Recent Items

Archive for April, 2008

Links May Day 2008

Criminals try to ‘copyright’ malware PhysOrg

Next decade ‘may see no warming’ BBC

Nuclear’s CO2 cost ‘will climb’ BBC

Where Are They? Why I hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing MIT Technology Review

Pricing power:
signal versus noise
Tim Price

McCain’s Health Care Plan: Why It’s Another Dumb Idea Robert Reich

Republicans Plan a Giveaway: for the Wealthy ataxingmatter

The Slippery Slide Towards Insolvency Michael Panzner

Borders still matter; “the world isn’t as flat as it used to be” Brad Setser

Antidote du jour:

Fed Weighs Increasing Term Auction Facility Yet Again

When the Fed’s innovation, the Term Auction Facility, which is in effect an improved discount window, was implemented last December, its size was $40 billion, which was considered extraordinary, a sign of how desperation conditions in the money markets were. Now that several increased put the facility is $100 billion, the banking community and the press treat the idea that it might need to be enlarged yet again as something comparatively routine, rather than a sign that banks are still under serious stress despite concerted measures by central banks,

Yet again, the Fed is acting out the cliche, “if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” Central banks know how to deal with liquidity crises; the TAF and its other facilities are well suited for that sort of problem. But fundamentally, the financial services industry is suffering from a solvency problem. Too many of the assets on its balance sheets contain loans to borrowers who lack the ability (and in some cases the desire) to make good on their debts. Forcing interest rates into negative real interest rate territory will only help a portion of the underwater borrowers. In addition, a distortion this severe is almost guaranteed to produce more misallocation of capital, which is not good for the US in the long term. And if the Fed miraculously manages to keep asset values from falling further, it is merely delaying the day of reckoning, and Japan is the poster child of the results of such a Phyrric victory.

From Bloomberg:

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke may need to step up his effort to unfreeze bank funding markets as a surge in borrowing costs blunts the impact of the cash auctions the central bank introduced in December.

The cost of obtaining funds for three months has risen by 0.33 percentage point since the Federal Open Market Committee’s last meeting on March 18. The jump may force homeowners with variable-rate mortgages and some companies to pay more on their loans at a time when economic growth is faltering…..

“There’s clearly a need for the Fed to do more,” said Charles Lieberman, a former New York Fed economist who’s now chief investment officer of Advisors Capital Management LLC in Paramus, New Jersey. “The underlying problem” is that banks and other investors are “still nervous” about lending to each other, he said…..

Investors’ focus may instead shift to the Fed’s attempt to stem the surge in bank funding costs that began in August, when the subprime-mortgage market’s collapse spurred concern about losses at financial firms.

The three-month London Interbank Offered Rate for dollars has climbed to 2.87 percent from 2.54 percent on March 18.

Increases in Libor and other rates are “a pretty clear indication that liquidity remains an issue or that term liquidity remains scarce,” said Dean Maki, chief U.S. economist at Barclays in New York and a former Fed researcher. “The Fed’s made pretty clear they’re going to continue to attack those problems as needed.”

The TAF is one of several Fed initiatives to unblock credit markets, along with direct loans to investment banks and $29 billion of financing to secure JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s takeover of Bear Stearns Cos. Investors have responded, buying a record $45.3 billion of corporate bonds last week and spurring an 11 percent rally in the Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index from the year’s low last month…

Another gauge of bank funding costs, the premium on Libor over the overnight indexed swap rate, a measure of what traders expect for the Fed’s benchmark rate, reached 87 basis points on April 21. That was the highest since the Fed announced the TAF on Dec. 12.

Bigger TAF operations would probably slow or reverse the increase in borrowing costs, said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP LLC in Jersey City, New Jersey. …

Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, San Francisco Fed President Janet Yellen and three other district-bank presidents voiced concerns about rising prices this month.

“Federal Reserve officials view themselves as about done with policy easing,” said Vincent Reinhart, who was the Fed’s chief monetary-policy strategist from 2001 until September 2007. “They probably want to signal that the easing cycle is over, at least for a while.”

Quelle Surprise! Bush Homeowner Rescue Program Falls Short of Low Expectatios

Last year, we were less than impressed with Bush’s tightly bounded but widely touted plan to use the FHA, a traditional source of financing to low and middle income borrowers, to help salvage homeowners at risk of begin dispossessed. Note we have doubts about “rescue debtor” operations. Iin many cases, these borrowers had little to no equity in their home, which begs the question of why it is so awful for them to lose their home. Indignity, yes, tragedy, no.

But a cynical plan to do nothing while pretending to offer relief is even worse than standing pat. It gives homeowners and possibly mortgage investors false hope and forestalls discussion of the tough choices that need to be made (the residential housing market is simply too large for the Feds to rescue), But then again, if your aim is merely to leave this problem in the lap of the incoming regime, a Potemkin program like this is exactly the sort of thing you want.

Better yet, the FHA program appears to be falling well short of its modest goals. The Bushies said it would aid 80,000 delinquent borrowers in 2008. So far this year, the total in that category getting help in 2,000.

From the New York Times:

Fewer than 2,000 homeowners at risk of foreclosure have been helped by a Federal Housing Administration program that President Bush promised would help homeowners who had fallen behind on their mortgage payments, federal housing statistics show.

F.H.A. officials have asserted in recent weeks that more than 150,000 people have benefited from the program, which was intended to help troubled homeowners refinance into stable, government-issued loans. But the vast majority of participants have been homeowners who have made their mortgage payments on time, not the borrowers in crisis who were the targets of the president’s plan, the statistics show…..

More than 400,000 mortgages will be refinanced through F.H.A. Secure this year, officials say. Of those, only about 4,000 will be held by homeowners who have fallen behind on their payments, the statistics show.

“F.H.A. Secure, while a good idea, is not addressing the magnitude of the problem,” Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who is the chairman of the Banking Committee, said at a hearing this month. He is calling for legislation that would help many more troubled borrowers.

Scott Stern of Lenders One, an alliance of mortgage bankers based in St. Louis, called the program’s record with the neediest homeowners “a tragedy.”

“F.H.A. is helping borrowers who aren’t currently in trouble and that is fine,” Mr. Stern said. “But there is a specific subset of borrowers right now who are in trouble. The program needs to be helping people who need the help immediately.”

Housing officials say they have worked hard to reach such borrowers. In August, the program was tailored toward low-income homeowners who were falling behind because of interest rate increases on their adjustable-rate mortgages. The officials say that interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve reduced the number of such people….

The F.H.A. still requires borrowers hoping to refinance to have made 10 on-time payments in the 12 months before they went into default. That will block many borrowers, said John Taylor, president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, which helps people in underserved communities get credit.

Martin Wolf on Reforming Agriculture

In a bit of synchronicity, food worries are getting prominent billing tonight in the media. The Financial Times” Martin Wolf sketches out some dimensions of snowballing agricultural problems and possible solutions.

Wolf’s piece endeavors to cover a lot of ground, which means of necessity it gives short shrift to depth. It touches on the central yet only-now-meriting-discussion fact that high productivity agricultural production is energy intensive. It mentions only in passing that scarcity of potable water is also increasingly an issue, and as Australians know full well, agricultural uses often compete with household needs. And creating water for human consumption out of low quality water is often energy intensive (desalination reportedly is, membrane-based technologies far less so). While there are no easy answers, looking at problems in isolation is sure to lead to suboptimal solutions.

It also (an increasing pet peeve) fails to mention that the ag problems is a population and diet problem, and does not consider addressing those issues. Weirdly, there is an assumption that people can’t/won’t change their diets. Yet convention and social norms are very powerful forces. In US, but no one here is talking about the need for people in advanced economies to eat less meat and fish protein (as mentioned, it take roughly 10 grain calories to produce one food calorie). Note that does NOT mean becoming vegan, but shifting the proportions in one’s diet (I’m amazed when I go to restaurants how big the piece of protein is relative to everything else). Will this happen quickly? Unlikely, but not talking about it as part of a program will assure it doesn’t happen at all.

