10 April 2014

Freud May Get Really Rich [update]

That didn't take long. Yesterday, it was reported that Colbert was the odds on favourite to replace Letterman, now today CBS announces it. Colbert, the real one, is a flaming left wing pansy. Colbert, of the Report, is a flaming right wing Nazi. Some number of his fans are going to be disappointed. Either that or he plays both ends against the middle, and his psych bill is going to be through the roof.

Letterman was 46 when The Late Show With... began. Colbert will be 50, if Letterman continues to the end of his contract. While NBC went with Fallon (39) and ABC Kimmel (36), although his show didn't start in the 11:35 slot at first. Perhaps old folks should pursue late night emcee as the pre-retirement vocation, after all.

07 April 2014

About Your Mule...

There's that old, and continuing, adage: "you can't beat Mr. Market". Well, baloney. You sure can beat Mr. Market like a rented mule. For some definition of 'you', of course.

If you've billions in moolah, it does get a little harder, from one point of view; yet even easier from another. Warren Buffett is a case in point. The piece exposes him as merely mortal the last few years. May be. Then again, may be not.

Mr. Market is kind of, sort of, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. If you've got $100,000 in moolah, then turning it into $1,000,000 is certainly feasible. If you've got billions, turning that into tens of billions, not so easy. Or may be it is.

There are only two factors which cause capital gains in stocks: real events, and real events. (If that sounds familiar, recall this old canard: "there's the three killer apps of the PC; word processing, spreadsheets, and word processing". Still true today, which is why phones and tablets have inhaled the consumer space.) So, Mr. Market is either equities (narrowing focus a bit) across the board, or a particular corporation. For equities, Ukraine is the current event driving his angst. Earlier, it was the tsunami of moolah from The East (more on this later). For the ABC Corporation, it's... who knows?
Mr. Buffett's talents are widely known. But despite his celebrated past performance, his returns since the beginning of 2009 have been disappointing.

He's too big to hit a grand slam.

What's happened since 2009? A so-so stimulus, followed by a number of QEs. And, let's not forget, The Giant Pool of Money still looking for 10%, risk-free returns (the expanding Chinese housing bubble is a chicken come home to roost). In all, Mr. Market, in the large (Mr. Hyde) is floating on helium. In such a situation, Mr. Buffett can't do well, since productive value becomes unstuck from fiduciary value.

Could it be that the Fed's pushing a string? The idea with the QE exercises was to make physical investment desirable, by lowering the cost of money to do so. More investment in physical production, yields more employment, which yields more income, which yields more demand, and around we go. If only we give the carousel enough oomph to turn on its own. Hasn't worked out that way.

On the other hand, the others with moolah piles of Mr. Buffett's sort, can do quite well. Here's where quants can earn their keep (if you assert that money manipulation is 'work') since the tactic is to track gross money flows and move ahead of the lemmings. Since Mr. Buffett chooses to make long-term bets on, often, whole companies, moving in and out of positions is difficult, if he attempted that. Paulson, with a little help from being inside, did just that. So did Jamie Dimon.

What quants aren't very good at, since it's outside their purview, is understanding catalyzing events of individual companies, the Dr. Jekylls of this tale. This is where the lonely $100,000 has the advantage. Did deep into ABC Corporation, tech or biotech these days, and you'll find some type of "innovation" about to be birthed in the next X months or Y years. Buy up a bunch of ABC, and wait for the catalyst. It helps a whole lot to understand the venue in which ABC operates, of course. Buffett's billions are too big to get away with that; the ABC's of the world tend to be, at most, small-cap outfits. The Baker Bros. funds have managed to pull it off with some consistency in bio.

The string pushing hasn't worked out as planned.
According to a report by Moody's Investors Service, American companies outside the financial industry were sitting on a combined $1.64 trillion of cash by the end of 2013. And tech giants like Apple, Google and Microsoft had the most.

That's a really big number. And doesn't include the Too Big to Fail cabal. Is it any wonder that the QEs have had little effect? Other than the ABC Corporations converting old high cost debt into new lower cost debt.

Speaking of Big Numbers, Krugman shares the page with a piece taking the Big Data meme to task. Two doses of reinforcement.

