Obama's Contradictory Policies on Crime

Before I start, let me make something clear: I'm normally a fan of Obama's.  I donated to his campaign, and I voted for him.  I support and defend his policies for the most part.  The part here is one that I don't support.

There are two interesting stories being covered these days, one well known, and the other not so well known.  The first, has been going on for over 30 years.  John Demjanjuk has been in one stage or another or being prosecuted, convicted or acquitted for being a guard in a Nazi concentration camp during World War II. [Before I go on -- I don't care if he is or is not guilty of any of the crimes charged.  It's irrelevant to the point here.]  The Israelis have acquitted him, but the US government has stripped him of his citizenship, and is making every effort to deport him to Germany where he will be charged.

In more mainstream news President Obama announced that he would not prosecute CIA officers that were involved with torture as long as their actions were in line with the legal advice at that time.  Also, it's important to note that "...nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past." 

So now we have an interesting position here on the part of the Obama Administration.  On one hand, they seek to prosecution for an individual who comitted his allged crimes 65 years ago, and was certainly "following the legal advice at the time," as the laws that he "broke" were not invented until WWII was almost complete as the Napoleonic "crimes against humanity" was pulled out of mothballs to provide a legal basis to decapitate the Axis powers. Hundreds of Axis officials and soldiers were imprisoned or put to death on this legal basis. Juxtaposition this with the concept that our CIA officers were "only following orders" and should not be prosecuted. Furthermore, they should not be prosecuted because what they did happened in the past. [huh??]

Someone please explain to me how the Obama administration plans to prosecute future crimes!

Do not think for a minute that I equate what happend at the camps in Nazi Germany, and what some of those guards did there, to what our guards and "interrrogators" did. What the Nazis did was heinous and horrible, and  However, if you don't look too deep, the situations are remarkably similar.  In fact the CIA knew, despite the "legal opinions" that what they were doing was wrong, as they had to deal with the FBI at arm's length.

So if we are to be a nation laws as President Obama says we should be, then lets be a nation of laws.  Let's not allow the scapegoating of a few officers and enlisted personnel of Abu Gharib to stand.  Let's go forward and shine the light of truth into the murky corners of the hidden CIA torture chambers. We should show the world that the United States is a nation of laws and that we will try and convict those responsible for breaking them, whatever their crime, whenever they did it.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Luddites Raid Wash. Post Editorial Page

It's pretty shocking what some people still think. Today, two university professors published their Luddite Manifesto on medical records.  Succinctly, their argument is that since there have been issues with software in the past, and since you can't prove that medical records software can save lives, then all efforts to implement such software are a waste of time and money and that we would all be better off sticking with paper records.

It's as if the last 25 years of history has not happened.  The computer revolution, which has changed the lives of the majority of the world in one way or another has not occurred.  The fact that data sharing has had a major impact on business and commerce has not occurred.

To support their argument, the two authors cited failures or issues with some systems that have been implemented. Most of the systems cited in the article seem to have been designed to diagnose symptoms or prescribe drugs automatically. Given that doctors themselves have problems doing this for more complex cases, it should be little suprise that initial systems developed to do this work do not work as well as hoped. 

I've had experience with this "paper records" system, and it stinks.  Let me tell you a little story.  Unfortunately, I've got a few health issues.  I have several doctors, all of whom treat me for different things.  Despite the fact that I have signed releases, none of them have my complete medical records.  They tend to request them "as needed", and then it takes a couple of days for the records to be copied and sent over. While this system may work for regular checkups and treatment, the one time it won't work is in the Emergency Room.  Fortunately, every time I've been to the ER I've been upright and coherent. I disclose my pre-existing conditions, and I'm asked (repeatedly) what medications I take.  I'm asked repeatedly what I'm allergic to.  All of these pieces of information are usually relevant to treating me and making sure I remain upright and coherent. And, in my experience, the doctors and nurses have always been able to give me excellent care, as I am able to provide them with all of this information. In fact, the last time I went to the ER, I took the liberty of typing up a list of my meds so that there would be no questions (more paper records).

What if I were not upright and coherent?  I'm certainly not an expert in this area, but I can't imagine how not having my records available to consult before treatment would be boon to the doctors.  Furthermore, what if I was away from home and went to the ER in a non-upright and non-coherent state?  Given my health issues, I'd hate for the doctors to have to start guessing what's wrong with me given a lack of information!

I have to say that I find it quite shocking that someone in this day and age would write such an article, and even moreso that the Washington Post would publish it.

Outstanding Article Regarding Economists' Role in the Crisis...

The Economist's View today posted an excellent link to a paper which has caused a good bit of discussion there and rightfully so.  The post, entitled "The financial Crisis and the Systemic Failure of Academic Economics" is simply an excerpt from the conclusion of the document includes this ditty:
Paradoxically self-reinforcing feedback effects within the profession may have led to the dominance of a paradigm that has no solid methodological basis and whose empirical performance is, to say the least, modest. Defining away the most prevalent economic problems of modern economies and failing to communicate the limitations and assumptions of its popular models, the economics profession bears some responsibility for the current crisis.

