry, have managed to make it work in the past.

If private-equity shops were doing operating turnarounds last year, with the help of cheap finance, this year they might be concentrating more on financial turnarounds, buying the distressed debt of good companies with overly-leveraged balance sheets. That said, Jackson and Lee seem to be looking still for the operating-turnaround stories, albeit at a smaller scale than before. Either way, it seems, opportunities abound, for that small group of investors which still has a substantial risk appetite: if there’s one thing the market still has in abundance, it’s risk.

Posted in milken 2008, private equity | Comments Off on The State of Private Equity

Political Hacks: The Backlash

Macroeconomic discussions at the Milken Conference tend to feature a great deal of party-political Republican talking points. The lunch panel on Monday was moderated by Steve Forbes, the breakfast panel on Tuesday was moderated by Paul Gigot. And with people like that setting the agenda, it’s hardly surprising that a lot of political speechifying and pandering to the assembled plutocrats tends to obscure any substantive points which might get made.

But when Tom Donohue, President and CEO of the US Chamber of Commerce, said this morning that "Nancy Pelosi is an agent for Chávez", he actually got booed – something I haven’t heard at a Milken panel before. (He earlier got applauded for a mini-speech about how the US should drill for more oil.) The CBO’s Peter Orszag, on the same panel, said that many of the free-trade types on the right were increasingly out of touch when it comes to the deep-felt anti-trade sentiments in most of the country; Donohue simply responded by saying that pro-trade proponents should work on their vocabulary.

Orszag touched on something real, not only in the nation but even at the conference. the mood of the conference (to use the cliché) is one of pervasive worry and uncertainty. People are losing equity in their homes, they’re scared of inflation, they fear the implications of a deep recession, they’re more interested in not losing money than they are in making it. Suzanne Nora Johnson said early on in the panel that "investors are making an irrational economic decision" when they choose Treasuries over safer corporate securities, and those irrational investors are precisely the kind of people who come to this conference.

In that atmosphere, the kind of rah-rah rhetoric which went down well last year is increasingly sounding rather hollow. That’s a good thing: it means that always-cut-taxes wing of the Republican Party is going to either moderate itself a bit or else become irrelevant. After the panel, one delegate came up to me and complained, apropos of nothing, that the panelists were "idealogues, when we’re looking for objective analysis from an independent think tank".

Maybe next year, we’ll get that. But for the time being, it seems as though we’re seeing the final throes, if you will, of those idealogues.

Update: Eddy Elfenbein finds an old quote from Pelosi which should clear things up a little: "Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is an everyday thug," she said in September 2006.

Posted in economics, milken 2008, Politics | Comments Off on Political Hacks: The Backlash

Apple Datapoint of the Day

This is entirely anecdotal, but there’s no doubt what the single most popular laptop is at the Milken Global Conference: the MacBook Air.

The conference skews decidedly Republican, with a lot of very senior executives: we’re talking the conservative rich here, not the creative classes. But the Air is the perfect conference computer, and in some sense it’s not even a laptop in the classic sense. David Pogue:

When your laptop has the thickness and feel of a legal pad and starts up with the speed of a PalmPilot, it ceases to be a traditional laptop. It becomes something you whip open and shut for quick lookups, something you check while you’re standing in line or at the airline counter, something you can use in places where hauling open a regular laptop (and waiting for it) would just be too much hassle.

It’s the same lesson I learned when I reviewed the Flip “camcorder” a couple weeks ago: if you change the shape and concept of something enough, it ceases to be that thing. It becomes a new thing, or a descendant of that earlier thing. But it’s no longer the original thing.

I’m quite sure that the Airs I’m seeing around the Beverly Hilton are not their users’ primary computers. And I’m also sure that they’re not exactly the kind of thing that a walking-around computer will ultimately become (the iPhone probably has a greater chance of becoming that). But the Air is a very nice toy for the man who has everything, and does seem to be catching on among that demographic.

Posted in milken 2008, technology | Comments Off on Apple Datapoint of the Day

The Importance of Price Signals in the MBS Market

Brad DeLong replies to my post on whether hedge funds helped to stabilize the MBS market with a subtle but powerful argument. If I may attempt a paraphrase: hedge funds are marginal price-setters, and in financial markets a very large number of people look at marginal prices as part of a constant process of re-evaluating their own idea of what securities are worth. If a few hedge funds started pushing down the price of the ABX index, a lot of investors might immediately have had second thoughts about the mortgage market more generally, without the long chain of arbitrage which would otherwise have been necessary.

It’s a good point, but also a limited one. This kind of effect, I think, can only really happen in markets which already are at an inflection point. If the MBS market is in full overdrive, weird price action over at the ABX isn’t going to make much of a difference. If the market is nervous, however, and just needs an excuse to turn, then it will pick on anything – it might be the ABX index, but on the other hand it might be something much more fundamental like subprime default rates.

Posted in hedge funds, housing | Comments Off on The Importance of Price Signals in the MBS Market

Blogonomics: The Econobloggers Panel

Can be found here.

If you’re having trouble with the sound, it kicks in properly around the 8 minute mark. And yes, Yves Smith really is a woman.

