Quotulatiousness

November 23, 2011

Tim Harford on credit rating agencies

Filed under: Economics, Government — Tags: — Nicholas @ 08:52

I think it’s safe to say that he’s not over-impressed with the organizations involved in doing credit risk assessments:

What are rating agencies again?

They are private companies that express opinions about the likelihood that, for example, Italy will pay the money it owes bondholders. Sometimes they express opinions about how much money people will get back if Italy defaults on its loans. One way or another they’re providing opinions about the risks that creditors face.

That’s it? Just a bunch of opinions?

Basically, yes. And there are plenty of other opinions out there from journalists and particularly from people who put cash on the line and buy and sell these bonds. But the rating agency opinions have real-world significance in a way that a bloke in the pub doesn’t. Many investment funds promise their investors that they will only hold assets with ratings above a certain level. If a rating is downgraded, those funds have to sell, even if they think the asset is a bargain. Ratings are also hard-wired into regulatory rules, with similar effect. And another thing: unlike most opinions, they’re quantified.

Quantified on a scale of 1-10?

No, quantified on a scale of D through CC+ and BBB- all the way to AAA. Or alternatively, au choix, from C through Caa2 and Ba1 to Aaa. Depending on which agency you’re looking at.

Why?

For ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD REASON.

November 22, 2011

Acronym watch: “In the euro zone farmyard, it’s time to forget about the PIGS and start counting the broken EEGs”

Filed under: Economics, Europe, Humour — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:36

The journalists will appreciate this new acronym:

The euro zone needs a new acronym. For the past three years, PIGS has served as a catchall for the cash-strapped states on the single currency’s periphery. But now that the crisis has moved to the core, a change is overdue.

PIGS has proved surprisingly durable. When it was first coined, citizens of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain were understandably upset at being lumped together in such a derogatory way. Yet as Ireland and Portugal followed Greece in seeking bailouts, their similarities outweighed historical differences.

Some felt the acronym was self-fulfilling, giving attention-deprived speculators a handy shortlist from which to select their next sovereign victim. However, its survival was also an accident. When Italy got into trouble earlier this year, it slotted smoothly into the slot previously reserved for bailed-out Ireland. Politically sensitive bodies avoided the zoomorphic insult by reshuffling the letters to create the GIPS.

[. . .]

A better idea might be to start with the one remaining euro zone member that isn’t under attack from the bond markets. Andrew Balls, head of European portfolio management at PIMCO, now describes the euro zone states being shunned by investors as EEGs: Everyone Except Germany.

November 3, 2011

The “Euro-elites now see democracy not so much as a distraction, more as a disaster or even a death-threat”

Filed under: Europe, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:12

With the agonized screaming coming from the various offices of the European Union, you’d think Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou’s announcement of a referendum was the next-best thing to the emergence of the Antichrist. Mick Hume explains that the reason the Eurocrats took it so badly is that, from their point of view, democracy is Kryptonite:

‘If voting changed anything, they would make it illegal.’ So goes the famous old slogan, attributed to the anarchist Emma Goldman, expressing radical cynicism about the capitalist elites’ traditionally contemptuous attitude to political democracy.

In the current Euro-crisis, however, it appears that matters have gone further still. Europe’s political, media and economic elites are now so insecure, isolated and fearful of any hint of popular opposition that even the suggestion of giving Greeks a vote seemed to change everything for them — and some of them would clearly like to make such referendums illegal if they could.

No sooner had Greek premier George Papandreou announced his plan for a referendum on the latest Euro bailout and austerity package than, in two shakes of an imaginary ballot paper, all that the elites hold dear had apparently been destroyed: the ‘historic’ deal to save Europe agreed days earlier was now reportedly ‘in ruins’, the financial markets were sinking like stones, there were warnings that the Euro itself was now in mortal danger and even that the world was heading for a global depression. All this panic and chaos, apparently, because somebody suggested the outrageous idea of giving the Greek people a say on their future? No wonder that many in authority talk as if they really would like to ban voting today.

[. . .]

