Category Archives: Risk and risk management

Andrew Haldane on the Arms Race in Banking

Regular NC readers have seen us repeatedly invoke the work of Andrew Haldane, the executive director of stability of the Bank of England. His thoughtful and original work on the risks and costs of our financial system have provided serious ammunition for reform advocates.

At the recent INET conference in Berlin, Haldane recapped some of his recent observations under the rubric of an arms race, in which efforts of individual players to improve their own position wind up leaving everyone worse off.

Gerd Gigerenzer: On How Decisions are Really Made, Versus How Economists Say They Should Make Decisions, and Why the Folks in the Real World Often Have it Right

This is a bit of a sleeper of a presentation from the recent INET conference. It was from a session titled “What Can Economists Know?” which might cause willies among non-economists as being too much about epistemology and not enough about issues that might give insight, say, into why the overwhelming majority of economists in early 2007 thought a global financial crisis was impossible.

This talk by Gerd Gigerenzer is about heuristics, and why they are often superior to the more formal methods of analysis and decision-making fetishized by economists.

Latest Award of Frederic Mishkin Iceland Prize for Intellectual Integrity: Promontory Financial Whitewash of MF Global’s Risk Control

We normally limit our awards of the of Frederic Mishkin Iceland Prize for Intellectual Integrity to academic work, since the economics discipline seems increasingly to hew to the James Carville theory of motivation: “Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.” However, we’ve been unduly narrow in considering who might be deserving of this recognition, so we are bestowing the award to Promontory Financial for its work on MF Global.

Goldman Ex-Prop Traders Flopping on Their Own

John Whitehead is being proven right.

Gillian Tett Exhibits Undue Faith in Data and Models

I hate beating up on Gillian Tett, because even a writer is clever as she is is ultimately no better than her sources, and she seems to be spending too much time with the wrong sort of technocrats.

Satyajit Das: Pravda The Economist’s Take on Financial Innovation

By Satyajit Das, derivatives expert and the author of Extreme Money: The Masters of the Universe and the Cult of Risk Traders, Guns & Money: Knowns and Unknowns in the Dazzling World of Derivatives – Revised Edition (2006 and 2010)

In the old Soviet Union, Pravda, the official news agency, set the standard for “truth” in reporting. Discriminating readers needed to be adroit in sifting the words to discern the facts that lay beneath. Readers of The Economist’s “Special Report on Financial Innovation” (published on 23 February 2012) would do well to equip themselves with similar skills in disambiguation.

Brace Yourself for Election-Driven Enforcement Theater: Token Roughing Up of Crisis Bad Banksters, While Corzine Gets a Free Pass

It’s bad enough that we are being subjected to relentless propaganda about how housing is just about to turn the corner and the state-Federal mortgage settlement is such a great deal for homeowners. In fact, as we’ve stressed, and bond investors such as Pimco have reiterated, the deal is above all a back door bailout of the banks.

But to add insult to injury, the chump public will be given ~~bread and circuses~~ enforcement theater to distract it from the fact that the banks are getting a sweetheart deal.

Occupy the SEC Discusses Volcker Rule on RT

It’s always a pleasant surprise to see a TV program have a long form discussion on a fairly technical topic. Readers should enjoy the RT interview of Caitlin Kline and Alexis Goldstein of Occupy the SEC on its Volcker Rule comments. They discussed the major areas they were concerned with and some loopholes in the draft regulations.

Occupy the SEC’s Comment Letter Objects to Excuses for Watering Down Volcker Rule (#OWS)

Yves here. No one should be surprised that Bloomberg is reporting today that Goldman is aggressively lobbying for a Volcker Rule waiver for its role as a sponsor of and investors in “credit funds.”

By George Bailey, who has worked in senior compliance roles at a Big Firm You’ve Heard Of and is also a member of Occupy the SEC

Today is “Volcker Day” and Paul Volcker was on a tear.

Michael Olenick: More on ProPublica’s Off Base Charges About Freddie Mac’s Mortgage “Bets”

By Michael Olenick, founder and CEO of Legalprise, and creator of FindtheFraud, a crowd sourced foreclosure document review system (still in alpha). You can follow him on Twitter at @michael_olenick

Fallout continues from the ProPublica/NPR story “Freddie Mac Bets Against American Homeowners,” though probably not the sort ProPublica expected.

Many in the blogsphere who work on finance and housing finance issues, including myself and Yves Smith, didn’t find the piece to be convincing. In a rebuttal Yves, who like me is anything but a cheerleader for the GSEs, explained Freddie’s practice is, in reality, only slightly more nefarious than clearing snow from the parking lot. That is, of all the awful decisions Freddie Mac makes, this isn’t one of them.

Paul Davidson: What Makes Economists So Sure of Themselves, Anyway?

By Paul Davidson, America’s foremost post-Keynesian economist. Davidson is currently the Holly Professor of Excellence, Emeritus at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. In 1978 Davidson and Sydney Weintraub founded the Journal for Post-Keynesian Economics. Davidson is the author of numerous books, the most recent of which is an introduction to a post-Keynesian perspective on the recent crisis entitled ‘The Keynes Solution: The Path to Global Prosperity’.

Introduction by Philip Pilkington

In a recent interview I asked the US’s leading post-Keynesian economist and founder of the Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics, Paul Davidson to discuss what is known as the ‘ergodic axiom’ in economics. This is a particularly important axiom as it allows mainstream economists (including left-wing Keynesians like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz) to claim that they can essentially know the future in a very tangible way. It does this by assuming that the future can be known by examining the past.

Without this axiom the whole edifice of mainstream theory rests on very shaky grounds.

Adam Davidson, the 1%’s Lord Haw-Haw, Fellates Wall Street

Although I endeavor to treat high dudgeon as an art form, it is difficult to find words adequate to convey the level of ridicule and opprobrium that Adam Davidson’s latest New York Times piece, “What Does Wall Street Do for You?” deserves. I had the vast misfortune to come across it late last week, and have gotten an unusually large volume of incredulous reader e-mails about it. Ms. G’s e-mail headline “NYT – Not a Parody” was typical:

This one is so bad, even for NYT, I’m wondering if the paper wasn’t secretly sold to Murdoch, Bloomberg & the Fed Reserve sometime in the past few days.

Philip Pilkington: Bubbles and Beauty Contests – To What Extent is Keynes Relevant to Investors?

By Philip Pilkington, a journalist and writer living in Dublin, Ireland

There are some strange and interesting passages in Keynes’ General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money – and it is these, I think, that give it its deserved status as a classic. Many of these passages are the tangential reflections of a man – who we should not hesitate to call a genius – on his subject matter. And it is these passages that truly make Keynes what he was: a wise man.

One of the most fascinating passages on the so-called Keynesian beauty contest is worth quoting here in full.

Is Management Getting Worse?

To some readers, the answer to the headline may seem obvious: Yes, American management is clearly worse than it was, say, thirty or fifty years ago, because short-termism is endemic among public companies, and short-termism leads to all sorts of bad outcomes, like underinvestment and accounting gaming.

But that analysis is simplistic. Short-termism simply shows that management has adopted good for them, bad for pretty much everyone else (save maybe their bankster allies) goals and are pursuing them aggressively.

A comment by John Kay of the Financial Times has the effect of raising much more fundamental questions about the caliber of top managers.