The junkie's lament

Forgive me, for I'm about to rant. But I, Internet junkie that I am, can't help it.

I'll be blunt. Why do bloggers and MSM publications keep talking to and giving space to people who spout total nonsense? I don't mean opinion blowhards, although god knows there are way too many of them. My peeve is against pundits who say/write things that are objectively, evidently, painfully wrong.

The object of my wrath is this interview of Newt Gingrich by William Saletan in Slate. One paragraph is enough to illustrate my point:

The problem with regulation and taxes, he argues, is that they drive business overseas. Our auto emissions standards shift car sales to foreign manufacturers. European carbon caps push industries to Africa. But Gingrich is cursed with a brain that can see the big picture. He recognizes that overfishing, for example, requires collective action, since one or two countries can ruin the ocean for everyone. We have to think of the whole planet, he observes. Which raises the question: If undercutting by other nations foils unilateral regulation, isn't multilateral regulation the answer? Business can't flee emissions caps in one country if the same caps apply elsewhere. To this question, Gingrich clarifies that he's not against international remedies, as long as they're "functional."

It's amazing. The man reels of three, count them, completely false statements in a row, followed by several painfully obvious observations masquerading as profound insights. European carbon caps driving industries to Africa? I still can't believe I read that.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not angry at Gingrich. In a way, I admire a man who, being little more than a pompous nitwit, manages to convince others that he's a profound thinker. I guess that's what narcissism can do for you!

But how is it possible that the interviewer let all of this pass unquestioned? And how did an editor publish this?
Sigh.

Home prices are irrelevant!

So argues Willem Buiter, a well-known monetary economist, in his FT blog. Why? The answer is that people usually live in their own house, hence:

As long as your endowment is positive, your wealth obviously increases when the house price increases. However, an increase in house prices means that the present discounted value of future rents has increased. As a consumer of housing services, now and in the future, you are therefore worse off. On average, in a country like the UK, people consume the housing services they own. Hence an increase in house prices does not make them better off. For financial assets like equity there is no corresponding “present discounted value of future equity services consumption” whose cost increases whenever the value of equity goes up. An increase in stock market values therefore unambiguously makes you better off.

But as regards house prices, regardless of whether a change in price is due to a change in risk-free discount rates, in risk premia or in expected future rents, you are neither better off nor worse off as a result of that price change, if you consume, now and in the future, the same contingent sequence of housing services whose present discounted value is part of the wealth you own. In that case, despite the increase in your housing wealth, once you have paid for the consumption of your initial contingent sequence of housing services, there will be nothing left to spend on anything else.

Great! So today's news of deepening falls in house prices in the U.S. can be happily dismissed. Move along, nothing to see here.

Back to reality, this is one of the most striking examples of ivory tower airy-fairy thinking I've come across in a while.

Now, Mr. Buiter's argument hinges on house prices being equal to the present value of future owner-equivalent rents. This simply does not hold up in real life. Judge for yourself:



There are many reasons for this. But in essence it comes down to the fact that people believe housing is real wealth. How else can one explain the decline ins the personal savings rate to almost zero in recent years?

So, yes, house prices do matter. How much? We'll find out soon enough.

Oil reaches $92 after Iran says "Boo!"

Attributing every single rise in the price of oil to some minor Middle East-related event has become one of the most tiresome parlor games in financial journalism. What's driving the jump in oil prices is supply and demand. Jim Hamilton of Econbrowser explains this eloquently.

Housing: Hope springs eternal

Today we learned that new home sales rose 4.8% in September. As was to be expected, many folks see this as a sign that housing is turning the corner. Needless to say, this is more a dead cat bounce than a true rebound. As this graph shows, similar monthly bounces have been registered in the recent past during the course of a dreadful secular collapse.

As Barry Ritholtz points out, the rise is not statistically significant and that compared to year ago levels, new home sales in September were 23% below the year-ago level.

Of course, we should also keep in mind that existing home sales --which make up the bulk of the residential market--fell 8% in September and are 19% below the year-ago level.

As for prices, both the new home and existing home sale median prices are not reliable indicators, as they're not seasonally adjusted and are affected by changes in the type of housing unit sold. Also, builders have so far resorted to incentives like free plasma TV's and the like to promote sales rather than price cuts. Clearly, the stickiness of prices has made sales volumes bear the brunt of the downturn.