Papandreou’s announcement of a referendum, described even by the sober BBC as a ‘nightmare’ for Europe, could hardly have caused more shock, anger and revulsion in high places if somebody had placed a bomb under this week’s G20 summit in Cannes. The mood of Europe’s rulers was captured by President Sarkozy’s French regime, which described the Greek prime minister’s dalliance with democratic politics as ‘irrational and dangerous’. Trying to square this disdain for public opinion with his own need to seek re-election by the French people, Sarkozy himself has generously conceded that ‘giving people a voice is always legitimate’ before adding the obligatory ‘but…’: ‘the solidarity of all Eurozone countries is not possible unless each one agrees to measures deemed necessary’. In other words, whatever the Greek or any other electorate wants, their government will have to adopt those ‘measures deemed necessary’ by the Euro-elite, primarily the Germans and the French, if they want to remain members of the club.

October 15, 2011

It’s not as stirring a rallying cry to say that the 99% earn 80% of the income

Filed under: Economics, Government, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:32

Lorne Gunter can, if he holds his mouth right, kind of agree with the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters, but he says they do themselves no favours by mixing in fake “facts”:

The protesters’ main point also is obscured by all the lefty, social justice, union-financed trash they have heaped on it. The Occupy movement has proclaimed itself in favour of animal rights, a guaranteed living wage, free health care and education, and an end to the “poisoning” of the food supply.

Nor can the protesters help repeating a lot of class-warfare myths, such the “fact” that 1% of the population controls almost all of the wealth. According to Internal Revenue Service statistics in the United States, the “99 per centers” — as OWS types like to call themselves — earn about 80% of all income and control over two-thirds of the personal wealth (both percentages are slightly higher in Canada), while the “one per centers” earn about 20% of income and control about 32% of wealth.

It’s true that the top 1% of earners are taking a greater share of the pie than at any time since the 1950s, when reliable family income figures first became available. But it is also true that even the bottom 20% of earners are better off than they were then — not as much better off than the top 1%, but better off than they were in the mid-20th century.

[. . .]

But the biggest problem with the OWS movement is what they want to do about the problems they see. Because they view most corporate activity as bad and most government programs as good, the Occupiers have convinced themselves the only way to a fairer society lies through bigger government, more public spending and much higher taxes, all of which would only make our economic problems worse, while alleviating none of the disparity protesters believe is so corrosive to democracy.

Conrad Black on “Occupy Wall Street” and its targets

Filed under: Economics, Government, Media, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 11:50

Conrad Black looks at the “Occupy Wall Street” movement:

The Wall Street protesters denounce government bail-outs, the political and economic short-shrifting of students and young workers, the high cost of post-secondary education, various forms of discrimination, U.S. foreign policy, union-busting, outsourcing, the oil industry, media misinformation and (more generally) capitalism and globalization.

Of course, this is a pretty hackneyed scatter-gun indictment by people who haven’t really thought it through, but their anger and frustration are largely justified nonetheless: In the past decade, many prominent financial houses joined in the process of issuing consolidated debt obligations (CDOs), consisting of unfathomable patchworks of mortgages on packages of residential real estate, unsupported by any real base of invested equity in the underlying assets by their ostensible owners, and covered by diaphanous fig-leaves of default insurance. These instruments were made deceptively presentable by certifications from the main rating agencies that they were investment-grade, as if issued by serous entities and secured by unquestionable assets.

[. . .]

As for the Wall Street protesters, their largely justified complaints can’t be addressed by the wild methods they suggest. (A proposed list of demands posted at OccupyWallSt.org includes “free college education,” “bring the fossil fuel economy to an end” and “Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all.”) The prestige of the U.S. financial leadership, the country’s political class and its economic academics and financial media have all collapsed at once and together, like a soufflé. Except for the military and the pure sciences, the country’s elites have been utterly discredited, and no one believes anything they say. Even if they wanted to, they could not impose on Americans the sort of radical anti-capitalist reforms the protestors urge.

September 26, 2011

Why are gold and silver down in this market?

Filed under: Economics — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 12:15

It’s a question I’ve been asking too (my miniscule portfolio is taking a beating in both equities and in precious metals). Mike “Mish” Shedlock offers some likely answers:

1. Fed Did Far Less than Expected
The Fed did not do what everyone thought, which is to say something far more than “Operation Twist”. [. . .] In short, the Fed did not print, or even threaten to print. Moreover the Fed committed to a strategy not through the end of this year, but all the way through June of 2012. Perhaps the Fed does more in the interim, perhaps not. [. . .]