From the Financial Times;

Of the two crises disturbing the world economy – financial disarray and soaring food prices – the latter is the more disturbing….

The recent price spikes apply to almost all significant food and feedstuffs (see charts). Yet these jumps are themselves part of a wider range of commodity price rises. Powerful forces are linking prices of energy, industrial raw materials and foodstuffs…..

So why have prices of food risen so strongly? Will these higher prices last? What action should be taken in response?

On the demand side, strong rises in incomes per head in China, India and other emerging countries have raised demand for food, notably meat and the related animal feeds. These shifts in land use reduce the supply of cereals available for human consumption.

Furthermore, rising production of subsidised biofuels, further stimulated by soaring oil prices, boosts demand for maize, rapeseed oil and the other grains and edible oils that are an alternative to food crops. The latest World Economic Outlook from the International Monetary Fund comments that “although biofuels still account for only 1½ per cent of the global liquid fuels supply, they accounted for almost half of the increase in consumption of major food crops in 2006-07, mostly because of corn-based ethanol produced in the US”.

Meanwhile, aggregate production of maize, rice and soyabeans stagnated in 2006 and 2007. This was partly the result of drought. Also important, however, have been higher prices of oil, since modern farming is so energy-intensive. With weak growth of supply and strong increases in demand, cereal stocks have fallen to their lowest levels since the early 1980s. Declining stocks undermine the widely shared belief that speculation has driven the rising prices, since stocks would be rising, not falling, if prices were above market-clearing levels.

Vastly more worrying than speculation is the weak medium-term growth of supply. The rapid increases in yields of the 1970s and 1980s, at the time of the “green revolution”, have slowed. Given the stresses on water supplies, longer-term supply prospects would look poor even if diversion of land for production of biofuels were not adding to the pressure.

Are prices going to remain high? Two opposing forces are at work. The first is the market, which will tend to bring prices back down as supplies expand and demand shrinks. But the latter is also what we want to avoid, at least in the case of the poor, since reducing their consumption is not so much a solution as a failure. The second force is the current intense pressure on the world’s food system. This is true of both demand and costs of supply. Prices are likely to remain relatively elevated, by historical standards, unless (or until) energy prices tumble.

This, then, brings us to the big question: what is to be done? The answers fall into three broad categories: humanitarian; trade and other policy interventions; and longer-term productivity and production.

The important point on the first is that higher food prices have powerful distributional effects: they hurt the poorest the most. This is true both among countries and within them. The Food and Agricultural Organisation in Rome recently listed 37 countries in substantial need of food assistance. Moreover, according to the World Bank, soaring food prices threaten to make at least 100m more people hungry.

Increases in aid to the vulnerable, either as food or as cash, are vital. Equally important, however, is ensuring that the additional supplies reach those in greatest difficulty…..

Now turn to the policy interventions. Protection, subsidies and other such follies distort agriculture more than any other sector. Alas, the opportunity to eliminate protection against imports offered by exceptionally high world prices is not being taken. A host of countries are imposing export taxes instead, thereby fragmenting the world market still more, reducing incentives for increased output and penalising poor net-importing countries. Meanwhile, rich countries are encouraging, or even forcing, their farmers to grow fuel instead of food…

Finally, far greater resources need to be devoted to expanding long-run supply. Increased spending on research will be essential, especially into farming in dry-land conditions. The move towards genetically modified food in developing countries is as inevitable as that of the high-income countries towards nuclear power. At least as important will be more efficient use of water, via pricing and additional investment. People will oppose some of these policies. But mass starvation is not a tolerable option.

The food and fuel crisis of 2008 is a cry for our attention. Nobody knows how long these shocks will last. But they demand rapid policy changes across the globe. We must choose between fragmenting world markets still further and integrating them, between helping the poor and letting even more starve and between investing in improving supply and allowing food deficiencies to grow. The right choices are evident. The time to make them is now.

Fertilizer Scarcity Threatens Agricultural Productivity

Dear readers,

I will give more measured impressions of the Milken Conference in a day or so, when I it is over (we have another day, but the last day is far thinner in terms of offerings) and have had a day or so to reflect.

However, to give a highlight, a subtext was was that many pressing world problems had solutions (and better yet, private sector solutions).

Now as much as I like to opine broadly, I (hopefully) maintain a sense of proportion as to where I have good knowledge and where I am sticking my neck out, and try to advise readers when I know I may be sticking my neck out.

By contrast, Gary Becker, a Nobel Prize winner in economics (more accurately, The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, created by Sweden’s central bank) maintained at the Monday and Tuesday lunch presentations (remember, meals have the biggest attendance and so will have the greatest impact) that unlike oil, the problem of agricultural price increases would be old news in a year or two because productivity of agriculture in the third world was so poor. All we need to do is get them to adopt even more advanced techniques). And that’s great because all those people now working the fields will produce much greater GDP per head when they move to cities and free up the land.

At least today, another Nobel winner (was it Edmund Phelps of Columbia or Michael Spence of Stamford?) bothered pointing out that food is 60% of household spending in many parts of developing countries, that 50-100% prices in food means starvation and childhood malnutrition that can lead to permanently impairment.

Moreover, if you recall the early history of the Industrial Revolution, when tenant farmers were en masse forced off their land and decamped to cities, wage rates fell because there simply wasn’t enough work for them. The number bandied about was that 1.5 billion people in China and India are involved in food production. Pray, how will you possibly find other employment for so many people if they no longer till the soil?

Equally appalling: no mention of strategies to slow population growth as part of the solution. no mention that the problem was wasn’t just population growth, but newly affluent people in emerging markets adding more animal protein to their diets (it takes roughly 10 calories of grains to produce one meat calorie). We all need (or will be forced by price) to eat foods lower on the food chain.

And even if you manage somehow to come up with enough fertilizer, it has nasty effects on the oceans. There is no free lunch.

So to the New York Times, It says fertilizer consists of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, and the scarce item is nitrogen in a form plants can use. One reader in comments had said that phosphorus was running out. Anyone who has further information either confirming or denying is very much encouraged to speak up.

From the New York Times:

Truong Thi Nha stands just four and a half feet tall. Her three grown children tower over her, just as many young people in this village outside Hanoi dwarf their parents.

The biggest reason the children are so robust: fertilizer.

Ms. Nha, her face weathered beyond its 51 years, said her growth was stunted by a childhood of hunger and malnutrition. Just a few decades ago, crop yields here were far lower and diets much worse.

Then the widespread use of inexpensive chemical fertilizer, coupled with market reforms, helped power an agricultural explosion here that had already occurred in other parts of the world. Yields of rice and corn rose, and diets grew richer.

Now those gains are threatened in many countries by spot shortages and soaring prices for fertilizer, the most essential ingredient of modern agriculture.

Some kinds of fertilizer have nearly tripled in price in the last year, keeping farmers from buying all they need….

In the United States, farmers in Iowa eager to replenish nutrients in the soil have increased the age-old practice of spreading hog manure on fields. In India, the cost of subsidizing fertilizer for farmers has soared, leading to political dispute. And in Africa, plans to stave off hunger by increasing crop yields are suddenly in jeopardy.

The squeeze on the supply of fertilizer has been building for roughly five years. Rising demand for food and biofuels prompted farmers everywhere to plant more crops. As demand grew, the fertilizer mines and factories of the world proved unable to keep up.

Some dealers in the Midwest ran out of fertilizer last fall, and they continue to restrict sales this spring because of a limited supply.

“If you want 10,000 tons, they’ll sell you 5,000 today, maybe 3,000,” said W. Scott Tinsman Jr., a fertilizer dealer in Davenport, Iowa. “The rubber band is stretched really far.”

Fertilizer companies are confident the shortage will be solved eventually, noting that they plan to build scores of new factories. But that will probably create fresh problems in the long run as the world grows more dependent on fossil fuels to produce chemical fertilizers. Intensified use of such fertilizers is certain to mean greater pollution of waterways, too.

