Category Archives: Dubious statistics

Richard Alford: Has the Household Sector Delevered?

By Richard Alford, a former New York Fed economist. Since then, he has worked in the financial industry as a trading floor economist and strategist on both the sell side and the buy side.

The post raises three questions. How has the risk appetite of the household sector, as reflected in the leverage ratio and the asset mix, changed over time? Does it appear as if the household sector has completed the rebuilding of its balance sheet? What are the implications, if any, if the deleveraging of the household sector balance sheet is incomplete?

Pop Quiz: How Big Is the Bailout Of Cyprus?

By Antonis Polemitis, a venture capitalist based in Manhattan. Cross posted from Ledra Capital

Most publications talk about the €10 billion or €17 billion Cyprus bailout. Let’s take a pop quiz on the right answer.

Wolf Richter: The Stunning Differences In European Costs Of Labor – Or Why “Competitiveness” Is A Beggar-Thy-Neighbor Strategy

By Wolf Richter, San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and author, with extensive international work experience. Cross posted from Testosterone Pit.

The ominous term, “competitiveness” has been bandied about as the real issue, the one that causes European countries, in particular some of those stuck in the Eurozone, to sink ever deeper into their fiasco. To fix that issue, “structural reforms,” or austerity, have been invoked regardless of how much blood might stain the streets. And a core element of these structural reforms is bringing down the cost of labor. But productivity, infrastructure, transportation costs, corruption, training and education, etc. all figure prominently into this equation. Cost of labor is not the only factor.

Krugman’s Bad Math on Cyprus

Paul Krugman, in a post earlier today, Cyprus: The Sum of All FUBAR, acts as if he has figured out what is the real problem with Cyprus. The only problem is his math is all wrong, and a better analysis undermines his major assertions.

When You Weren’t Looking, Democrat Bank Stooges Launch Bills to Permit Bailouts, Deregulate Derivatives

One of the big lessons of the fraught negotiations over bailing out (or more accurately, in) Cyprus’s banks is that deregulating institutions with an implicit or explicit state guarantee is a bad idea. You’ve just given them a license to gamble with the public’s money, and you can rest assured that they will eventually avail themselves of it. A bit more than a week ago, Jim Himes (an ex Goldman officer) and Randy Hultgren introduced bills that not only aim perpetuate this situation but will make it worse.

Dave Dayen: Servicers Committed Loan Error Rates of Either 4.2% or 97.2%, Take Your Pick

By David Dayen, a lapsed blogger, now a freelance writer based in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on Twitter @ddayen

Anyone paying a smattering of attention justifiably raised a skeptical eyebrow at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s assurances to Congress that the Independent Foreclosure Reviews revealed hardly any borrower harm from servicer malfeasance. One has to marvel at this wondrous finding, particularly since just about no one who has gotten close to the records who was not paid for by banks has come up harm estimates remotely this low. Which raises another question: did the OCC lie (or more charitably, artfully fudge numbers) to Congress?

Big Bank Welfare Queens Unprofitable Without Government Subsidies, So Why Don’t We Regulate Them Like Utilities?

Quite a few readers excitedly sent a link to a Bloomberg editorial, “Why Should Taxpayers Give Big Banks $83 Billion a Year?” which summarizes a study by Kenichi Ueda of the International Monetary Fund and Beatrice Weder di Mauro of the University of Mainz that the editors used to extrapolate that the five biggest US banks are “barely profitable” if they weren’t able to borrow at artificially cheap rates thanks to the market perception that they are too big too fail.

The Bloomberg article, while analytically flawed, still winds up being too charitable.

Not-So-Smart ALEC: The Right Wing vs. Renewable Energy

Yves here. This post is useful not simply for its discussion of the economics of green energy but also for showing how think tanks fabricate findings to support their political message.

The Dog That Isn’t Barking: Why So Little Pundit Attention to the Caliber of Statistics?

Ah, the halcyon days of early 2007, when economics and finance bloggers would study the clouds on the horizon and debate what they foretold. Maybe I’m not hanging out in the right circles these days but now that financial markets seem to be completely in thrall to central bankers, there isn’t much point in doing fundamental analysis. As a result, from what I can tell, the level of bullshitting among market pundits has risen considerably.

Project S.H.A.M.E: The Recovered History of Charles Murray

We are delighted to post the latest offering of Project S.H.A.M.E., a media transparency initiative led by Yasha Levine and Mark Ames, and now in partnership with NSFWCORP.

Yes, Virginia, the Department of Justice Really Believes It has Been Tough on Corporate Fraud

At the instigation of reader Doug, I’m shedding light on a remarkably flattering assessment of the Department of Justice, as revealed by a clearly planted story at the Law.com blog. It’s not so much that this article (as offensive as it is) important in and of itself, but it serves to illustrate the phenomenon that folks at te M&A boutique Lazard (when it was the top expert in CEO psychopathy) called “believing your own PR”. This sort of thinking bears examining because it is widespread in both Corporate America and within the Beltway.

Bill Black: Let’s Celebrate the Failure of the July 2011 Great Betrayal

By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Cross posted from New Economic Perspectives

In July 2011, President Obama and Speaker Boehner reached an agreement in principle on a deal crafted to inflict $4 trillion in austerity by raising taxes modestly, slashing social spending, and beginning to unravel the safety net. The deal would have been a disaster for America. Unemployment was 9.1%. The deal would have thrown us back into a recession and caused unemployment to surge. Recessions and increased unemployment cause tax revenues to fall and increase demand for social services (e.g., for unemployment compensation) – they produce large deficits. Austerity kills jobs and frequently increases deficits. The Eurozone is the latest demonstration of this fact.

We should, therefore, all be celebrating the failure of the July 2011 austerity deal.

Cathy O’Neil: Why Nate Silver is Not Just Wrong, but Maliciously Wrong

By Cathy O’Neil, a data scientist. Cross posted from mathbabe

I just finished reading Nate Silver’s newish book, The Signal and the Noise: Why so many predictions fail – but some don’t. I have major problems with this book and what it claims to explain. In fact, I’m angry.