2. Mutual Fund Redemptions
Mutual fund cash levels are at or near record lows. In general, mutual funds were not prepared for the market selloff and sell orders came in. Rather than sell garbage like Bank of America at $6, mutual funds unloaded stuff like gold, taking profits.

3. Margin Calls at Hedge Funds
Hedge funds unloaded gold and silver for the same reasons as mutual funds, but also because they mistimed the play and what Bernanke would do. Leverage works both ways.

4. China Growth Story Fading
Commodities in general have been clobbered along with currencies of commodity producing countries because the global economy is slowing rapidly.

September 22, 2011

Telegraph: The great euro swindle

Filed under: Britain, Economics, Europe, Media — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:34

This is an interesting summary of the path to the Euro, and how some predicted the current situation at the very start of the project:

The field is theirs. They were not merely right about the single currency, the greatest economic issue of our age — they were right for the right reasons. They foresaw with lucid, prophetic accuracy exactly how and why the euro would bring with it financial devastation and social collapse.

Meanwhile, the pro-Europeans find themselves in the same situation as appeasers in 1940, or communists after the fall of the Berlin Wall. They are utterly busted. [. . .]

The central historical error of the modern Financial Times concerns the euro. The FT flung itself headlong into the pro-euro camp, embracing the cause with an almost religious passion. Doubts were dismissed. Here is the paper’s Lex column on January 8, 2001, on the subject of Greek entry to the eurozone: “With Greece now trading in euros,” reflected Lex, “few will mourn the death of the drachma. Membership of the eurozone offers the prospect of long-term economic stability.” The FT offered a similarly warm welcome to Ireland.

The paper waged a vendetta against those who warned that the euro would not work. Its chief political columnist, Philip Stephens, consistently mocked the Eurosceptics. “Immaturity is the kind explanation,” sneered Stephens as Tory leader William Hague came out against the single currency.

[. . .]

Now let’s turn to the BBC. In our Centre for Policy Studies pamphlet, Guilty Men, we expose in detail how the BBC betrayed its charter commitment and became a partisan player in a great national debate — all the more insidious because of its pretence at neutrality.

For example, in the nine weeks leading to July 21, 2000, when the argument over the euro was at its height, the Today programme featured 121 speakers on the topic. Some 87 were pro-euro compared with 34 who were anti. BBC broadcasters tended to present the pro-euro position itself as centre ground, thus defining even moderately Eurosceptic voices as extreme.

H/T to Tim Harford for the link.

September 9, 2011

Opportunities for humour with your bank’s “secret questions”

Filed under: Humour, Technology — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 09:15

If you do online banking, you’ve probably been asked to provide additional security checks beyond your userid and password. Some banks only allow you to select answers from pre-selected questions, but others get you to provide both the question and the answer. In a post from more than a year back, Bruce Schneier offers a few combinations that lighten the mood (and there are lots of funny — and weird — suggestions in the comment thread):

Q: Need any weed? Grass? Kind bud? Shrooms?
A: No thanks hippie, I’d just like to do some banking.

Q: What the hell is your fucking problem, sir?
A: This is completely inappropriate and I’d like to speak to your supervisor.

Q: I’ve been embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars from my employer, and I don’t care who knows it.
A: It’s a good thing they’re recording this call, because I’m going to have to report you.

Q: Are you really who you say you are?
A: No, I am a Russian identity thief.

September 6, 2011

Switzerland devalues the franc

Filed under: Economics, Europe — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:06

In what appears to be a successful attempt to devalue their currency, the Swiss have announced that they will peg the franc at €0.83, or SFr1.20 to the euro:

The Swiss National Bank in effect devalued the franc, pledging to buy “unlimited quantities” of foreign currencies to force down its value. The SNB warned that it would no longer allow one Swiss franc to be worth more than €0.83 — equivalent to SFr1.20 to the euro — having watched the two currencies move closer to parity as Switzerland became a “safe haven” from the ravages of the eurozone crisis.