Agriculture and development experts say the world has few alternatives to its growing dependence on fertilizer. As population increases and a rising global middle class demands more food, fertilizer is among the most effective strategies to increase crop yields.

“Putting fertilizer on the ground on a one-acre plot can, in typical cases, raise an extra ton of output,” said Jeffrey D. Sachs, the Columbia University economist who has focused on eradicating poverty. “That’s the difference between life and death.”…

Overall global consumption of fertilizer increased by an estimated 31 percent from 1996 to 2008, driven by a 56 percent increase in developing countries, according to the International Fertilizer Industry Association….

Fertilizer is plant food, a combination of nutrients added to soil to help plants grow. The three most important are nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. The latter two have long been available. But nitrogen in a form that plants can absorb is scarce, and the lack of it led to low crop yields for centuries.

That limitation ended in the early 20th century with the invention of a procedure, now primarily fueled by natural gas, that draws chemically inert nitrogen from the air and converts it into a usable form.

As the use of such fertilizer spread, it was accompanied by improved plant varieties and greater mechanization. From 1900 to 2000, worldwide food production jumped by 600 percent. Scientists said that increase was the fundamental reason world population was able to rise to about 6.7 billion today from 1.7 billion in 1900.

Vaclav Smil, a professor at the University of Manitoba, calculates that without nitrogen fertilizer, there would be insufficient food for 40 percent of the world’s population, at least based on today’s diets.

Initially, much of the increased production of fertilizer went to grains like wheat and rice that served as the foundation of a basic diet. But recently, with world economic growth at a brisk 5 percent a year, hundreds of millions of people began earning enough money to buy more meat from animals fattened with grains. That occurred at the same time that rising production of biofuels, like ethanol, put new pressure on grain supplies.

These factors translated into rising fertilizer demand. Prices at a terminal in Tampa, Fla., for one fertilizer, diammonium phosphate, jumped to $1,102 a ton from $393 a ton in the last year, according to JPMorgan Securities, which tracks the prices. Urea, a type of granular nitrogen fertilizer, jumped to $505 a ton from $273 a ton in the last year.

Manufacturers are scrambling to increase supply. At least 50 plants to make nitrogen fertilizer are under construction, many in the Middle East where natural gas is abundant, and phosphorous and potassium mines are being expanded. But these projects are expensive and time-consuming, and supplies are expected to remain tight for years.

Fertilizer is vitally important in Iowa, whose farmers grow more corn than in any other state and depend on fertilizer to increase yields.

But the combination of high prices and spot shortages has forced some farmers to revert to older methods of fertilization, making hog manure a hot commodity. Farmers are cutting deals to have hog barns built on the edges of their corn and soybean fields.

On a tour of his rolling farm in Oxford Junction in eastern Iowa, Jayson Willimack pointed to the future sites of two buildings that will hold 2,400 hogs. Their manure will eventually replace commercial fertilizer on 400 acres, about 10 percent of his farm, and save him perhaps $50,000 annually. “Every little bit helps,” he said.

Such a strategy has severe limits — manure contains so little nitrogen that tons are required on each acre. That means farmers in Iowa and abroad have little choice but to pay the higher prices for commercial fertilizer.

In many countries, those cost increases have so far been offset by record high prices for crops. But fertilizer inflation has created a crisis in countries that subsidize fertilizer use for farmers. In India, for instance, the government’s subsidy bill could be as high as $22 billion in the coming year, up from $4 billion in 2004-5.

Once new supplies become available, the rising use of fertilizer will still pose difficulties.

Environmental groups fear increased use, particularly of nitrogen fertilizer made using fossil fuels. Because plants do not absorb all the nitrogen, much of it leaches into streams and groundwater. That runoff has long been recognized as a major pollution problem, and it is growing.

A barometer of the pollution is the rising number of dead zones where rivers meet the sea. In the Gulf of Mexico, for instance, nitrogen runoff from fields in the Corn Belt washes downstream and feeds plant life in the gulf. The algae blooms suck oxygen from the water, killing other marine life.

More than 400 dead zones have been identified, from the coasts of China to the Chesapeake Bay, and the primary reason is agricultural runoff, said Robert J. Diaz, a professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

“Nitrogen is nitrogen,” Professor Diaz said. “If it’s on land, it produces corn. If it gets in the water, it produces algae.”

This month, a United Nations panel called for changes in agricultural practices to make them less damaging. The panel recommended techniques that offer some of the same benefits as chemical fertilizer, like increased crop rotation with legumes that naturally add some nitrogen to the soil.

But others say those approaches, while helpful, will be not be enough to meet the world’s rapidly rising demand for food and biofuel.

“This is a basic problem, to feed 6.6 billion people,” said Norman Borlaug, an American scientist who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his role in spreading intensive agricultural practices to poor countries. “Without chemical fertilizer, forget it. The game is over.”

Foreclosures Hitting Rentals Too

Thanks for your patience. Still in LA at the Milken Conference (I feel like I have been parachuted into a Pasadena Republican/Chicago School of Economics parallel universe, although I have managed to find some fellow apostates. If I spent enough time here, I might be brainwashed (social assent is very powerful).

Thus I hope you will bear with me for a bit longer. It also feels a bit weird to post when time constraints mean I haven’t been able to spend much time on other blogs. I worry I am missing good stuff (and might waste time on something done better elsewhere) but will have to do a bit of catch up later.

This post, on how renters are affected by mortgage defaults, is newsworthy by virtue of suppling some data, rather than merely noting that the phenomenon exists.

From MarketWatch:

The rise in foreclosures isn’t just affecting homeowners, it’s also putting pressure on renters, according to a report released Wednesday by the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University.

For one, the uptick in foreclosures is prompting more households to compete for low-cost rentals. Also significant is the number of renters who face sudden eviction when properties they’re living in are foreclosed on, the report found.

“Today, investor-owned one- to four-family rental properties account for nearly 20% of all foreclosures,” said Nicolas P. Retsinas, director of the Joint Center for Housing Studies, in a news release. “Moreover, because many of the high-risk home-purchase and home-refinance loans now in default are concentrated in low-income and minority communities, the fallout from foreclosures is hitting the same neighborhoods where many of the nation’s most economically vulnerable renters live.”…

Those involved with the study stressed that renters should not be forgotten as housing takes center stage on Capitol Hill….The current conditions provide an opportunity to transform the inventory of foreclosed and vacant properties into affordable rental housing…

The study shows that demand for affordable rental housing is increasing while the supply of low-cost units is declining, said Jonathan Fanton, president of the MacArthur Foundation, which helped in funding the report….
The study also found:

With an abundance of mortgage capital available during the housing boom years, there was a substantial rise in high-risk lending to absentee owners of one- to four-unit rental properties. In 2007, almost one in five foreclosure starts were on loans made to nonresident owners.

Foreclosures are also adding to the number of units that are held off the market, in part because of the long foreclosure disposition process and also because some who are buying the foreclosed properties are waiting for conditions to improve before putting the units back on the market.

While the weak home-buying market is adding to the supply of higher-priced rentals — as owners rent out their vacant condos and homes — many renters don’t have the income required to seize these opportunities.

In 2006, 42.6% of all working families didn’t earn enough to afford an appropriately sized housing unit. Nearly half of all renters paid more than 30% of their incomes for housing in 2006 and a quarter spent more than 50%.

The minority share of renter households increased from 37% in 1995 to 43% in 2005, and Hispanic renters accounted for nearly half of the gain.

Newly built apartments in buildings with five or more units had a median asking rent of $1,057 in 2006, a record high. The median gross rent for all units that year was $766. Only 20,000 new, unfurnished apartments renting for less than $750 were completed in 2006, even though these units were most in demand.

Condo conversions rose from a few thousand in 2003 to 235,000 in 2005. Only 60,000 units were converted from rentals to condos in 2006. Virtually no conversions were completed in 2007.

From 1995 to 2005, two rental units were removed from the inventory for every three units built. The losses to inventory were the highest in the Northeast; there, two rental units were lost for every one built.