Yet another shocking China fact

A year and a half ago, only one Chinese firm (Petrochina, at number 16) was included in the list of the 20 largest firms by market value (see here). As of mid-October, that proportion had risen to 8 out of 20, including 3 out of the top 6 spots.

While Facebook may have a crazier valuation, the sheer scale of the Chinese market's rise is breathtaking.

The socialist take on Merrill's writedown

I don't have much to add regarding Merrill Lynch's 8.4 billion bloodbath. But the good folks over at the World Socialist Web Site have been reading the Asset-Backed Alert Newsletter (I kid you not) and pass along a very relevant nugget of information:

While according to ABAlert, what Merrill did with investments in the subprime market estimated at $15 billion is not yet known. “One often-cited theory is that the bank transferred the banged-up investments from an available for sale account within its brokerage unit to a hold to maturity portfolio at affiliate Merrill Lynch Bank in late June.

“Such a move,” the article continues, “would have enabled the company to follow friendlier accounting procedures, since the contents of the for-sale portfolio must be marked to market [assigned a value based on what they would fetch at current market rates] on a routine basis and the values of assets in the hold book don’t have to be updated until they come due or are sold.”

“Thanks to this accounting maneuver, Merrill posted second quarter earnings that were stronger than expected,” according to ABAlert. Moreover, “The institution reported last month that its profits surged by 31%, to $2.1 billion, during the April-June stretch.”

Merrill is the largest underwriter of CDOs, or collateralized debt obligations—securitized debt instruments into which subprime mortgages are bundled together with other asset- and mortgage-backed securities. The global market in CDOs has soared from $160 billion in 2004 to half a trillion in 2006.

Merrill is by no means the only firm resorting to accounting ploys to hide losses. ABAlert reports that “Citigroup has been making moves resembling Merrill’s. The same goes for Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley,” who are also hunting “for internal accounting maneuvers that can lessen the impact of the market dislocation.”

The monies correspond to multi-billion dollar mark-to-market accounts opened by the major investment banks in their role as “warehouse lenders for unaffiliated CDO issuers. The plan was for the issuers to utilize the temporary lines of funding to build up inventories of subprime-mortgage securities that could serve as collateral for future CDOs, and then use the proceeds from those offerings to repay the banks. But as the subprime-mortgage business headed south in recent months, so did the issuers’ ability to complete new CDOs,” ABAlert said.

The move raised questions about the legitimacy of Merrill’s accounting procedures and “outsiders have been plumbing into the financial statements of those institutions, among others that somehow managed to avoid reporting losses, for clues about where they’re stashing the assets and what the true effect on their financial health might be.”

Furthermore, the ABAlert report sounds an alarming note regarding the “growing urgency by investment banks... to minimize the impact on their businesses or at least dress up their books.”

I must admit that this analysis explains recent events. Investment banks swept toxic securities under the carpet hoping that the whole subprime thing would blow over quickly. Interestingly, this clearly was an open secret and clearly the market freeze shows that suspicions about where losses lay were not mere paranoia.

Now the question is whether the banks have come clean. Chances are that they have reported a good chunk of their losses, although measurment issues may delay a full reckoning. However, by having held off on reporting losses for so long they may raise the levels of uncertainty and thus make the situation worse (at least compared to a scenario where they would've reported losses gradually as they happened).

Joe Torre, executive pay martyr?

Is executive pay destined to rise ever higher? The Economist's Business.view column thinks so and they turn to a rather unusual example, Joe Torre, the New York Yankee's former manager, to make its case.

To recap, Torre quit after a long, successful tenure (although his team hasn't reached the World Series for six years) after the Yankees organization offered to extend his contract one more year, reducing base pay but offering generous performance-based incentives. Torre called it an insult and quit.

The column argues that:

....Once a pay level has been reached, it becomes a minimum. Mr Torre may still have been the best paid manager in baseball under the new contract, but he would not have been as well paid as before. He is already wealthy and successful. He needs the extra money less than he needs respect—much like the typical boss of a big company after a few years in the job.

Perhaps the Yankees had decided that they really did not want to retain Mr Torre, but also did not want to be the target of abuse from supporters for firing a popular manager. So they hit on the brilliant reverse—“Godfather” strategy of making him an offer he was bound to refuse. But if they did want to keep him, they should have realised that the only executive who is likely to accept a pay cut is the one you don’t want to keep.