The move stunned currency traders, and sent the Swiss franc tumbling against other currencies. Jeremy Cook, chief economist at currency brokers World First, said it was “intervention on a grand scale”, and the start of a “new battle in the currency wars”.

“That was the single largest foreign exchange move I have ever seen … The Swiss franc has lost close on 9% in the past 15 minutes. This dwarfs moves seen post-Lehman brothers, 7/7, and other major geo-political events in the past decade,” Cook said.

August 23, 2011

Markets hate uncertainty

Filed under: Economics, Government, History — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 13:34

I’ve often remarked that the economy won’t — can’t — recover as long as governments (the US government in particular) keep messing around with the rules of the game. Amity Shlaes explains why:

One product makes clear exactly how unusual this year’s slide has been, and offers a clue as to why 2011 broke the rules. It’s called the Congressional Effect Fund. Founded by Wall Streeter Eric Singer in 2008, the fund is premised on the idea that equity markets dislike a hostile Washington, tolerate a friendly Washington, but prefer an inactive Washington above all.

It follows that stock-market rallies would come most often when Congress is idled — in recess, at home, in the districts. From 1965 until early this summer, the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, Singer’s proxy for stocks, rose 17 percent while Congress was out of session versus only 0.9 percent while Congress was working in Washington.

In one study, four scholars took a step back to look at a century of returns — from 1897, just after the Dow Jones Industrial Average was founded, to 1997 — and found that average daily returns when Congress was out of session were almost 13 times higher than when it was in. Their explanation: “Perhaps the market enjoys the temporary certainty exhibited by the absence of Congressional decisions.”

Singer is blunter. About Washington’s impact on the economy, he says simply: “Congress subtracts value.”

The regulators are still on the job, but the legislators appear to be the ones causing the greater degree of uncertainty — and thereby limiting market opportunities. Nice work, government.

July 24, 2011

Bank of Ireland “suffered a restructuring credit event”

Filed under: Economics, Europe — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 10:46

I’m not fluent in banker . . . does this Reuters report really say that the Bank of Ireland is in default?

The ISDA said a restructuring credit event occurred after Bank of Ireland closed an offer to buy back about 2.6 billion euros of Tier 1 and Tier 2 subordinated debt at a discount of up to 90 percent earlier this month.

A credit event is financial industry jargon for default on payment, breach of bond covenants or other event that casts doubt on an issuer’s ability to service its debt.

If it does mean the bank is in default, how come it hasn’t received much attention in the media? (Aside from the focus being on Norway right now for other reasons, of course.)

H/T to Karl Denninger for the link.

July 12, 2011

Have the markets already “priced in” the risk of a US government default?

Filed under: Economics, Government, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 11:48

Along with everyone else, I’ve been watching the US government’s fiscal game of “chicken” with some alarm. What is puzzling is that the opposition in congress doesn’t seem to be all that scared by the risk of default:

The facts, in fact, are plain enough. In the unlikely event that the U.S. government would hit the real ceiling on August 2 as advertised, the federal government would still be on track to collect about $2.2 trillion in the fiscal year. That wouldn’t change. And net interest for the year would still be about $205 billion, or less than a tenth of incoming revenues. And in light of the consequences, there is no doubt that President Obama and his Treasury Secretary would ensure that the interest payments are made on time and in full.

Thus it should not be surprising, as Fox Business News senior correspondent Charlie Gasparino wrote in a New York Post piece some days ago that “just about every private-sector economist I speak to says that Treasury could simply use its ample cash on hand to pay off our creditors first—then begin to prioritize payments for the military and various social programs.”

This view appears to be shared in spades by the credit markets, which so far have reacted to the Obama-media scare tactics with a big yawn. When the markets fear real default, they respond by jacking up interest rates, as we’ve seen in Greece, Italy, Portugal, etc. It’s happening right now in those countries.

In sharp contrast, U.S. long-term rates are actually falling. The 10-year Treasury bond rate, which only a few days ago was around 3.15 percent, has dropped 20 basis points to 2.95 percent. Maybe the markets just aren’t paying attention. Or maybe they know Obama and Company are blowing smoke. Whether the debt ceiling is raised on time or not, markets are confident that the interest will be paid.