Many people understand that a falling price level is a bad thing; nobody wants to turn into Japan, which has struggled with deflation since the 1990s. What's less understood is that there isn't a red line at zero: an economy with 0.5 percent inflation is going to have many of the same problems as an economy with 0.5 percent deflation. That's why the I.M.F. warned that "lowflation" is putting Europe at risk of Japanese-style stagnation, even though literal deflation hasn't happened (yet).

Here, I still find he's too Pollyanna about the whole thing; there are folks who'd love a Japan. The cash hoarding by the .1% is clearly a move to get deflation up and running; they've run out of ways to productively convert fiduciary capital to real capital, and having no income generating skills, "[We] have always depended on the kindness of strangers." Deflation, while it might not get them 10%/annum, is totally risk free returns. Who can turn that down? "Turning Japanese I think [we're] turning Japanese I really think so" (The Vapors, 1980)

In my dead trees version, more than half the page (less Krugman's full length column) is devoted to a take down of Big Data. Again, comforting to know that some who can finagle a piece on the NYT have figured it out.
The first thing to note is that although big data is very good at detecting correlations, especially subtle correlations that an analysis of smaller data sets might miss, it never tells us which correlations are meaningful. A big data analysis might reveal, for instance, that from 2006 to 2011 the United States murder rate was well correlated with the market share of Internet Explorer: Both went down sharply.

Makes sense to me!

But how to explain this non-sequitor?
FINALLY, big data is at its best when analyzing things that are extremely common, but often falls short when analyzing things that are less common.

Fact is, it's the outliers that Big Data allows us to find, as the murders and IE example (OK, it's not likely causative), or that Target customer that found out his daughter was preggers. Now, their examples are a bit off target, so far as I'm concerned. The issue with Big Data has always been a cost/benefit one: collecting enough of the right data to find black swans early enough to profit is difficult to calculate, especially if you don't know which particular, very valuable, swan you're expecting. That's part of what makes them black. The Great Recession was a black swan to many, simply because they'd ignored the data which really mattered. As lemmings, they all ran over the cliff. Not so black for a few who paid attention. Big Data didn't help them, rather Econ 101.
About a year after Pole created his pregnancy-prediction model, a man walked into a Target outside Minneapolis and demanded to see the manager. He was clutching coupons that had been sent to his daughter, and he was angry, according to an employee who participated in the conversation.

"My daughter got this in the mail!" he said. "She's still in high school, and you're sending her coupons for baby clothes and cribs? Are you trying to encourage her to get pregnant?"

Dancing belly to belly.

05 April 2014

Attack of the Vampire Squid [update]

With all the boohooing from Titans of Industry, and if you believed them, you'd think that Obambi has been the apocalypse of Satan. Well, not so much:
Floyd Norris
After-tax corporate profits in President Obama's five years in office have averaged 9.3 percent of G.D.P. That is a full two percentage points higher than the 7.2 percent averages under Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush, previously the presidents with the highest ratios of corporate profits.

A reader comment, and my reposte, led me to wonder what lefties had actually said that Roberts was moderate. The first search came up with this piece from 2007, and I stopped looking (if you follow the link, it's a 2006 paper):
And in an academic piece written as Justice Alito joined Justice Roberts on the Court, No Exit? The Roberts Court and the Future of Election Law, I concluded:

Making predictions is always dangerous, and the conclusions I reach should be taken in the tentative spirit in which they are made. My best guess is that a decade from now, we may well face a set of election law rules that differ a great deal from today's rules. It may be that in 2016, individuals, corporations, and unions will be free to give as much money as they want to any candidate or group, subject to the filing of disclosure reports.

Off by a few years, was he.

03 April 2014

Fiber Art

A long ago friend decided to go into the fiber art business, after being a bureaucrat and educator. I guess there's art to be found in fiber. Just not in North Carolina. That happened nearly three years ago. And the innterTubes cartel is still at it.

