Saturday, September 25, 2010

Data Zealots and Hysterical Blindness


Hello again, dear readers. Permit me to call your attention to the most important idea that nobody ever heard of... "data zealots" and their incapacity to see reality for all the facts in the way:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/opinion/25herbert.html?th&emc=th

While reading the article, I was reminded of the intriguing story of Brooksley Born, the head of a little-known regulatory agency who fought in vain for the increased oversight of derivatives sales during the Bill Clinton administration. She was smacked down by then-arrogant and all-knowing Alan Greenspan with Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, who convinced a puzzled congress that regulating the complex instruments would be disastrous. Ten years (nearly to the day) after Born's Commodity Futures Trading Commission was stripped of its regulatory powers, frightened bankers met secretly in a dark corner of Washington to get their heads around the unraveling of black box derivative-fueled fiscal meltdown that crushed AIG and Lehman, and plunged global financial markets to the brink of disaster. Greenspan since admitted seeing the 'flaw' in his Ayn Randian libertarian-utopian economic model and admits now that regulation should have been implemented, while Geithner and Summers are joined at the hip in a position of leadership -- for now -- within President Obama's team of economic advisors, this time combating other ex-Wall Streeters-turned-lobbyists who will do anything to prevent regulation of the same reviving derivatives market that would have brought down the house without unprecedented Fed, government, and taxpayer intervention.

Watch the Frontline piece "The Warning" for an excellent synopsis of Brooksley Born's unheeded warning-become-prophesy:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/

It blows my mind to think it; it burns my mouth to say it... but we ARE going to go through it all over again. Details may be different, but we can definitely expect continuing danger from the shadow markets in the form of endlessly repeating calamities attributed to this regulatory gap. This time there will be no way to minimize the damage or do any meaningful triage after the fact. No biggie, though, the world will keep turning. Mother Earth needs a break from us anyway.

Friday, April 10, 2009

Graft Macaroni and Cheese


Feeling sorry for yourself? Struggling to get by? Wondering how you can get a bailout? Well, stop moping, because it's not too late!

I may not be Suze Orman or Billy Mays, but I've discovered a revolutionary risk-free investment plan straight from those who brought us the economic meltdown. So in this blogfomercial, I won't waste your time with Ginsu knives or cash-for-timeshare schemes - I'm going to help make you rich beyond your wildest dreams!

Look, we've all heard about Wall Street's losses. But you probably didn't hear about Corporate America's newest sure thing: a path to financial freedom far more reliable than any decent-paying job. It's something so old-fashioned that even amateur investors can understand it!

It's called GRAFT-MATIC – a surefire wealth creator that takes your investments, modifies laws and delivers returns that the best stock trader could never dream of! This is the ShamWow of strategies, the Flowbee of economics, the Ronco of investing. Just look at the profits it generates!

In the last decade, the financial industry's $5 billion investment in campaign contributions and lobbyists resulted in deregulation, which generated trillions for executives. And when the bubble burst, there was another boatload of free money! By Bloomberg News' account, $12.8 trillion worth of taxpayer loans, grants and guarantees - all to Wall Street!

But wait ... there's more!

The Associated Press this week reports that "companies that spent hundreds of millions lobbying successfully for a tax break enacted in 2004 got a 22,000-percent return on that investment" - $100 billion in all. That could be you!

The secret is investing heavily in specific political stocks!

For example, the banking industry recently paid Rahm Emanuel $16 million for about two years of work. That investment was recently paid back when, as President Obama's chief of staff, Emanuel led the January campaign to release another $350 billion in bank bailout funds. Turning a $16 million down payment into a $350 billion payout - that's huge!

Likewise, Goldman Sachs hired former Senate aide Mark Patterson as one of its lobbyists - an investment that proved a huge winner when Patterson became the Treasury Department's chief of staff and the agency subsequently killed proposals to limit executive compensation at bailed-out banks. Cha-ching!