Barclays: Negative Equity Subprime, Alt-A to Soar

Barclays estimates that half the 2006 and 2007 subprime loans are in or close to negative equity status, which means this roughly $800 billion of mortgages is at greater risk of default. Note that their analysis used OFHEO data; Case-Shiller estimates of the fall in housing prices exceed those of OFHEO, which means this forecast is likely to be conservative.

From Bloomberg:

Subprime loans from the period that are underwater, meaning they exceed the value of the related homes, jumped 5 percentage points to 19.8 percent in the fourth quarter, and may reach 26 percent by midyear if property-price drops continue at the same pace, New York-based analysts Ajay Rajadhyaksha and Derek Chen wrote in a report yesterday. Such Alt-A loans, a grade better than subprime, would grow to 23 percent from 16.3 percent.

Many of the loans that are or will soon be underwater are in areas where prices are falling faster than the U.S. average, so the size of the shift is underappreciated, the Barclays analysts wrote…..

Borrowers on about 26 percent of subprime loans from 2006 and 2007 will have equity of less than 10 percent by midyear, down from 29.4 percent at yearend, according to Barclays, as more borrowers slip underwater. The percentage on Alt-A mortgages should hold steady at about 23.5 percent. The report said 10.8 percent of Alt-A loans were underwater on Sept. 30.

Federal Reserve May Seek Authority to Pay Interest on Reserves

By happenstance, there is more than usual Fed-related news this early AM. A few weeks ago, Greg Ip of the Wall Street journal recited what some of the Fed’s options would be if it ran into balance sheet constraints. One was paying interest on bank reserves:

The Fed could seek to pay interest on reserves. Banks lend out excess reserves at whatever rate they can get because the Fed doesn’t pay interest. That’s one reason the federal funds rate often crashes late in the day, when banks realize they have more reserves than they need. Paying interest on reserves would put a floor under the federal funds rate. The Fed could then make loans and purchase assets with little concern for the impact on the federal funds rate.

The Financial Times reports that this idea may be getting traction:

Federal Reserve policymakers will discuss paying interest on bank reserves in a closed door meeting on Wednesday. Such a move could in theory allow the Fed to expand its liquidity support operations without limit….

Under a law passed in 2006, the US central bank will gain the authority to pay interest on reserves in 2011.

The meeting on Wednesday is based on that timeframe and will not be followed by any announcements.

However, the meeting could spark an internal debate as to whether the Fed should consider asking Congress to bring forward this authority to help it deal with the current credit crisis.

Many experts think that would be a good idea. Vincent Reinhart, former chief monetary economist at the Fed, said paying interest on reserves would allow the Fed to “expand their liabilities to support more asset purchases”.

A number of other central banks already have the authority to pay interest on reserves, as well as the authority to lend banks money.

In normal times they can use these deposit and lending rates to put a corridor around the main policy rate, and prevent it from being buffeted too far away from the level they aim to set.

But at times of financial market stress, the ability to pay interest on reserves takes on added significance. Currently, the Fed cannot expand or contract its balance sheet without altering the overall supply of reserves and changing its main policy rate, the Fed funds rate…

That would free the US central bank to conduct liquidity operations that were larger than the size of its current balance sheet – roughly $800bn.

“The point…would be to allow the Fed to expand its balance sheet without having to drive the fed funds rate to zero in the process,” said Goldman Sachs.

The problem with this concept, as with many of the Fed’s new measures, is that notwithstanding the current improved mood in the credit markets, they have often been ineffective or produced unintended consequences. Per EconWeekly, paying reserves would have a nasty side effect:

Reserve balances are like checking accounts: they don’t earn interest. For that reason banks have little incentive to hold more reserves than they need to meet the Fed’s requirements and clear transactions. Any excess reserves are loaned to other banks. As Greg Ip explains, “if the Fed paid, say, 2% interest on reserves, banks would have no incentive to lend out excess reserves once the federal funds rate fell to that level.”

This measure would lead to a higher equilibrium level of reserve balances, for a given value of the federal funds interest rate. It would also reduce the amount of inter-bank lending, as banks would keep more of their cash in their safe-deposit box at the Fed. That lending would be replaced by loans from the Federal Reserve.

Um, I thought the problem we were trying to solve in the first place was banks not lending to each other…..

Former Fed Staffer Savages Bear Rescue

Greg Ip of the Wall Street Journal reports on the harsh criticism of the Fed’s role in the Bear deal by Vincent Reinhart, who rcently was the Fed’s most senior staff member.

What is ironic about the Fed’s bailout is that it is unpopular on the left and the right. The left does not like the spectacle of subsidies to the until-recently-highly profitable financial services sector, particularly when salvage programs for individuals are getting more talk than action. Reinhart, who was on a panel at the American Enterprise Institute, illustrates the views of some (many?) on the right: perhaps Bear should have been saved, but not via the government shouldering the risk.

Two further points: Reinhart describes other options the Fed could have taken, yet omits the most obvious: lending to Bear for 28 days via JP Morgan, which appeared to be the initial plan, but which the Fed retracted and instead made a mere commitment through the weekend. Bear officials had thought they could pull through with the longer loan, particularly since the new Term Securities Lending Facility was going to become operational before that loan matured. The only explanation I can come up with (aside from nefarious ones) is that the Fed did not feel it could lend to Bear after it was downgraded on Friday March 14 by the rating agencies to just above junk.

The other is that Reinhart comments approvingly on the Fed’s role in the LTCM rescue. Yet at the time, a lot of observers were critical of the central bank orchestrating a deal for an institution it did not regulate with a lot of institutions it similarly did not regulate. This was seen in some quarters as a significant and unwarranted increase in the Fed’s reach. But remember even then that while the Fed assembled the exposed firms (not telling them who else would be there) and told them why it would be in their interest to rescue LTCM, the Fed played no role in the negotiations. Thus, while Reinhart says that the Fed can no longer act as an honest broker, that is counterfactual. The Fed was not a broker in the LTCM deal.

From the Journal:

The Federal Reserve’s rescue of Bear Stearns Cos. will come to be seen as its “worst policy mistake in a generation,” a former top Fed staffer said.

The episode will be seen as comparable to “the great contraction” of the 1930s and “the great inflation” of the 1970s, Vincent Reinhart said…

His appraisal is one of the harshest yet by a high-profile observer…..Mr. Reinhart said the bailout “eliminated forever the possibility the Fed could serve as an honest broker.” In 1998, the Fed coaxed private creditors of Long-Term Capital Management to bail out the hedge fund but didn’t have to put up its own money. If it ever tries a similar maneuver on a Wall Street cohort, he said, “The reasonable question any person in the room will ask is, ‘How much will you contribute to the solution?’”

Mr. Reinhart said the Fed’s move may have been justified if the alternative was a chain-reaction run on many other investment banks. But he asked if other options were available, such as taking a “tougher line” with J.P. Morgan, seeking other suitors, removing certain assets from Bear’s portfolio or quickly implementing its previously announced offer to temporarily swap Treasury securities for dealers’ less liquid assets. “All those things were possible but not pursued,” he said.

Investors Retreat From Mutual Funds

The Financial Times reports that mutual funds got off to a very bad start this year, with 24 of the 25 biggest managers seeing a decline in funds. Note first that the article is not discussing individual funds (e.g. Magellean) but fund families (e.g. Fidelity).

Note second that the fall isn’t simply the result of declines in market values, but actual withdrawal of funds, but this apperas to be largely the result of investors moving heavily into cash. The article suggests that this is due to a loss of investor confidence. Another factor that may have contributed around the margin is a rise in withdrawals from 401 (k) plans (and presumably also IRA rollovers), a sign of rising consumer stress. But it does not yet appear that raiding capital to support consumption is a significant component of this decline.

From the Financial Times:

All but one of the 25 largest US mutual fund managers saw their long-term assets fall in the first quarter, as returns dived and investors pulled out of funds.

In the worst start to a year for more than a decade, most money managers had retail outflows, and even stalwarts such as American Funds and Vanguard suffered a drop in assets, of 6.6 per cent and 4.3 per cent respectively.