It was, therefore, with some amusement that I read up this Times story on how innterTubes pioneers are moving house to have really (by US standards, anyway) high speed broadband. The piece goes on and on about how behind the curve the US is, mostly in fact due to monopolistic rent-seeking private capital, with regard to innterTubes service.
"I just returned from Stockholm where fiber connections are cheap and as available as running water," said Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and author of "Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry & Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age." As a result, she said, developers there have "a digital sandbox to play in," which means they are more likely to develop the next generation of software and hardware.

Ah, it must be all that midnight sun that has addled the psyches of Swedes to make them hate the Free Market. Fact is, the Damn Gummint (DoD and NSF, mostly) created the backbone. And it was academics, mostly, that figured out the tech. Only later, once the heavy lifting was done, did the Daddy Warbucks folks say, "gimme, gimme".

What's truly remarkable, and must be due to denseness on the part of the writer and/or editors:
It's why Brad Kalinoski and Tinatsu Wallace moved from Los Angeles to Wilson, N.C. The husband-and-wife team co-own Exodus FX, a company that provides special effects for commercials, television and feature films like "The Black Swan" and "Captain America."

The reason that bit is remarkable: North Carolina has paid off the ISPs by banning municipal broadband service, fiber generally. I guess irony is lost in the Times. This is a state by state list.
"In New York, I pay four times as much as someone in Stockholm would pay for a connection that is 17 times as slow on the download and 167 times as slow on upload," [Crawford] said. "Most of us are paying enormous rents for second-class service."

Well, corporations are people, too. And they need big houses to hold all those big ideas they have.

22 March 2014

Rocket in My Pocket

The search for MH370 raises the simple question: where are the pictures from all those American spy satellites? I was thinking Key Hole, KH12, but it turns out the Key Hole designation went out of vogue way back in the 1970s. Wow. Some surfing reveals a bit of irony.

Turns out that the lift vehicle for all those satellites runs on a Russian main engine, RD-180. Not just the design, but also the manufacture. They are made in Russia. Who knew? Vlad must be laughing up his sleeve.

19 March 2014

Not Tonight Honey. No Interest.

Narrator: Return with us now to the thrilling days of yesteryear... Mr. Peabody (and Sherman...) please set the WABAC to 1790, France where we'll have some cake with Marie Antoinette.

Control Room: Ummm... Mr. Peabody is an animated dog, there is no WABAC, and Marie likely had nothing to say about cake and starving peasants.

Narrator: It's a bleeding metaphor, you stupid sod!! For the behaviour of those parasite Banksters!!! So shut up and get Mr. Peabody's ass in gear!!

Ah, got that out of my system. Time, once again, to go on An Albert Adventure.

The Banksters, and their political enablers have been going on and on about crushingly low sovereign interest rates, aka Treasuries. They keep beating their jungle drums for 10%/annum payment for letting their moolah sit idly by. (All the while, China is headed for its own over extended housing crisis; when will they ever learn?) Let's think about that for a minute, or two.

In classical economics, one is taught about IS/LM. The problem (among many, as the Wiki piece explains) with this construct is that it ignores the pressure of returns to real physical capital; the magnitude of such returns are the controlling factor (i.e., you won't get more than that), irregardless of what the finance folk insist. The tsunami of moolah which hit the US housing market, to some degree in response to Greenspan's cratering of Treasuries, was just a recent case of fiduciary capital avoiding physical investment (China, are you listening? Thought not. You're up next). Make no mistake (the major one made by Bankster and Quant alike): there is no real return on residential real estate (while one can make a tenuous argument for real return on commercial; although I don't buy that, either); the vig comes out of the pockets of mortgage holders, which is to say either rising wages or current consumption. With stagnant to lowering wages, folks used the Ponzi gains *for* consumption. The Titans were happy for the demand, until they needed a scapegoat to blame. In the end, real returns on physical capital controls all investment since this is the only way to increase output through investment.