And the hedge fund industry paid economist Larry Summers $5.2 million in 2008 for part-time work - an investment that hit pay dirt when Summers became Obama's top economic aide and the administration resisted tough international hedge fund regulations that some G-20 countries wanted. Show me the money!

That's right, the surest way to make big cash is not to invest in people with proven business experience or in valuable entrepreneurial ventures, but in blue-chip members of Permanent Washington - career politicos and bureaucrats who inevitably get back into positions of power and payback!

Now I know you think that I sound like the guy in the question-mark suit and that my plan seems like a scam. But it's perfectly legal!

How much would you pay for this kind of opportunity? $100 trillion? $50 trillion? What if I said you could get all this for just a few billion in pocket change? Because that's all it takes to start no-risk investing! It's that easy!

Why let the corporate guys make all the money off government? Why waste time working for companies that make stuff when you can buy the one company that simply prints cash?

Order now to try my product! It's not available in stores, but if you call within the next 15 minutes, we'll throw in free congressional and White House phone directories valued at $49.95! Operators are standing by!


Saturday, March 7, 2009

Rise and Fall: On Intellect and Opposable Thumbs


The derivatives market is the $700 trillion elephant in the room. Not gorilla... elephant. And the $700 trillion elephant is pissing on our heads. The elephant will soon sit on our heads if we don’t nip it. NIP IT... in the bud... like Barney Fife with a snoot-full of corn likker.

Derivative contracts total about three-quarters of a quadrillion dollars in "notional" amounts, according to the Bank for International Settlements. These contracts are tallied in notional values because no one really can say how much they are worth, but valuing them correctly is exactly what we should be doing because these comprise the viral disease that has infected the financial markets and the economies of the world.

To gain some perspective on what $700 trillion means (I do not believe that sum even exists in the whole world), let’s put that number next to a few of the little disasters that already have our fiscal panties in a wad. Try as we might to salvage the residential real estate market, it's at best only worth $23 trillion. We're struggling to save the stock market, but that's valued at less than $15 trillion. And we hope to keep the entire U.S. economy from collapsing, yet gross domestic product stands at $14.2 trillion. Compare any of these amounts to the stoned-tripping-drunk-hallucinating valuation of the derivatives market and you can easily see that we have essentially installed screen doors in our diving submarine. The total value of all the stock markets in the world, by the way, amounts to less than $50 trillion, according to the World Federation of Exchanges.

To be sure, the derivatives market is international. But much of the trouble we're in began with contracts "derived" from the values associated with U.S. residential real estate market. These contracts were engineered based on the various assumptions tied to those values. Few know what derivatives are really worth. One derivatives trader who manages billions of dollars said she couldn't put a value on her portfolio because "no one knows anymore who is on the other side of the trade."

Derivatives pricing, simply put, is determined by what someone else is willing to pay for the contract. The value is based on an artificial scenario that 'X' will be worth 'Y' if 'Z' happens. Strip away the fantasy, however, and the reality of the situation is akin to a game of musical chairs – without any chairs – and the music must, sooner or later, stop.

That's why the current strategies designed to stabilize the housing market will do little to take the sting out of the snapback we are going through on Wall Street. Once people's mortgages were sold off to secondary buyers, and then all sorts of crazy types of derivative securities were devised based on those, and those securities were in turn traded on down the line, there is now little if any relevance to the real estate values on which they were pegged. We must identify and determine the real value of derivatives before we give banks and institutions a pass-go with more tax dollars. Otherwise, homeowners will suffer as banks patch up the holes left in their balance sheets by the derivatives gone poof; new credit won't be extended until the raff of the old credit is in the rear-view mirror. It isn't the housing market devaluation, or the sub-prime mortgage market defaults that have us in real trouble. Those are nice fakes to sway attention away from the place where greed truly flourished – trading phony instruments to the tune of $700 trillion.

