30 January 2009 – The Aleph Blog

The Humility of Realism — II

Posted on 30 January 200930 January 2009 by David Merkel

This post is supposed to be a kind of “catch up” post, where I write about a number of small things that I thought were interesting, but weren’t worth a full post.

1) The government can’t fund everybody. The recent backup in the US treasury note market is a great example of that.? As the demands for funds now in exchange for funds later has increased, Treasury interest rates have risen.

I have several biases, but one of them is that the Government can’t unilaterally create prosperity.? It can create conditions that encourage economic activity, through predictable and fair laws, but it can’t make us immediately better off through deficit spending, or tax-and-spending.? The Government does not know what is needed to a better degree than its citizens do individually.

But let the government fund or guarantee everybody.? When they do that, there is just one overleveraged credit that matters, and it will fail, taking us with them.

2) Equity Private is one clever lady.? Fair value accounting primarily exists to deal with investments that are as volatile as equities. How are publicly traded equities valued?? At market.? How about volatile assets where the value is derivable from market prices?? They should be valued at pseudo-market.? If we were back in the old days, and all of our assets were bonds, we wouldn’t need fair value accounting.? Even if we did it, the values wiould not vary much. ? But when you slice and dice the various pieces of bonds, the volatile bits jump around a lot.? To value them at their initial value is ridiculous, the value is too volatile.

3) Felix is right.? There needs to be more of a debate over bank nationalization. I’ve written my pieces there, influenced by the better regulations of the insurance industry, and how they deal with insolvencies.? Mark assets to market.? Do the triage.? Send insolvent institutions to RTC 2, and take stakes in some marginal institutions.? That is where the money will do the most good.

4) “We have to buy up assets that are selling at fire sale prices.? We will even make money for the taxpayers.” So go the arguments of those that want to create a “bad bank”.? Oh, please.? Profits are rare in bailouts.? They happen by happy accidents, a la Chrysler (80s, not now), which possibly could have made it without a bailout.

Assets are at fire sale prices because there is not enough balance sheet capacity to buy and hold them over a period where the realization of value is likely.? I’ve seen structured assets rated AAA where the collateral is okay, and the likely realization of value is in the 90s, if you can hold it for 5 years.? Where does it trade?? Around $60.? Another asset, which would likely be worth $35 if it could be held for 15 years, where does it trade?? It doesn’t trade, but you could get rid of it to a broker for zero.

Strong balance sheets can’t be created out of thin air, though.? Remember how formidable Fannie and Freddie used to be, or many of the FHLBs?? Strong balance sheets only exist through investments where the cash flows will not be needed for decades, like pension and endowment plans.

5) Some commentators complain that the current crisis destroys the concept of efficient markets, because a trust in markets led us to failure. Oh please.? First, all of our markets were by no means free from government mismanagement, and many of the distortions came from poor regulation.? Our dear government had many lending programs pre-crisis, and even more post-crisis.? They further encouraged the increase in debt through the tax code.

Why is debt finance tax deductible, and equity finance not?? What might the system have been like if interest payments could not be deducted on taxable income, but dividends could be?? Leverage would have been a lot lower, and the system would be a lot more stable.

Market efficiency means many things.? In the short run, it means that no one can do better than the current situation. In the intermediate-to-long term, markets are efficient in a different way.? They reveal problems that need to be solved.? Some might call those market failures but they aren’t.? In the present crisis, the invisible hand is saying to us: reduce debt levels; your economic system in too inflexible.? The visible hand, the government, says: “Have some more of the hair of the dog that bit you.? We need lower mortgage rates.? We need more consumer lending.? We’re going to borrow more than ever before in an effort to create prosperity.”? Caroline Baum takes a similar view, and as usual, she expresses it well.

Market efficiency does not mean things are trouble-free, but it gives us sharper incentives to solve our problems.? Some things become revealed as truly public goods that the government needs to regulate.? But that is not the majority of human actions.

6) AIG is one black hole for cash.? Selling or IPO-ing units during the bust phase, when valuations are compressed does not seem to be an optimal strategy here.? If all of the assets were sold, would there be enough for the junior debt or preferred shareholders to get paid?? (Forget the common.)? So, in the face of it, do they IPO partial stakes in enterprises, with an eventual end of IPO-ing or selling the whole thing later?? If so, there is little free cash flow being generated to pay down debt.

What this implies to me is that the huge loans that the government made to AIG will likely hang out there for a long time.? Is this the best use of the government’s credit?? I think not.? If there are still systemic risk issues, wall those off separately, and send the rest of AIG into liquidation.? The insurance units are intact; let others buy and manage them.? Speculating on a future boom in asset prices is not a reaonable government policy.? Hope is not a strategy.

7) It is simple to blame the US for the current global crisis.? Simple and wrong. The US deserves blame, true, but not even the majority of the blame, just a slightly larger than proportionate amount for its size.

But when China blames the US, it goes too far.? In the era of neo-mercantilism, China had political goals to achieve.? Industrialize the country.? Get surplus workers off of the farms and into the cities.? Keep the currency undervalued to support export-led growth.? Force savings through restrictions on imports.? As a result, suck in developed country debts and companies where strategically desirable and possible.? Do these deals in their currencies because of the need to keep the Yuan cheap.

China made its bed, let it sleep in it.? They knew that they were lending to the US in its own currency; it was a necessary part of the bargain to achieve their own goals.? Just as the mercantilists sucked in gold, and then found it to be less valuable than they imagined when they had to draw on it, so it will be when nations want to draw on the US dollar assets that they have hoarded.