Pimco, the bond manager, was the only one to show a rise in retail assets, according to Financial Research Corporation and industry estimates. Pimco’s Total Return fund had an inflow of $9bn in the three months to March.

The trend is likely to worry economists, because it suggests the credit turmoil is hurting the confidence of mainstream investors. That, in turn, could dampen activity among consumers in the months ahead, since falling investment sentiment is often associated with muted household spending levels.

However, the fall also marks a fresh blow for the financial industry, because mutual fund managers typically make money by charging a percentage of assets – meaning that profits in the industry fall when assets decline.

Last week, a group of publicly traded asset managers announced bleak quarterly results. Affiliated Managers Group, which holds stakes in 26 mutual and hedge fund companies, reported a quarterly profit fall for the first time in five years, with outflows of $8.4bn in the quarter.

Big institutional fund groups – such as AllianceBernstein, a unit of French insurance group Axa – likewise showed asset falls.

One senior industry executive said: “This is the worst I have seen for a long time, the industry-wide outflows, and unfortunately I don’t think it is a short-term situation. The days of domestic [US] equity funds driving profits for us, that could be gone.”

Retail and institutional investors pulled $100bn from US, European and Japanese equity funds during the quarter, according to Strategic Insight.

The trend is accelerating a shift in the money management industry, as investors move away from equity funds, which have been the industry’s profit mainstay, towards either low-margin options such as short-term cash and indexed funds, or high- margin alternative investments such as hedge funds, private equity and hard assets.

Long-term assets do not include money market funds, which have seen big inflows. Several money managers, such as Fidelity, have large money market funds which are offsetting their outflows, although money market funds are low-margin products and do not provide long-term investor loyalty. Fidelity had a drop of long-term assets of close to 10 per cent for the quarter, as investors continued to pull funds from the former market leader despite a lift in performance in its funds.

Larry Summers Disingenuous Discussion of Free Trade

Larry Summers, in “America needs to make a new case for trade,” worries, as do many others, about rising protectionist sentiments:

In a world where Americans can legitimately doubt whether the success of the global economy is good for them, it will be In a world where Americans can legitimately doubt whether the success of the global economy is good for them, it will be increasingly difficult to mobilise support for economic internationalism. The focus must shift from supporting internationalism as traditionally defined to designing an internationalism that more successfully aligns the interests of working people and the middle class in rich countries with the success of the global economy

Summers presents four arguments in favor of free trade that he not only describes as conventional wisdom but also endorses by saying, “All of these points have the very considerable virtue of being correct economic arguments.” Yet he later finds reasons why Americans indeed may be correct in finding free trade a cause for concern: new markets can offer more growth opportunities to the US but may not be a net gain, since they also expose us to new competitors; trade-induced higher global growth means greater competition for resources; developing country competition in industries that exist in advanced economies puts pressure on their wages.

So what is there not to like about this piece? Of the four items of conventional wisdom that Summers touts, two don’t pass inspection. This is the second on his list:

In a world where Americans can legitimately doubt whether the success of the global economy is good for them, it will be increasingly difficult to mobilise support for economic internationalism. The focus must shift from supporting internationalism as traditionally defined to designing an internationalism that more successfully aligns the interests of working people and the middle class in rich countries with the success of the global economy.

While Summers’ admittedly undercuts that argument later by discussing how a more open economy can come out a net loser if its trade partners are better competitors, there is a more basic reason to take this idea with a grain of salt: we have lower trade barriers because some of our biggest partners (read Japan and China) are mercantilist and fundamentally have no intention of opening their markets very much; the advanced European economies regard maintaining surpluses and protecting labor as priorities, which again limits how much they will concede. We have lower trade barriers because we enter into negotiations with different premises and aims (at least historically) than our counterparts. (Some would also argue that our trade policy is designed more to benefit major US multinationals than the broader populace; that is harder to prove but may not be inaccurate.) To argue theory in the face of this reality is willfully naive, and Summers should not endorse it.

Back to Summers:

Third, the sceptic is also told that most of the observed increases in income inequality in the American economy are due to new technology rather than increased trade – and that even to the extent that trade has a role, most increases in trade are not attributable to trade agreements.

This is dubious and Summers no doubt knows it, yet he panders to his audience (and remember, this is the Financial Times, not USA Today). Paul Krugman, who is a trade economist, has ascertained that the data is inadequate to determine whether trade increases income inequality or not. Yet Summers presents a limited impact as an incontrovertible truth. From Krugman:

The starting point of this paper was the observation that the consensus that trade has only modest effects on inequality rests on relatively old data – that there has been a dramatic increase in manufactured imports from developing countries since the early 1990s. And it is probably true that this increase has been a force for greater inequality in the United States and other advanced countries.

What really comes through from the analysis here, however, is the extent to which the changing nature of world trade has outpaced our ability to engage in secure quantitative analysis—even though this paper sets to one side the growth in service outsourcing, which has created so much anxiety in recent years. Plain old trade in physical goods has become remarkably exotic.

In particular, the surge in developing-country exports of manufactures involves a peculiar concentration on apparently sophisticated products, which seems at first to put worries about distributional effects to rest. Yet there is good reason to believe that the apparent sophistication of developing country exports is, in reality, largely a statistical illusion, created by the phenomenon of vertical specialization in a world of low trade costs.

How can we quantify the actual effect of rising trade on wages? The answer, given the current state of the data, is that we can’t. As I’ve said, it’s likely that the rapid growth of trade since the early 1990s has had significant distributional effects. To put numbers to these effects, however, we need a much better understanding of the increasingly fine-grained nature of international specialization and trade.

Summers apparently is unwilling to take on weaknesses in the classical rationale for trade, no doubt out of concern about legitimating protectionist impulses. But cut to the core, that’s an elitist stance in a debate that has now moved out of the domain of experts into the public arena. Perhaps I am naive, but less than full candor (which means admitting the limits of knowledge) runs the risk of backfiring.

Going deeper into arguments like this would do far more to enhance the quality of debate:

As Paul Samuelson pointed out several years ago, the valid proposition that trade barriers hurt an economy does not imply the corollary that it necessarily benefits from the economic success of its trading partners.

But (and this will have to wait for later posts for fuller discussion), historically, liberal economists did not shy away from nuance, but found themselves trounced by simple, even fact free, sloganeering of the right. Thus Summers’ posture in this piece may simply reflect a general coarsening of public debate in America.

Quelle Surprise! Real Estate Lenders Fight Tough Rules

The New York Times, in “Loan Industry Fighting Rules on Mortgages,” tells us that the real estate creditors are fighting tooth and nail to gut new rules that the Fed intends to impose.

The Times, apparently reflecting the sentiment of sources in the Fed, Capitol Hill, and consumer advocates, seems surprised at the vehemence of the effort.

What did they expect?

This is an industry that has been minimally regulated for at least the last dozen years, which given high turnover in many banks, is almost a lifetime. Anyone who remembers life in the bad old days is by definition a dinosaur.

But what amazes me is not the reaction of the industry, which was predictable, or the litany of arguments against new rules. Some of my favorites:

“We have heard from commenters who have expressed concern that in the current market environment, the proposed trigger could cover the market too broadly, and we will carefully consider the issues they raise and other possible approaches to achieve our objective,” Mr. Kroszner said last month at a conference of the National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals.

Please. By definition, there is never a good time to implement new rules, at least according to those who will have to live with them. Either the industry is suffering, so it’s not the time to inflict more pain, or it’s doing well, and therefore the rules are obviously misguided and unnecessary. The intent IS to cover the market broadly; anything else leaves the barn gate open for the horse to leave again.

The new rules would apply extra protection to any mortgage with an interest rate three percentage points above Treasury rates. Officials said that they would cover all subprime loans, which accounted for about a quarter of all mortgages last year as well as many exotic mortgages known in the industry as “Alt-A” loans.

These loans are made to people with relatively good credit scores but who might provide little documentation of their income or assets, or who make smaller than usual down payments or purchase loans that have unusual terms, like interest-only payments for an initial period.