In what may be the strangest, darkest, deadliest head-scratcher ever, derivatives regulation falls under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture committees of both houses, which means a bunch of corn-huskers who have never really considered the issue will have to try to wrap their heads around it before anything can be done. This means --not merely suggests -- that toothless, meaningless non-enforceable regulation was all that was ever intended to guard obligations of more money than actually exists in the world. This ensured that people in-the-know could make the most money possible... and that in doing so, the possibility of genuine catastrophe was considered an acceptable risk and part of the cost of doing business by those whose only motive was getting rich. Only greedy politicians could do something that stupid.

To paraphrase Allen Greenspan: "We thought the issue would police itself." Evidently, and most disturbingly, Greenspan was wrong. But rest not blame completely on the shoulders of Alan Greenspan, dear readers. The likes of the Maxine Waters' and Barney Franks of the world -- crying out for regulation and more regulation, bureaucracy and more bureaucracy, government and more government -- are just as lost as their so-called conservative counterparts who idiotically shriek aloud at even the tiniest hint of regulatory control, for one can write neither the rule nor regulation that greedy human ingenuity and opposable thumbs cannot skirt. Everything these days is a fine print-laden greasy salesman-covered, screw-your-fellowman con. It's in our capitalist nature to make money at any cost, and the path of least resistance is, unfortunately, to tread willfully, greedily and deceptively upon the fortunes of trusting, faceless victims.

What a fine system we have built, indeed. Even with all the untold trillions thrown into bottomless pits of financial need named AIG and Lehman, (and now Citigroup and probably Bank of America), institutions stupidly considered too big to fail clearly ARE failing. With them – right before our eyes – goes the combined wealth of four American generations, the total wealth of the Treasury of the United States, and every other world government while we sink together, incredulously bewildered, into the sea of global, systemic, synchronized depression.

The human civilization has not yet been born that was too big to fail, and ours is no exception. But that lesson appears to be lost on the deaf ears and blind eyes of the belligerent, immature, child-like incompetents who run the show, frivolously arguing until blue in the face, while Roma Americana burns to the ground around them.

Friday, March 6, 2009

How Low Can You Stand? How Low Is Low?

Stockmarket Cycles editor Peter Eliades laments on market models whispering the possibility of a 4,000 Dow Jones Industrial Average.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

How Much Is A Trillion?


A trillion used to be a number that never naturally came up in normal conversation. Now all of a sudden, it's the standard unit we seem to be using to talk about our economic problems and what we're trying to do about them. We are dangerously desensitized to this king of truly mammoth words... and thus, we throw the word around as freely as pennies to a wishing well.

Fortunately, I think I finally got a handle on what $1 trillion really means.

A trillion dollars is about the total amount collected in income taxes by the U.S. federal government in fiscal year 2006-- $1.04 trillion, if you're curious to know the exact number. That gives me a simple rule of thumb for personalizing these numbers. If I want to know what an additional trillion dollars in government borrowing or spending will mean for me, I just imagine what it would be like to pay twice as much in federal income taxes for one year.

So, for example, with the President's proposed budget calling for deficits of $1.75 trillion for 2009 and an additional $1.17 trillion for 2010, after 3 years of paying twice as much as I paid in 2006, I'd have about paid off my share of the bill for the first two years of the proposal.

Couldn't the government get its hands on that $3 trillion from, say, somebody else? Uncle Sam actually did collect an additional $838 billion from social insurance and retirement receipts in 2006, but pretending that yet another midnight raid on Social Security is somehow going to fill the gap is pure fantasy. Then there's that $354 billion in corporate income tax receipts; no doubt there's going to be an effort to grab more out of that cookie jar, although I'm afraid that such efforts will prove to be hugely costly economically and not produce nearly as much revenue as some might think.

Maybe the Federal Reserve could help out. The total currency in circulation at the moment is about $900 billion. If the Fed were to create as much money in the next year as it did during the preceding 95 years combined, and then use it to buy up some of the outstanding Treasury debt, it would doubtless produce an inflation rate in excess of 100%, but at least it would get us most of the way through another of those trillion.

I said most of the way... we're not there yet and I am out of analogies.