Without growth in productivity in real production, there can be no returns, beyond simplistic avoided consumption. The right wing folks, not surprisingly, have been clamoring for just that. "Americans should save more!!!" Yet there are trillions of $$$ not being invested now? Borrowers pay the vig out of improvements in production or non-consumption (killing consumption, as one might expect, reduces return on the investment through the simple expedient of lower demand for output). Raising rates on Treasuries will simply divert ever more funds from production improvements to fiduciary robbing Peter (today's citizens) to pay Paul (tomorrow's). Naturally, the moolah hoarders, who always complain that high interest rates on Treasuries "crowd out" real investment, are now clamoring for just such rates; ignoring the plain fact that the Titans can't figure out how to make money on physical investment with rates near 0.0. Who's crowding out who? They possess no wage earning skills, and the intent to live the good life irregardless. Make 'em sell pencils at the curb.

Why might that be?

The answer: our Titans of Industry can't figure out how to make productive use of their profits (investible funds). Recall that the rush to US housing was driven by Greenspan's cratering of Treasuries. Viewed historically, and ignoring the huge volume of mortgages manufactured by the Banksters (the fundamental mistake), US housing was "nearly" risk free, and the assumption that no significant number of mortgages would go belly up at once made sense to both Banksters and Quants. There was nothing in the historical data to point to such. But then, there hadn't been such a massive fiddling with the rules of engagement before; as always, policy beat the crap out of data. There was also nothing in the historical data to evidence the tragic bifurcation of median house price and median income (thanks to the fiddling), which became clear in 2003, and screamingly obvious by 2004.

In the end, trillions of $$$ were, and are, seeking 10% return for doing nothing and taking no risk.

So, to the question: what would happen to the Banksters and Quants if, all around the globe, sovereigns borrowed no net money? All countries ran a balanced budget? What would they do? Apple, et al, sit on their own trillions of $$$, not being able to figure out what to do with it. What if there were no zero-risk 10% instruments? Wouldn't that force the Titans of Industry to actually earn their keep: making intelligent capital allocations? Which they surely avoid doing, like a dark ages peasant did plague corpses.

A death spiral of deflation seems most likely. Remember: when in conflict, policy beats data like a rented mule. The data say, "Titan, you must invest to earn your 10%". But the Titan, being in control of sovereigns and having no clue what to do with its moolah hoard, yet demands its 10% tithe. There are two avenues to that 10%: tax the populace sufficiently to transfer said 10% on nominal "borrowing" (the balanced budgets would remain, but the transfer is now obvious) from the populace to the Titan, or the sovereigns do no nominal "borrowing" and allow deflation to run rampant.

Dystopia for most, luxury for a few. But, in due time, ever fewer of the 1% would be able to afford luxuries. On the one hand, there would be rampant deflation due to lack of moolah in the hands of the masses, and the resulting collapse of demand. So prices fall. That's good for the moolah hoarders. Until it isn't. In due time, inventories are burnt off, but not replaced since real demand has disappeared. Take healthcare, for example. Most, save vaccines in particular, modern medicine results from massive investment in capabilities, financed by widespread demand for the resulting goods/services. It is the widespread demand which keeps average cost under control, despite what one might think about Medicare and Medicaid freeloaders. With such demand gone Poof!, average unit cost of nearly everything gets out of hand. Now, cost push inflation sets in, for those who actually have some moolah. Even the 1% eventually need Obamacare.

Will the Titans finally start converting fiduciary capital into real capital? That is the question. I think not, since capitalists have evinced an ever shrinking time horizon. A recent story (sorry, didn't save a cite) passed by, in which Silicon Valley VCs were forthright: why should I put my money into a capital demanding startup when I can put it into some knucklehead web app (aka, advert pusher) and get back ten times as much, with the same level of risk? Just as the US/Chinese housing markets went berserk under the fusillade of moolah, so too, in its time, will the web app. $19 billion for WhatsApp? I guess we're back in Kansas.

17 March 2014


A story out today, "ARMs are back! Reverse mortgages too! Is this housing bubble 2.0?" contains this prized morsel of wisdom:
"A typical first-time homebuyer may be unable to afford a typical home in the near term, if mortgage rates and home prices continue to rise without sufficient increases in income," writes Orawin Velz, director of economic and strategic research at Fannie Mae.

Well, Duh??? Where was s/he in 2003?? Has Mr. Housing-Market been popping those blue trapezoids again?

Santayana and Pete Seeger had something to say about all that.