What makes this paper topical is the current financial crisis, but it cannot be said that this is the first time many of the topics and the general concept of classical economics being out of touch with reality has been broached.  The Real-World Economics Review has as its origin a discussion and petition in France in 2000 regarding how and what is being taught in economics classes. Another site, with more frequent updates, is Real World Economics.

In brief, real-world economists argue that the equalibrium based, economics of maximized utilization is fundamentally flawed.  The thinking stipulates rational behavior and models this mathematically. These models assume a "normal" state of equalibium, which of course cannot be representative in the world we live in, or the people we deal with.  Changes are considered "shocks" or "jolts" which after they occur will simply lead to a new equalibrium. Hence, using this type of methodology, most classic economic thinking has been broken down into economic models, which as suggested above provide questionable utilization.

This particular fact leads us to a fundamental question: "If this methodology of studying economics yields such poor guidance, is it an economical use of our time to pursue this methodology?" 

The "real world" economists don't yet have a cogent theory of their own as they are still in a bit of a self-exploratory phase, however the trait they do posses is the ability to unflinchingly criticize their own thinking.  I'm not convinced we actually will see a theory any time soon as we still grapple with predicting human behavior on a large scale.

While I am not convinced that economists could really have prevented the current crisis, I certainly believe that they could have sounded an alarm that might have caused political figures to look into the housing market and associated financials.  However, even Greenspan believed that the system would sort itself out.  Furthermore, the Bush administration was quite business friendly, and would have been rather adverse to anything that might have slowed down the housing boom, particularly considering that the housing market was driving what little expansion there was in the economy at that time.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Financial Mess--Who's Fault is It?-- Part Two

[This is part to of my explanation of the current financial crisis and reasoning behind who I believe the real culprits are for our current financial situation.  Enjoy and feel free to comment.]

Big Bank would then be the Secondary market. While Big Bank certainly can sit back and collect the payments on this loan, they have other motivations and decide to package this loan up with a group of other mortgages, and sell it.  This product it called a Mortgage Backed Security.  In this case, they sell the entire MBS to Bigger Bank. This then becomes the Tertiary Lender. Bigger Bank has some really sharp people on it's team, and they therefore have a more diversified portfolio of securities to offer their customers including something called a Real-estate Mortgage Backed Collateralized Debt Obligation (RMBCDO or just CDO for short).

Big Bank's team takes a number of MBS and bundles them together, and sells them to a paper company specifically created for this purpose (a Special Investment Vehicle or SIV). This SIV will then issue a Bond just like any other company. This bond is given a qualitative rating by one of three major ratings companies, Standard & Poors, Fitch's or Moody's.  Other people and companies can then purchase this bond and expect a certain fixed rate of return for their money over a specific period of time with a known risk level (the reason for the rating).

Several types or organizations would buy these CDOs, particularly those with a AAA rating.  Banks, hedge funds, investment houses, and even mutual funds would buy these.  This was a secure investment, with a fixed rate of return that nicely matched certain types of investment strategies. The real estate market had been booming for years, and there was no reason to assume that anything would change any time soon.

It is through this process that money from private investors eventually made its way back down to the individual to fuel the housing boom and price bubbble.  There was only one thing that this model did not account for.Technorati Tags: economics, banking, real estate, CDO, crisis,

Powered by ScribeFire.

If We Can't Help, Let's Just Get in the Way...

William Kristol's hopefully vain exhortation today in the Washington Post Online today sickens me.  The general idea is that since Obama and the Democrats have the electoral mandate, they are in the driver's seat legislatively, so what they Republicans should do is simply get in the way as much as possible.  This is particularly true as they have nothing to actually add to any debate in terms of new ideas or solutions.

It's this type of political BS that hurts us the most.  It does not matter what side it comes from.  It reminds me of a kid on the playground that would only disrupt a game if it could not be played by his rules, refusing to actually take part in the game.  It's just as childish.

The role of the minority party should be to be that of overwatch and alternative, minding what is good for both party and country, not just party.  They should provide oversight keeping the majority honest (if possible) and provide alternative solutions to what the majority is proposing.  If they are so intellectually bereft as to not have any alternatives, then they either need new leadership, a new mission, or should just shut up.

...And the Supply-Siders Certainly Don't Get It!

Phil Kurpen of Americans for Prosperity posted this little ditty on the Fox News Blog (yes, I'm trolling) today arguing simply that the way out of the current crisis is to increase the savings rate, because it's the debt itself that is the problem.  The argument is that the current standard of living is built on unsustainable, and generally bad-for-us debt and we should all just stop spending and save our money instead and this whole problem would go away, because, it's a just a big Ponzi scheme anway.