The same may be true when it comes to hiring a replacement—the best moment, in theory, to ratchet down excessive pay levels relatively painlessly. Of course, there is nobody available with a record like Mr Torre’s, so a little pay-trimming will be hard to quibble with.

But what self-respecting manager would settle for a pay package significantly less generous than his predecessor’s? Even if the market for executives functions better in future than in the past, when it comes to pay, the only rational way is up.

This just doesn't make any sense in any context. Here's why.

It's simply not true that a new CEO will demand, and earn, as much as a successful predecessor. GE provides a good example. This is just common sense. What high executive would not jump at the chance to run a firm even if he didn't earn as much as the previous CEO? Let's keep in mind that the gap between a CEO's pay and that of his top lieutenants is huge, so a CFO climbing to the top rung will make much more, even if pay at the CEO position is cut.

The main problem with executive pay is that incentives are not meaningfully aligned with actual performance. As a result, underperforming CEOs (which logic dictates are 50% of the total) are usually paid way too much. In that sense, true compensation reform would probably not penalize success, but rather avoid rewarding failure.

Now, the tricky bit is measuring performance, which is difficult even in baseball, the most statistically-centered sport. How much of the Yankees remarkable success over the past 10 years is attributable to Joe Torre's coaching compared to the team's overall talent level? This ultimately involves some judgement calls, although the sabermetrics crowd has developed valuable objective indicators to measure this(see here and here). It's high time boards used similar methods to set executive pay.

As for Joe Torre, this argument sounds about right.

NY Times falls victim to Woody Allen Syndrome

The famous NY-centric director has a deep, long-standing dislike of all things California. Apparently and not surprisingly, so do the editors of the NY Times.

Look at today's front page. The three top stories are:
-Reports Assail State Department on Iraq Security
-U.S. Prosecution of Muslim Group Ends in Mistrial
-In Iraq, Conflict Simmers on a 2nd Kurdish Front

The first two are newsworthy items for sure, but not exactly of earth shattering importance. The story about the Kurds -placed in the most prominent position-is not fresh news and sounds more like Sunday paper fodder (although I must admit that the Kurdish guerillaette in the picture is pretty hot).

In the meantime, massive fires burn unabated in Southern California, destroying thousands of homes and forcing the evacuation of hundreds of thousands. Were does the Times inform us of this? As an item at the "INSIDE" box at the bottom.

Unmatchable as an example of obnoxious New York snootiness. Needles to say, all the other national papers do lead with the wildfires story.

Fed cut almost a done deal

That is, according to options on the federal funds contract. According to the Cleveland Fed's model, the probability of a 25 basis point cut is about 57%, while a 50 bp cut is assigned a 16% probability and the no change option is given a 26% chance.

It's worth noting that there was a dramatic shift in perception last week. The 25 bp cut's probability rose about 33 percentage points, while the 50 bp cut's odds rose by 13 percentage points.

Inflamatory question of the day

Why are almost all houses in the U.S. so similar? This has nothing to do with the real estate market, but with their layout and materials. From Maine to California, the typical home, built out of flimsy wood and stucco, is very similar (it seems almost centrally planned) regardless of climate or other considerations.

I ask because I live in San Diego and, while in no danger, I've seen on the television countless homes burn in minutes. Southern California has always faced severe danger from wildfires. Yet, houses are built in a manner that makes them highly flammable. Maybe wood is less expensive than brick or cement as a building material, but surely it can't be that much of a difference and, if the present value of fire insurance is added, the other options would be more attractive.

This is not the first time I've asked this. Americans build houses that the Big Bad Wolf would have no trouble blowing down in harm's way. Like the Gulf Coast. I have yet to see anyone even suggest a change in the way houses are built (in Mexico's Caribbean coast damage from hurricanes is much less severe precisely because buildings are made of sturdier stuff).

Why is this? Government doesn't help. By subsidizing catastrophe insurance and providing generous reconstruction funds it shields homeowners from the worst consequences. Nonetheless, my guess is that it's mostly a cultural thing. Americans simply can't conceive of houses build any other way. While the typical home may be well adapted to, say, New England or the Pacific Northwest, its totally out of place in West, where it would make much more sense to build the typical Mediterranean house.

Weird.