=-=–==-=-=-=-=–=

My phrase, “the humility of realism” is meant to get us thinking about the system as a whole, and about the long-term consequences of societal actions, whether by the government or private parties.? Humility says that sometimes we have to say, “No, we can’t.”? It also says that we should think carefully about major policy actions, and not let ourselves get bullied by those who rush, shouting “crisis, crisis,” while quietly angling for their favored pet projects to get swept in while no one is looking.? Realism sometimes means the government has no good solutions, so it should inform the public that they aren’t omnipotent, and humbly say the crisis must be borne with grace.

The problems generated by the short-termism of the past three decades will not get solved by more short-term thinking.? The present rush to assure prosperity will not end well, in my opinion.

Creating a Black Swan

Posted on 30 January 200930 January 2009 by David Merkel

How do you create a Black Swan? It’s not that hard.? Start with something that you know is seemingly useful, true or good.? Then slavishly rely on that idea until it fails.? I’ll toss out a few here:

The more people that live in houses that they own, the better.? The government should encourage home ownership.? You should own the biggest house you can afford.? (In 1986, a Realtor pitched me with that idea, and I thought it was dumb then.)? Residential housing is an investment for the masses; the prices never go down for the nation as a whole.
Continually maximizing return on equity will maximize stock prices.? Optimal capital structures and all times.
We all want high, smooth returns from our investments — high Sharpe Ratios, everyone!
Proper central banking practice can lead to near-permanent prosperity with moderate volatility.
Our government can borrow without limit to promote or common prosperity.? Our central bank can cleverly intervene in markets with their assets, and fix things without getting stuck, or creating inflation.

Many ideas that are good marginally aren’t so good if pressed to their logical absurd.? By duping marginal homebuyers into buying what they could not afford, we create a black swan — I remember commentators who were saying as late as 2006 year end, that home prices never went down across the nation as a whole.? It wasn’t true if you looked at the Great Depression or episodes in the 19th century, but people beieved that housing prices could not go down, so they piled into it creating a boom, a glut, and now a bust and a glut.? Behold the Black Swan!? Rapidly falling housing prices across the nation as a whole.

Consider the buyback craze, now deflated.? Was it good to buy back like mad in 2004-2006?? I would tell insurance management teams to leave more of a buffer for adverse deviations.? But it was always easier in the short run for insurance CFOs to buy back more stock, and earnings would rise.? Stock prices would improve as well, and that’s fine during the boom cycle, for then, but many would issue expensive hybrid junior debt with an accelerated stock repurchase.? Short term smart, long term dumb.

The insurance industry is my example here, but it went on elsewhere.? How many acquiring CFOs wish they had used stock rather than cash for the last major acquisition that they did?? Most, I’m sure.

There is always a boom-bust cycle, and there is ordinary trouble during a normal bust phase.? But when the boom phase has parties abandoning all caution, possibly with government acquiesence, the boom gets huge, and the bust too, where the Black Swan appears — things you thought could never happen.

The craze for smooth, high, uncorrelated returns led to a boom in alternative strategies in the investment business.? Return correlations change not only due to cash flows on the underlying investments, but also due to investor demand.? Not so amazingly, as alternative investments go mainstream, the returns fall and become more correlated.? When an alternative is new, typically only the best ideas get done.? When it is near maturity, only the marginal ideas get done.? Alternative asset prices get bid up along with the boom in conventional assets.

Now we get a Black Swan — all risk assets do badly at the same time.? Investors in private equity don’t want to fund their commitments.? Some venture capital backed firms will fail (here and here).? Many hedge funds raise their gates, all at the same time, because investors want out.? Liquidity is scarce.? Companies pay in kind where they can, whether it is on “covenant lite” loans, REIT dividends, etc.? The era of buying back at high prices gives way to equity issuance at low prices.

Now for my final Black Swan, and perhaps the most controversial.? Monetary policy is “optimal” when it follows the Taylor Rule.? A good central banker, applying the rule, should minimize inflation and macroeconomic volatility.

My argument here, which seems intuitively correct to me, but I can’t yet prove, is that continuous application of the Taylor Rule will eventually lead us into a liquidity trap.? That might be more due to the human nature of sloppy central bankers like Greenspan, who want adulation, and err on the side of monetary lenience.? Or, it might be that the central banker overestimates the productive capacity of the economy.? Whatever the reason, we followed something pretty close to the Taylor rule for 15 years, and now we are in a liquidity trap of sorts.? I’ve suggested it before, but perhaps monetary policy should not focus on (at least solely) price inflation or unemployment, but on the level of total debt relative to GDP.

As with so many things in a complex capitalist economy with fiat money, there may not be a right answer.? Optimizing for one set of variables often leads to unforseen pessimizing (a new word!) another set of variables.? What works in the short run often does not work in the long run.

In closing, consider a Black Swan of the future.? Governments globally nationalize financial institutions, run huge deficits and borrow a lot of money to do so.? They “stimulate” the economy through targeted spending, and ignore the future consequences of the debts incurred.? They do it in the face of the coming demographic bust for the developed nations plus China.? My expectation is that these “solutions” will not do much to deal with the economic weakness induced by the debt overhang.

As Walter Wriston famously said, “A country does not go bankrupt.”? Perhaps what he should have said was the country remains in place, only the creditors get stiffed.? Short of war, it is tough to reorganize or liquidate a country.? But I’lltake the sentiment a different way and say that most people believe “A developed country does not go bankrupt.”? That is the black swan that will be displayed here, and Iceland is the harbinger of what might be a future trend of developed country sovereign defaults, or their close cousin, high inflation.