What's a big Ponzi scheme?  I'm not sure, and I don't think he really knows either, but aparently Bernanke, Paulson, Obama and Bush are all in on it.  However, it's a very timely reference, as is the reference to Maddoff, as irrelevant as they are.  The problem is that in a Ponzi scheme, someone is actually skimming the money from the top, which why it always fails Mr. Kurpen fails to show how this is so.

Regardless let's consider this proposal.  We are currently in a recession brought on by the banking crisis (and probably some other stuff too, but let's keep it simple for now).  The banks stop lending, so consumers and businesses that use credit for big-ticket items can no longer get that credit for those goods. As sales drop, businesses adjust and start to lay people off and invoke salary freezes and in some cases salary cuts.  People become nervous for their jobs, and start to save money by scrimping.  Businesses see this pullback and a new wave of layoffs occurs, and/or different industries are effected.  This is a recession. It's self- propagating.  Businesses cut back in response to consumers and vice versa.  As a result of this process, the economy actually shrinks.

There is a point below which the economy won't shrink (theoretically) but since the US is a service economy now and no longer a manufacturing economy, our economy could take quite a pounding before it reaches some level where the recession stops (note that I did not say equallibrium).  I'm not sure that anyone really wants to find out where that is; (some may say they do, they clearly have not thought it through) we would call that a depression.

Given this scenario, how does saving money effect this process? IT WOULD MAKE IT WORSE! Removing additional money from the economy by saving will simply make the recession worse.  Now the supply-siders will come back and say that the additional savings will allow the banks and businesses to invest that money.  However the argument fails on its face for two reasons: First there is nothing that guarantees that the banks will loan the money when they get their hands on it (as Paulson found out to his dismay).  Second, for every dollar saved, at least one dollar is removed from the economy.  Businesses rely on dollars that are in the economy, not in banks, beause if it's in the consumer's bank account they are not out spending it on goods and services.

So let's all just think twice when we hear this type of simplistic thinking.  I've been hearing it a bit lately, as it seems to be quite popular with the more conservative Republican crowd as a way to take the Obama administration to task.  Just say "No" to this type of thinking.

The Financial Mess—who’s Fault is it? –Part One

[Instead of simply complaining about who does not "get it" I've decided to explain my reasoning behind who the real culprits are for our current financial situation. I originally planned to make it one big post, but it was becoming unwieldy, so I've decided to break it up. Please enjoy and feel free to comment]

 

A review of the press surrounding the current economic woes will reveal a bevy of culprits. Borrowers are at fault for either buying houses that they cannot afford, lying on their loan applications, or speculating on the housing market. Mortgage brokers are at fault for selling loans to people that could not afford the loans, and offering "teaser rates" that did nothing but get the borrowers in trouble. Underwriters are at fault for actually writing the loans, and ignoring traditional industry guidelines regarding "low" down payment loans. Fannie and Freddie Mac are at fault for suborning this behavior by purchasing many of these "bad" loans. The "big" banks are at fault for creating new financial instruments out of these loans and then foisting them off on unsuspecting investors (including other "big" banks). The SEC is at fault for ignoring the whole thing (among many other crimes during this process).

 

And so it comes to pass that whatever your bias is, you can find someone to blame for the "credit mess". Conservatives blame the individual, and liberals can blame either the government for not doing its job, or the "evil" corporations that allowed this to happen. However, in order to get a clearer idea of where the blame actually belongs, we need to take a close look at how the process worked. While intelligent people can differ in opinion, it is simply not possible for any one of the failings stated above to have created the mess that we are in. In fact given the way the markets work, theoretically all of those things could have happened and we would not be in the condition we are in today. What I will do here is follow the loan though its life and show where things went wrong.

 

Let's say it's June of 2006 and Mr. and Mrs. Jones, who are newlyweds, decide to buy a new home. They have good credit, but they are a little light on cash for a down payment. They have already been turned down for a "traditional" fixed mortgage because they don't have the money for a down payment, and the PMI (private mortgage insurance) would put the payment out of their reach. "No worries," says their mortgage consultant, "we can get you into that house." They happily agree and then close on their house. They end up with two loans. The first loan is a 30 year fixed interest loan for 80% of the value of the house. Their second loan, which is actually an equity loan is a 5/1 interest only adjustable rate mortgage (ARM), and they've got a great rate of 2.9%! The ARM will go up in 5 years to "normal" rates, but their mortgage consultant explains that by simply making larger payments, against that loan, "it shouldn't be a problem five years from now." They can also refinance the whole thing under one loan in five years, which should not be a problem given housing prices of late. Also, if they really have problems making the payments, they can always, sell, after all the way housing prices have been going for the last several years, they are certain to be able to turn a profit and get out of their house with a nice gain. This is a sub-prime loan.

