Category Archives: Blogroll

Econobloggers need their crisis back

I think so, dear readers. With the advent of peace and plenty, as we move to the broad sunlit uplands of The Recovery, I fear some of the spice has gone out of the commentary on sites like this one, and its friends. Where people used to read econoblogs to actually understand a crisis that CNN and Fox News soundbites didn’t seem to encompass anymore, as the meltdown recedes into the past there’s now just a dull ennui.  And with that, the econoblogosphere is moving back to where it used to be, which is to cater to a niche, broader than most, but a niche nonetheless, with a circumscribed influence.

The high point of bloggy “power”, we shall probably find in retrospect, was when a number of bloggers were invited to the US Treasury department and fed some by all accounts delicious cookies, as well as being ferociously spun to by the Goldmans guys whose turn it was to be on sabbatical at the Treasury that when it came to financial reform and what had gone wrong in the banking sector they did in fact Get It, whatever It was.

Since then, of course, we have had Obama praise the bonuses to “savvy businessman” Lloyd Blankfein, who as we all know is doing god’s work;  mind-numbingly massive “trading” profits from all the big commercial, investment, commercial investment banks at the same time as accepting government and Fed largesse*; an even more hideous clusterfuck over finance reform than exists over healthcare reform in the US; and this despite none of the proposals under discussion seeming likely to properly change anything worthwhile, other than maybe the Volcker prop trading rule and this last seems fairly dead in the water.

What really rankles this blogger is that the Great Spinozist Republic is being subverted again. Regulatory capture is one thing, the total inability of a political system to make any steps to reform itself when what is wrong is staring at you in the face, is quite another. Political money and public ignorance has corrupted civic decency in the US to such an extent that doing the right thing for the Republic appears quite impossible.

All these things should make econo-bloggers all quiver with righteous anger, which we would communicate to our readers who would then rise up en masse against the legislators captured by Big Banking, and some form of actual reform might even take place.

But something along the chain has broken. Either we have lost interest or, more likely, the world has. To be sure, there are brave souls who carry on the fight. Felix does an admirable job of keeping us up to date with the nuts and bolts of finance reform. Taibbi provides the rhetoric (“vampire squids”, indeed). Calculated Risk and Naked Capitalism carry on doing their thing, as does Zero Hedge in its batshit sawn-off shotgun way. TED gives us the lowdown and I mean low, on what it really means to be a banker (though TED’s next post is just as likely to be about his favourite type of upholstery. Thanks for including us in the list of blogs you read, BTW). There are others, and Abnormal Returns continues to aggregate them. But the rest of us seem to have stopped caring so much. The minutiae of practical policy is much less amusing than making lots of money in financial markets that really, truly appear to be on the mend.

The wider global economy seems to be much better too. Sure, the US seems a bit screwed up still, and unemployment is high, but frankly that’s not where the action is at anymore. Baruch was astonished to read that Gartner is predicting 20% year on year growth in PC units globally. We can talk about overleveraged consumers until we’re blue in the face and we’ll still be wrong. That’s a crapload of PCs, and someone’s buying them. You don’t sell craploads of PCs like that unless there was something going fundamentally right in more places than where things are going fundamentally wrong.

But a better economy just makes people fat and happy, and fat and happy people aren’t likely to be roused by righteous anger. Fat and happy people are not likely to want to change much. Fat and happy people are much more likely to assume the light at the end of the tunnel gives out onto a large outdoor buffet than the next oncoming crisis. Hell, fat and happy people are more likely to do the stuff to bring on the next crisis, to binge, to borrow more, stoke the next bubble wherever that may be and feel pretty smart doing so, just like we did in 2006 and 2007. Reformed Broker Josh captures the new Zeitgeist rather well just today when he lists the things people no longer appear to be interested in e.g. financial reform, unemployment, etc and says

most market participants have instead turned their focus to finding secular growth stories, deep-value high yielders to replace the lack of money market interest and other such assorted baskets to put their eggs in.

Fine with me.  I could use a break from the “news” myself.

I can’t say much better. Josh is saying what lots of us think.

Baruch isn’t really the person to do anything about this himself. He isn’t Spartacus. It was no co-incidence he was not invited to hob-nob at the Treasury; David at Aleph Blog was kind enough to suggest he and some others should be next time, but Baruch would probably have just eaten more of the cookies than was fair and got bored and played Homerun Battle 3D on his new iPhone until it ran out of power, annoying everyone. Baruch is one of those who likes to analyse what Is and try and make money out of it. He is not very interested in, or good at, what Should Be, though is slightly envious of those who have strong opinions in this direction. Less “designing better futures“, more buying the right ones. Even if Baruch had a prediliction to think about policy he doesn’t have time to think about more than what he writes about already; he has a day job, and a very intense one, which soaks up what mental energy he can muster these days.