Posted in blogonomics, milken 2008 | Comments Off on Blogonomics: The Econobloggers Panel

Regional Newspapers are Doomed

The panel on the future of print media was really rather depressing, and not necessarily because the panelists were downbeat. The panel comprised four late-middle-aged business guys. They’re all reasonably bullish on how newspaper companies can transform themselves into web-era media companies. But equally clearly none of them really get the internet.

They talked about their children or their grandchildren not reading newspapers, they talked about terribly smart web-design kids, they got really excited about multimedia content which genuinely was exciting ten years go. Hell, Brian Greenspun of the Las Vegas Sun gave a long presentation a large part of which was devoted to recounting in excruciating detail how his website can be updated more than once a day as news comes in. Ted Olson talked about (really!) setting up a 15-member commission to look into all of this.

This was a panel of dinosaurs, who are being driven by fear and necessity rather than vision. They will change because they have to change, but they won’t enjoy it. "Blogging isn’t journalism," sniffed Brian Tierney of the Philadelphia Inquirer; he even seemed almost apologetic about coveting the pageviews he gets when Drudge links to him.

About the time that Greenspun was talking optimistically about getting people to pay for information on the internet, I left for my blogging panel. I do think there are newspapers which get the internet – the New York Times does, the Guardian does. But the smaller regional newspapers of the type represented on this panel? They’re doomed, I think.

Posted in Media, publishing | Comments Off on Regional Newspapers are Doomed

When the WSJ Competes with the NYT

David Carr’s column on the WSJ today is excellent: when he describes the behavior of the WSJ’s editors before and since Murdoch’s takeover as "a pattern of rolling complicity," he really couldn’t put it any better. But he goes further than that when he slams Murdoch’s strategy:

Mr. Murdoch has a few more billions to his credit than I do, but the paper looks to me to be surrendering much of its fundamental value. In order to make The Journal a first-read, Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Thomson are toying with the interest of those of us who have always thought of it as a can’t-miss second read.

“It is an odd and risky change from a reader and advertising standpoint,” said Lauren Rich Fine, a professor at Kent State University and a former media analyst. “They have a rich, targeted demographic, and what are they trading it for?”

As Tim Arango notes elsewhere in the NYT, the WSJ isn’t reducing its business coverage at all. As a result, it’s making what seems like a pretty safe bet: the WSJ’s business readers won’t desert it, because they can’t, and because its business coverage is better and more comprehensive than ever. But at the same time Murdoch’s trying to attract new readers, who might only want to read one newspaper and who might prefer the WSJ to the NYT.

Robert Thomson, the man in charge of this strategy, is the kind of Australian who doesn’t mince his words:

Mr. Thomson said he was not worried that expanding news coverage would alienate The Journal’s core readers. “We’ve increased the pagination to display more domestic and international news, not reduced the business story count,” he said. “It is highly amusing that left-wing media commentators who tend to regard all businesspeople as criminals or reprobates are worried about us alienating business readers.”

Jeff Bercovici says this sounds like something you might hear from Roger Ailes, and he’s right, but that doesn’t mean that Thomson is wrong. (Roger Ailes actually has a very annoying habit of being right, a lot of the time.) The best anti-Thomson argument is provided by John Gapper:

He will dilute the brand – something that a business newspaper should know all about. At the moment, the Journal has a dominant position and a clear and unambiguous image as a business and financial paper.

That not only brings it a lot of readers but an enviable appeal to advertisers. If Mr Murdoch confuses them by making it more like a watered down (and right-wing) version of the New York Times, he stands to lose a lot.

As it happens, the FT went through a similar experience in the UK a few years ago, adding more general news in an effort to compete head-on with other broadsheet papers.

I think the best that can politely be said of that experiment is that it did not work. The paper’s reputation suffered and its readers got confused. Happily, it has now recovered both its focus and its reputation.

This is a very similar argument to the one why wsj.com should not go free: you might keep all your present high-value customers, but if you get lower-value customers as well, your brand, and your appeal to advertisers, gets diluted.

That can happen: if you have super-high-end advertisers they simply might not be interested in reaching a very broad audience, only a tiny proportion of which they actually care about. But on the other hand, if you’re just about the only way of reaching that audience at all, they might not have any choice.

But in any case, the reasons why the FT failed in its attempted move into general-interest news will not necessarily apply in the case of the WSJ. The reason is simple: resources. The WSJ’s newsroom is much larger than that of the FT, and Thomson has promised all the extra resources necessary to gather the extra news. In the case of the FT, Pearson was never willing (in contrast to Murdoch) to invest the necessary money in extra journalists, with the result that its business coverage actually worsened as journalists were moved onto other beats.

The lesson from the FT’s abortive entry into general-interest news is something that I’ve said many times in the past: Pearson is the wrong owner for the FT, and really has no business being a newspaper publisher. Murdoch, by contrast, is a newspaper publisher to his toenails: he won’t make the same mistake.

Posted in Media, publishing | Comments Off on When the WSJ Competes with the NYT

Extra Credit, Monday Edition

Deutsche Bank planning major capital increase: It could be as much as $27 billion. I’ll say that’s major.

California & Co. Bids to Become Newest Bond Insurer: When states insure states.

Mars-Wrigley? Buffett’s Sweet Deal: How "Warren Buffett sees a replay of the Procter & Gamble and Gillette merger".

Has the Financial Industry’s Heyday Come and Gone?

Headhunters: Friend Or Foe?

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