 

To summarize: The Jones' have a house they really like, but they have to stretch to afford it. They are comfortable with this as they have seen that the housing market has been doing nothing but going up for years. They are comfortable that when their ARM comes due for an increase, they will be able to work it out.

 

So now that they Jones' are happy homeowners, they pay their mortgage to their underwriter, ACME corp. This income stream combined with all of the other mortgages they have issued represents a pretty nice income stream. The only problem is that ACME won't see its profit for many years, and the CEO is under pressure to grow the business today. So he puts together a group of mortgages, including the Jones' note and sells it to a secondary lender, Big Bank. Big Bank is happy to have the income. Plus, Big Bank has other things it can do with this mortgage to make more money.

[End Part One]

Time Magazine Doesn't Get It Either...

There is an excellent article in by David Fiderer in The Huffington Post today discussing the recent questionable history that Time Magazine engaged in with this piece.  Time seems to feel that lots of people were to blame, and that this must have been some type of "perfect storm" in order for all of these individuals to have caused the mess as it currently exists.

Both Time and Mr. Fiderer have overlooked how much the concept of risk drives the investment business.

Even the Economists Don’t Get It

Highlighting the sorry state of the field (some might still call it a science) of economics is in, The Washington Post Online published this opinion piece (registration required) today providing yet another suggestion for "saving the banks" without addressing the real underlying issues. Mr. Caballero, head of the Economics Department of MIT, has suggested that the US Government commit to purchasing stock in banks equivalent to two times the existing number of shares within the next five years. He contends that this would have several benefits; first, it would put a floor under the price of the stock. Second, it would allow (force?) the banks to raise additional equity privately, and somehow just by this act the market's negativity will reverse course and the market will rally.

While it's clear that Mr. Caballero means well, it's also quite clear that at the very least the market will not respond favorably in the event that this proposal comes to pass. Having a look at the last five days of trading when the market has been abuzz with bank nationalization talk should present a pretty clear picture of how the market will react to this type of program.

I'm also unconvinced that this type of program would actually help bank stock price very much. The bank would have to issue so many additional shares in such a short period of time (somewhere in the order of 10x the current number of shares) in order to prevent themselves from being nationalized that the price of the stock won't move very much. The reason for this is that the simple process of adding capital to an overextended bank does not suddenly make its Earnings Per Share number increase. Until that number increases, the bank shares will not go up—with one exception. That exception is housing prices stop plummeting and foreclosure rates return to normal. Why?

It's pretty simple really. The toughest part about being an investor, or day trader or banker even is controlling risk. It's easy enough to throw money at equities until something "hits" and then reap the profits if there is no risk to the funds that you are investing. In many cases even it's possible to lose more than you have invested if you are not careful. You control risk by knowing what it is that you have bought and understanding the possible scenarios arising out of that purchase, and pricing accordingly. Unfortunately, many of the RMBCDO (real-estate mortgage backed collateralized debt obligations) that the banks in trouble have purchased as investment instruments cannot be valued properly because the current housing situation and foreclosure rate makes it impossible to determine whether the underlying mortgages have any value or not. Therefore these CDOs have little market value where their "realized" value may end up much better.

Given that large banks still have an unknown number of these on the books, and the potential liabilities for these securities may be substantial, there valuation of the bank itself suffers. Additionally, they can't help improve their valuation by issuing loans and generating revenue because they have to keep as much capital as they can on hand to prevent another re-run of the massive de-leveraging that happened in 2007, again out of fear of what the housing market will do.

In the end, it's all about risk. Until risk is a known, or returns to known levels, the banks will be in trouble. JP Morgan and Citigroup seem to have seen this. They have ceased foreclosures and will be working with their borrowers per the Obama Administration's initiative. This initiative, if implemented properly (the details are still pretty non-existent) will hopefully put a floor underneath the housing market. When this happens, we will be well on our way towards recovery. Throwing more capital at the banks at this time will not solve the problem. By doing this, we would be trying to cure the symptom, and not the underlying disease.

 

[Stay tuned: I'm working on a much larger discussion of CDOs, risk and who I think has the most responsibility for the mess we are in]

Santelli’s “Tea Party”

Here's another reason not to pay too much attention to what the Talking Heads on the financial networks. It's pretty clear that this guy has no idea what actually got us into this mess, and is just trying to create news, which sadly, he has done. Mr. Santelli seems to think that the spending that will get us out of this recession will just magically appear if the government does not spend any money. Supporting the homeowners, and thereby propping up housing prices, could not possibly be a good idea according to this knucklehead. That might lead to something resembling a calculation of fair value for "toxic assets" which might then allow banks to either offload them or value them appropriately. That might lead to the horrors of more lending. That might lead to an end of the recession even!

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. We've got some kowtowing to the masses to do, and some hysteria to whip up.