Many mortgage brokers and bankers complain that the lower threshold would unnecessarily include many borrowers who are not at risk from abusive practices.

Oh, no, those borrowers are merely at risk of becoming deadbeats, which means society as a whole has to eat the risk due to costly rescue operations that involve hidden or explicit taxpayer subsidies. Alt-As are showing high default rates; to maintain that no docs are a good practice that should continue boggles the mind.

One common industry criticism is that at a time of tight credit, tighter rules could make many mortgages more expensive by creating more paperwork and potentially exposing lenders to more lawsuits.

Um, expensive new paperwork? Much of this is a requirement to do the sort of documentation and analysis banks did once upon a time, when it was understood that lending was a risky business. And the protests confirm that the industry want the right to make risky loans (note the lawsuits point is valid, and by design: Sheila Bair believes the current standards are skewed too far in favor of lenders. So greater risk of being sued is a feature, not a bug.

But what is most surprising about the piece is the spin the Times puts on it, It voices surprise at the vehemence of the response (the only thing that is surprising is how shameless and self-serving it is), when what is really stunning is how fast the powers that be are making concessions. Is this a symptom of how we really do have the best government money can buy, or of how deeply anti-regulatory sentiment has been internalized?

From the New York Times:

The mortgage industry, facing the prospect of tougher regulations for its central role in the housing crisis, has begun an intensive campaign to fight back.

As the Federal Reserve completes work on rules to root out abuses by lenders, its plan has run into a buzz saw of criticism from bankers, mortgage brokers and other parts of the housing industry. One common industry criticism is that at a time of tight credit, tighter rules could make many mortgages more expensive by creating more paperwork and potentially exposing lenders to more lawsuits.

To the chagrin of consumer groups that have complained that the proposed rules are not strong enough, the industry’s criticism has already prompted the Fed to consider narrowing the scope of the plan so it applies to fewer loans.

The debate over new mortgage standards comes in response to a severe crisis in the housing and financial markets that many economists trace back to overly loose credit and abusive loans. Those practices, combined with low interest rates, led to inflated market values that have declined rapidly in recent months as investors have begun to lose confidence in the financial instruments tied to those loans.

Four months ago, the Fed proposed the new standards on exotic mortgages and high-cost loans for people with weak credit. The Fed’s proposals came after it was criticized sharply as a captive of the mortgage lending industry that had failed over many years to supervise it adequately.

Proposals are pending in Congress on mortgage standards, but it is not clear whether they will be adopted this year. The Fed has its own authority under housing and lending laws to adopt mortgage standards.

The plan presented by the Fed was proposed by its chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, and Randall S. Kroszner, a former White House economist in the Bush administration who is now a Fed governor and leads the Fed’s consumer and community affairs committee.

The plan would not cover existing mortgages but would apply only to new ones. It would force mortgage companies to show that customers can realistically afford their mortgages. It would require lenders to disclose the hidden fees often rolled into interest payments. And it would prohibit certain types of advertising considered misleading.

The Fed is expected to issue final rules this summer.

Earlier this month, as the comment period was about to close, the Fed was deluged with more than 5,000 comments, mostly from lenders who said the proposals could affect loans that have not presented problems. Some bankers and brokers also said the rules would discourage them from lending to some creditworthy borrowers.

The plan was criticized in separate filings by three of the industry’s most influential trade groups — the American Bankers Association, the Mortgage Bankers Association and the Independent Community Bankers of America. More modest concerns about some of the provisions were also raised by the National Association of Home Builders and the National Association of Realtors.

Regulators have been meeting about the proposals with bankers, brokers and consumer groups in recent weeks and are continuing to do so.

Some of the groups seeking changes maintain that the proposals threaten to make borrowing for a home far more expensive and would unfairly deny mortgage brokers the right to earn certain fees.

Small community banks, which have played no significant role in the housing crisis, have urged the Fed to limit the scope of the proposed rules so that they do not discourage them from issuing loans. Lending groups have also raised concern that they would lead to frivolous and expensive litigation.

“We support many of the provisions in the proposed rule, but we do have concerns about the increased regulatory burden, liability and reputational risks that lenders might face,” said Kieran P. Quinn, chairman of Column Financial, Credit Suisse’s mortgage lending subsidiary in Atlanta, and the chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association.

On at least one major aspect of the proposed restrictions — how broadly they should apply — the industry appears to be making headway. In a recent speech, Mr. Kroszner suggested that in response to criticism that the plan was including too many kinds of loans the Fed was considering whether to narrow the plan.

“We have heard from commenters who have expressed concern that in the current market environment, the proposed trigger could cover the market too broadly, and we will carefully consider the issues they raise and other possible approaches to achieve our objective,” Mr. Kroszner said last month at a conference of the National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals.

Before this year, the Fed had applied an extra set of protection from abusive lending practices to a subset of subprime borrowers under the Home Ownership Equity Protection Act of 1994. The Fed has applied the law to fewer than 1 percent of all mortgages — those with interest rates at least eight percentage points above prevailing rates on Treasury securities.

Some economists and housing experts say the Fed’s lax oversight helped enable lending companies to reap enormous profits by providing millions of unsuitable and abusive loans to homeowners who often did not fully understand the terms or appreciate their risk.

As of January, the most recent month of available data, about a quarter of all subprime adjustable mortgages were delinquent, twice the level of the same period last year. Lenders began foreclosure proceedings on about 190,000 of these mortgages in the last three months of 2007.

The new rules would apply extra protection to any mortgage with an interest rate three percentage points above Treasury rates. Officials said that they would cover all subprime loans, which accounted for about a quarter of all mortgages last year as well as many exotic mortgages known in the industry as “Alt-A” loans.

These loans are made to people with relatively good credit scores but who might provide little documentation of their income or assets, or who make smaller than usual down payments or purchase loans that have unusual terms, like interest-only payments for an initial period.

Many mortgage brokers and bankers complain that the lower threshold would unnecessarily include many borrowers who are not at risk from abusive practices.

“There are a lot of community banks that have shied away from these loans because nobody wants to be a higher-priced lender,” said Karen Thomas, a lobbyist for the Independent Community Bankers. “With the trigger being set so low, it is encroaching on traditional, common sense mortgages. Our fear is it will result in less credit availability, which is not what we need in an already tight credit market.”

But consumer groups say that the proposed rules are already weak and that efforts to further weaken them would render them all but useless.

“The Fed has accurately diagnosed that this is a brain tumor and responded by prescribing an aspirin,” said Kathleen E. Keest, a former state regulator who is now a senior policy counsel at the Center for Responsible Lending, a group supporting home ownership. “In the industry, there is a fair amount of denial. They just don’t get it. There is a calamity within the industry, and they don’t have a new script yet, so they rely on the old script, which is that regulation will raise costs.”

But, she went on, “What we now see is that the unintended consequences of deregulation are worse. Their line is that regulation will cut back access to credit. That’s been their line ever since the small loan laws were adopted in the early 1900s.”

At the same time, letters urging the Fed to further tighten the rules were sent by Sheila C. Bair, the Republican head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as well as senior members of the House Financial Services Committee.

In her letter, Ms. Bair, whose agency regulates many banks, urged the Fed to apply the proposed restrictions to loans that are three percentage points or higher than equivalent Treasuries. To prevent lenders from evading the limit by creatively structuring the loan and fees, she also suggested that the Fed impose the tighter restrictions if the loan fees exceeded a dollar amount.

While the Fed plan would require disclosures that could make it harder for lenders to include hidden sales fees that are usually paid to the mortgage broker, Ms. Bair suggested that the plan go further and ban some practices.

The plan, for instance, would require subprime lenders to explicitly describe fees that are now hidden. But Ms. Bair has proposed the elimination of such fees, saying such a ban would “eliminate compensation based on increasing the cost of credit and make the amount of the compensation more transparent to consumers.”