June 27, 2011

The Economist calls for Greek debt restructuring

Filed under: Economics, Europe, Government — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 10:23

A Greek default. It’s stopped being a possibility, moved into being a probability, and it’s starting to look inevitable:

There is an alternative, for which this newspaper has long argued: an orderly restructuring of Greece’s debts, halving their value to around 80% of GDP. It would hardly be a shock to the markets, which have long expected a default (an important difference from Lehman). The banks that still hold a big chunk of the bonds are in better shape to absorb losses today than they were last year. Even if Greece’s debts were cut in half, the net loss would still represent an absorbable proportion of most European banks’ capital.

An orderly restructuring would be risky. Doing it now would crystallise losses for banks and taxpayers across Europe. Nor would it, by itself, right Greece. The country’s economy is in deep recession and it is running a primary budget deficit (ie, before interest payments). Even if Greece restructures its debt and embraces the reforms demanded by the EU and IMF, it will need outside support for some years. That is bound to bring more fiscal-policy control from Brussels, turning the euro zone into a more politically integrated club. Even if that need not mean a superstate with its own finance ministry, the EU’s leaders have not started to explain the likely ramifications of all this to voters. But at least Greece and the markets would have a plan with a chance of working.

No matter what fictions they concoct this week, the euro zone’s leaders will sooner or later face a choice between three options: massive transfers to Greece that would infuriate other Europeans; a disorderly default that destabilises markets and threatens the European project; or an orderly debt restructuring. This last option would entail a long period of external support for Greece, greater political union and a debate about the institutions Europe would then need. But it is the best way out for Greece and the euro. That option will not be available for much longer. Europe’s leaders must grab it while they can.

June 25, 2011

Tim Harford analyzes the ECB’s real problem

Filed under: Economics, Europe, Humour — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 10:30

Tim Harford puts the head of the ECB (Essex Community Business association) on the couch:

“With all due respect, doctor, I don’t think it’s me who needs to see a shrink.”

“Don’t worry. A lot of people feel a bit awkward when they first lie on this couch. This is a safe, non-judgmental space.”

“I wish the Essex Community Business association was as relaxed.”

“But you’re the chairman of the ECB association. Tell me why you feel that way.”

“Look, I always felt that the ECB association was supposed to be an informal talking shop, a way for people with shared interests to make new friends and perhaps even launch joint projects. Everyone was really happy when Georgios, the new owner of the Plaka Taverna, wanted to join — the more the merrier.”

[. . .]

“So if I understand the situation, you’re lending money to Georgios that you know he can never pay back, and demanding that his staff make sacrifices they are transparently unwilling to make, in order to protect Mr Saville’s bank, in order to protect José, who in some unspecified way is connected to Georgios’s fate.”

“It does sound a bit strange when you put it like that. I think the theory is that if we don’t throw money and yell impractical and unwelcome management advice at a transparently bankrupt business, then maybe a perfectly viable business will be damaged. Especially since there won’t be any money left, because we’ll have given it all to Georgios, who will have given it all to his waiters. Does that make sense?”

June 22, 2011

What is a balance-sheet recession?

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:07

Stephen Gordon has some really nasty looking diagrams explaining just what a balance sheet recession looks like:

I had never heard the expression “balance-sheet recession” before this recent episode, and it’s time I got around to a comparison of the household balance sheets of the US and Canada. Of all my “Canada is not the US” posts, this is the one that makes me most grateful.

The quarterly data goes back to 1990, and it’s good to put the last few years in context. I’ve scaled all the series by price (the consumption spending deflator) and population. Here is the net worth series:

There’s been talk of a Japan-like ‘lost decade’ in the US; that seems optimistic. US real per capita net worth is back to what it was back in 1999.

More (and somewhat scarier) diagrams at the original post. It doesn’t even finish on a high note:

The US data go back to 1952, so I was able to check the last time the real, per capita value of US housing equity was at its current level. Even after looking at all of these graphs, the answer astonished me: 1978. Nineteen seventy-freaking-eight.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »
« « QotD: Who’s more smug than Bono? The “Bono Pay Up” protesters| “Medicalizing” bad behaviour to avoid guilt » »

Powered by WordPress