Ms. Bair also proposed making it easier for borrowers to sue lenders without having to show that they were engaged in a pattern of abusive practices, which is a requirement under the proposed Fed rules. She said that forcing borrowers to show a pattern of abuse “clearly favors lenders by limiting the number of individual consumer lawsuits and the ability of regulators to pursue individual violations.”

Ms. Bair also recommended that the Fed eliminate a so-called safe harbor provision in the proposal that protects lenders who fail to verify the income or assets of a borrower in some circumstances.

Planning and Investing in an Uncertain Economy

Reader Benjamin sent me this query, and I thought I’d be so bold as to hazard an answer, and anticipate that others will have valuable perspective to contribute:

I read NC on a regular basis, and would like to see some macro advice for your younger readers, like myself. If I’m parsing commentary correctly, I may be graduating (2011, 2012) at the tail end of a big depression. Could you spare a few paragraphs of prediction or caution for younger readers at some point this week? Most of your commentary tends to favor an older and more savvy investing body but I venture that a look at a bigger picture targeted at my demographic would be fun to write (and hey, at least I’d read it avidly). Topics to consider: buying in at the housing market’s bottom; alternate routes to building equity (’cause now I’m leery of the housing market as a vehicle); and traps that unsavvy investors like recent college grads might fall into.

You didn’t ask for advice on the career front, but unless you have a trust or are likely to inherit a substantial amount, your ability to support an investment strategy will depend on the level and stability of your income. I think the biggest change your cohort faces, and one mine is confronting with considerable pain, is lack of not merely job security but of obvious career paths. There are some exceptions; white collar careers such as medicine, law, and accounting that have managed to restrict entry via professionalization (education, licensing, ongoing requirements to maintain one’s standing) are ones where you have a good shot at using the same fundamental skill set for your entire career. But for many in those fields, the earnings potential is not what it used to be.

McKinsey requisitioned a study from Yankelovitch around 2000. It said that the average college graduate would have 13 jobs before he retired. A more recent study (can’t recall the source) claimed it would be 11 jobs by age 38. The latter doesn’t sound credible, but it’s may be reasonable to assume the level might have risen from the 2000 estimate.

So the cliche about developing a portfolio of skills, sadly, is good advice. One thing I now recognize in retrospect is high flier career paths are a double edged sword. While they offer a certain level of credibility (“oh you did/worked for so and so?”),The problem is that people early in their careers look at the upside, and often fail to consider what their options are if they are not as successful as they hope to be or discover they really don’t like the work all that much.

if you continue on these tracks beyond a certain level, you often wind up with very narrow skills (for instance, what happens to people who structured CDOs? The dot com bust similarly saw a lot of people having to find work in fields new to them). Some who go this route nevertheless are able to move from one “track’ to another (some investment bankers have become CFOs at large companies, for instance; law firm partners can be hired by their clients as general counsel), but moves like that include an element of luck and good personal chemistry.

That is a long winded way of saying most people underestimate employment risk. So most people (yours truly included when I was young) do not put away enough money to carry them between jobs. For someone in their twenties, six months of expenses; that amount has to go up as you get old, both because it takes longer for more seasoned people to find work and older people tend to develop higher fixed cost levels, This disaster money should be invested VERY conservatively.

The above probably doesn’t strike you as novel, but I’d be remiss in not saying it.

In planning, it is also important to know yourself, both in terms of possible career choices and investing, You are less likely to do well at something if you don’t have an affinity for it. Again, that no doubt seems pedestrian, but people can do an amazing job of talking themselves into career and investment choices that don’t suit them because they are swayed by what people around them are doing. For instance, I had convinced myself at the start of my career that making money was what motivated me, but that was because it was the right answer in interviews for the sort of job I had set my sights on. After gong down other paths based on acting out of surface motives, I got a better understanding of what really did and didn’t work for me, and it was very different than what I had believed.

The more you can do to get an understanding of your own MO –  can you tolerate frequent, intense intraday pressure? How much autonomy do you need? How good at and tolerant of politics are you? Are you good at functioning in chaotic environments or do you like structure? Most people spent a lot of time thinking about their skills and strengths, when understanding what sort of environment they prefer is often given short shritf.

To your immediate question: it is well nigh impossible to give advice on how to think about investing in 2010 or 2011, beyond some genearlizatoins. By then, it should be clearer what the trajectory for the US and world economy is. That will make it easier to think about who winners and losers might be.

By then, the idea of “house as investment” might have been wrung out of the American psyche. Your home is first and foremost where you live. Real estate is always local, You may see opportunities that are attractive, but be very strict on looking at the after tax cost of ownership versus rental, Robert Shiller determined that the real returns to residential real estate were 0.4%. The first apartment I bought was cheaper after taxes than renting, and that was in Manhattan.

The other question is how much do you like investing? You can be a reader of this blog and actually not like investing, I write this blog and I hate investing (despite doing well via a risk-avoidant strategy, which BTW in this case does not mean a high allocation to cash, although that is tempting). The markets are too irrational and volatile for my taste (and Benoit Mandelbrot, the French mathematician, has shown that markets are far riskier than standard theories lead us to believe. His and similar work is acknowledged in theory and ignored in practice). And how much risk can you take, really? Standard recommendations are for young people to invest heavily in stocks, and reduce their allocation as they get older, But in a bad bear market, stocks can fall 50% (if memory serves me right, the S&P fell 47% peak to trough in the dot com bust). Can you take that?

Diversification by asset class is important, but a lot of things are touted as asset classes by clever fund managers, In a crisis all correlations move to one. Commodities are considered to be a good addition to a model portfolio because they have positive skewness (although they are also hugely volatile, and those markets are far smaller than securities markets, so new cash inflows can have a big impact), Income averaging is a good idea. Vanguard funds are a very good idea. Fees will eat away at what seem to be promising investment returns.

The big argument for holding stocks as opposed to investment funds is if you are investing in a taxable account. Mutual funds trade with sufficient frequency that they are tax inefficient. If you hold stocks, you can do better after tax, but you have to be prepared to leave them alone for years.

Ben Grahman’s little book, The Intelligent Investor, is very much worth reading. It gives some commonsensical guidelines (you’d need to update them for the existence of index funds) but the most important is either spend very little time on investing, do a few simple things with your money or make it your second job. Anything in the middle is worse, for you will overtrade and reduce your returns.

Real Estate Porn

Note: Regular readers will recognize this submissoin. We got a very good response last time, both domestically and abroad, and real estate professionals recommended continued exposure.

Rest assured that this is NOT crowding out other posts! And for those new to it, enjoy!

In a departure from our usual programming, I thought I would introduce a real estate opportunity (yes this is an ad of sorts). But as you can see, it is particularly attractive and also presents an interesting case example of the issues involving the marketing of unique and illiquid assets.

The asset in question is a private lake roughly an hour and forty-five minute drive from Manhattan. The property is 47 acres, and the lake itself is 9 acres.

Broker hype aside, this is an exceptional property. It’s gorgeous. It’s also unusual topographically, a mini Mohonk. The teardrop shaped lake is situated below schist and granite cliffs that rise on almost all sides to an elevation of 100-150 feet, surrounding nearly the entire property. Visitors have called it a “pocket universe.” You’d need to considerably more land to get the same degree of privacy.

The lake is stream and spring fed, and has a strong enough current that it once operated the most reliable mill in the area and fed George Washington’s troops. If you know anything about lakes, this is a big deal. Many so called lakes are glorified ponds. This one is active, with seven varieties of fish.

The property currently has two houses, both in impeccible shape, one the Lake House, with two decks cantilevered over the water, the other the Admiral’s Cabin, a guest house recently built in fine materials (example: mahogany beadboard). It also has an Airstream trailer (top of the line). There are at least two possible locations for the construction of a very large house, one the site of a former hotel, the other a meadow at lake level.

The owner has also gone to considerable lengths to improve the land. He has put in a mile long road around the lake, cleared underbrush, removed dead trees. These are all things that require more time and expense than one might expect.

Many buyers would treat this as a turnkey situation. Everything has been maintained at a very high level and as many as eight people can stay in high style. Alternatively, a very wealthy buyer might choose to use the existing buildings on an interim basis while building a grand estate, and the current buildings would then become guest houses.

The region (the west side of the Hudson) is oddly underpriced. It’s probably the lowest cost area that is an easy drive to Manhattan and yet has good services. It’s attracting people who want a lower-key, less hassled alternative to the Hamptons. Robert De Niro, Brad Pitt, and Meryl Streep all have vacation homes within a half hour drive of the lake. Steve Case’s company Canopy Development recently bought lakefront property on a different lake in the same town and is building a high end resort and gated community. Case vacation developments are high-end time shares and sell for an average value of $3 million.

Now the marketing issues. Local brokers make their money selling low end houses to locals. Although people like De Niro and Pitt parachute in from the blue, they don’t know how to access them. Conversely, brokers in Mahnattan who have the right clientele can’t be bothered to dabble in vacation homes (except perhaps in the Hamptons). Therefore the owner is showing it himself.

The owner had started a program to get the lake in front of wealthy Wall Street types, but with the credit crunch, it’s harder to find who has been on the winning side of trades (it’s easier to identify the cohort that has been losing out, like private equity types and quants). But there is clearly a subset in the financial community that is still prospering.

Other prospects are wealthy individuals who are either not affected by the turmoil in the markets, such as top athletes and entertainers and foreign ibuyers. Managers for those individuals might also take an interest.

You can find further information about the property here, which includes photos of the buildings and more detail about the surrounding area, and there is also a print brochure available. If you have any questions, ideas. or best of all, suggestions for people who might be interested, please e-mail the manager for the owner.

The owner may also be willing to consider renting the property during the spring and summer.

Thanks again. And no, this isn’t my property. I’m a die hard city person.

Jeremy Grantham: "Immoral Hazard" and the Loss of Standards

I believe in synchronicity, so I found it noteworthy that I came across two articles that gave great prominence to the issue of values, one Jeremy Grantham’s April newsletter, “Immoral Hazard,” the other a post by Willem Buiter on, of all things, the Olympics.

Grantham’s excellent piece is unfortunately too long to present in full; so we’ll give some key sections. He starts by focusing on incompetence (object lessons being Volcker versus Greenspan) but as you will see, the real issue is the question of having standards, both individually and as a society. The issue of competence is a subset of this broader concern.

Grantham does a particularly good job of savaging the idea that we can’t afford failure, um, economic dislocation. He argues that tolerating imprudence has costs that are dismissed too casually.

From Grantham (courtesy reader Scott):

It’s not that the former Fed boss Greenspan was incompetent that is remarkable. Incompetence is common enough after all, even in important jobs. What’s remarkable is that so many people don’t seem, even now, to get it. Do people just believe high-quality self-justifying blarney? Or is it just that they apparently want to believe that critical jobs in a great country attract great talent by divine right. Sometimes, of course, they do, but sometimes the most important jobs – even that of a presidency or a Fed boss – end up with mediocrities….

Paul Volcker inherited about as big a mess as we have today. He worked out what he had to do and did it with unusual lack of concern about what Congress thought of the necessary pain involved and the number of enemies he might make. He paid the price for forthright behavior by being replaced, despite a record for correct and tough behavior that makes for the most invidious comparison today. When Volcker was replaced, by the way, he did not moan and groan but like an old soldier quietly disappeared. There were no high-profi le announcements about the economy or any $300,000-an-evening appearances paid for by financial firms.

Greenspan came onto my radar screen in the late sixties as a seller of economic and fi nancial advice to the investment industry. To be brutally honest, he was considered run of the mill by anyone I knew then or have met later who knew his service then. His high point in most memories, certainly mine, was a famous call in January 1973 that, “it can,” a few days before a market decline of over 60% in real terms, second only to the Great Crash in a century, accompanied also by a bitter recession. This was one of the first of a long line of terrible prognostications for which he has remarkably not been remembered, except by a handful of us amateur historians. Then in the midseventies he disappeared into some government job, of which I was barely aware, until he re-emerged with a bang in 1987, without as far as I can find having done anything documentably very well. And we can agree that at least occasionally people can indeed prove their effectiveness beyond doubt…..We can all wonder at the incredible vision, drive, organizational skill, and willingness to sacrifice resources that were required by the Manhattan Project and compare it to the rudderless or even deliberate avoidance of leadership of the greatest issues today: climate change and energy security. We can only wonder what a Manhattan Project aimed at alternative energy might have accomplished by now, had it been started 15 years ago.

What we have had in lieu of vision, leadership, and backbone is a series of easy paths taken. At the time that Paul Volcker broke the back of infl ation in the early 1980s, the recognition that risk and leverage had consequences was baked into the pie: if you were to take excessive risk you had better win the bet. If you missed the target, the expected result would be more or less total failure, and that seemed then and for decades earlier a reasonable law of nature. Now in contrast we get ready to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the era of the Great Moral Hazard. Slowly at fi rst, but with steadily growing traction, the idea was planted that asset bubbles would be tolerated, but consequences of their bursting would be moderated or avoided entirely by increasingly vigorous actions sometimes, like now, bordering on the hysterical. This is to say that if all went well, enormous profi ts could be made by speculators – largely the great fi nancial fi rms, including some formerly conservative blue chip banks – by riding and leveraging the bubbles. If all went badly, then the costs would be passed on to others.

The idea that occasional economic setbacks might benefit the system in the long run was one of the early ideas to
disappear. Yet if you prop up weak sisters who would otherwise fail and in failing present their more efficient competitors with extra growth, you must surely weaken the system. Desperation pricing from weak fi rms who simply should not exist can weaken the profi tability of a whole industry, as it has for the airlines. The average efficiency of most industries is reduced with at least some effects on our global competitiveness. With a slightly lower average return on equity, the ability to reinvest drops so that, in this world of moral hazard where recessions are few and mild, GDP growth is a little less than it might have been….

The defense of bailouts is that the alternative is ugly.But surely the penalties for excessive risk taking, issuing flaky paper, passing it on – often in its entirety – to others, and not even understanding the consequences of the low grade paper that you yourself issue should be ugly. “Yes, of course, we would like to punish the excessive risk takers” goes the line, but we can’t do it without hurting the innocent economy. But we will never know what can be absorbed if the penalties are always removed by a bailout. In more traditional times, say, from 1945 to 1985, the economy could absorb substantial punishment from recessions and still grow faster than it has done in the last 10 years.

The real incompetence here goes back over 20 years: the refusal to deal with investment bubbles as they form, combined with willingness, even eagerness, to rush to the rescue as they break. It’s almost as if neither Greenspan nor Bernanke allows himself to see the bubbles. Greenspan was always confl icted and contradictory about whether bubbles could even exist or not. Bernanke, in contrast, has more of the typical academic’s certainty that the established belief in market effi ciency is correct and therefore investment bubbles must be merely the product of investors’ overheated imaginations. It would be convenient to have such an important role as Fed Chairman fi lled by someone who actually deals with the real world, messy or not, that is given to inconvenient bursts of euphoria and riddled by considerations of career and business risk, which modify behavior far away from economic efficiency….

As discussed many times in the investment business, pessimism or realism in the face of probable trouble is just plain bad for business and bad for careers. What I am only slowly realizing, though, is how similar the career risk appears to be for the Fed. It doesn’t want to move against bubbles because Congress and business do not like it and show their dislike in unmistakable terms. Even Fed chairmen get bullied and have their faces slapped if they stick to their guns, which will, not surprisingly, be rare since everyone values his career or does not want to be replaced à la Volcker. So, be as optimistic as possible, be nice to everyone, bail everyone out, and hope for the best. If all goes well after all, you will have a lot of grateful bailees who will happily hire you for $300,000 a pop. By the way, that such payments to prior Fed offi cials are in themselves a moral hazard and an obvious confl ict of interest that could moderate their prior behavior, is apparently too crude an accusation even to have surfaced yet. Well it should surface. Selling services to financial interests whose fates have been in your hands should simply not be tolerated as acceptable or ethical behavior by a former Fed Chairman.