But buying better futures are not what the best blogs in this space are about (and not what Nick Gogerty’s blog is either). Posts about the latest chart formation in the S&P500 are not memorable. They help no-one. Blogs about how best to trade can be interesting, but remain narrow and mercenary. So in the end are posts about how many iPads Apple will sell, the stock-in-trade of UB recently. Myself and Bento are just not that qualified to do much else and don’t have the time to post as often as we want. But there are other bloggers who are and who can. At its best, the econo-blogosphere can be the last haven of truly independent, non-captured, and crucially, informed, commentary able to affect policy and opinion makers positively. It used to do just that. It may not help in the end but let someone at least try.

Get your game back on, people. Get some fire in the belly again. A crisis is a terrible thing to waste, and it looks like we are on the verge of wasting ours.

* the irony is of course, is that the millions in banker wodge financing the lobbyists is at least partly the hot money doled out by the Fed to banks in that extraordinary money machine called ” quantitative easing”: Fed buys up at full whack the treasuries it issues to banks at a discount, financed by cheap rates set by the Fed itself. Said banks, busting out with Fed-invented cash, or more properly, “trading profits”, refuse to lend it to small businesses like they’re supposed to in the textbooks and support the economy. No, they plow it into awarding themselves big bonuses and, most pricelessly, pay lobbyists to pay off politicians to subvert both good sense and a public opinion which is as viscerally opposed to big banking as it is ignorant and pliant, and make sure the status quo ante crisum is restored. An edifying spectacle.

All about Android

Baruch is channelling Tadas Viskanta today. It’s a linkfest!

More and more datapoints are pointing in favour of his “phase transition” thesis, that the smartphone market, as it gets more software-y, eventually becomes an emergent monopoly. Did you know, for instance, that Apple has a 70% share of contract sales in France? Seventy percent market share?! How do you break that?

If we’re going to avoid that fate elsewhere, we at least need Android to stop being entirely useless. There’s really nothing else. Here are a couple of judiciously chosen links that might help:

Boy Genius, king of the smartphone bloggers, enunciates the problem. He’s had enough of Google’s operating system and unloads a can of whup ass: “Android doesn’t make sense as a whole. It’s fragmented, poorly executed, the Android Market for apps is a mess, and developers still don’t care about it”.

In a similar vein, but more constructively, Silicon Valley VC and blogger Jean Louis Gassée also sees Google’s problem; it’s Linux strategy just isn’t working. It’s creating “Babelisation” instead. He thinks Android has to become more like Microsoft if it’s going to get anywhere. Is that a good thing?

What’s an export? Seriously.

Baruch the amateur economist has been mulling this question for a while now, and still doesn’t know. Baruch was reading this World Bank blogpost (via Paul Kedrosky)* discussing how much we can rely on China to pull us out of our current funk, which we’ve just been reminded us we are sort of still in.

It makes the reassuring point that China has been the global economic growth engine for some time already, accounting for 20% of global GDP growth over the past decade, twice the contribution of the US. So presumably stagnation in the US, zero growth, would be fine for global growth, ceteris paribus everywhere else, so long as Chinese growth was to increase proportionately, and it’s supposed to. This of course is great news. Except then the blogpost then starts to cavil because the blogpost is actually called “China Can’t Do it Alone”, and then it starts a discussion on how Chinese imports aren’t actually going up very much at all:

Assuming China’s bilateral trade surpluses decline in equal measure, increasing Chinese net imports would add less than 0.1% of GDP to US final demand this year. This simply pales in comparison with the discretionary fiscal stimulus measures . . . implemented in the US (and other advanced economies).

The only way China can pull the US out of the slump is by importing more, it would seem, and it isn’t doing it. So in other words when these stimuli expire, and they will, we’ll all be stuffed again and China won’t help us at all. The authors conclude,

China is too often seen as a one-stop shop for the crisis recovery. A replacement for the US consumer? Check. A source of low-cost borrowing to stimulate your OECD economy? Check. A source of investment funds for emerging, commodity-rich economies? Check. . . Alas, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is

As a conclusion this does sound possible. But the path the WB bloggers take to get there, viz China isn’t importing more relative to exports, doesn’t make any sense when it comes to looking at the technology sector. I think in tech at least, that discussion is pretty irrelevant.

It’s hard to talk about a trade balance between China and the US in tech hardware, when almost all the hardware, and many of the components that go into the finished good, are “made” in China itself. There isn’t any balance. It’s all “export” then. Hardware and assembly outsourcing was probably one of the key drivers of the trade imbalance between China and the developed world this decade. 

But of course it isn’t proper “exporting”, is it? It’s outsourcing. In fact I really don’t know what to call it. Let’s look at the not-so-humble iPhone. Continue reading

Abnormal Makeover

We don’t really do blogroll around here, but Abnormal Returns is a bit special, and is basically the portal by which one navigates the econo-blogosphere. The previously anonymous Tadas Viskanta has also linked here quite often, and is one of the main reasons Ultimi Barbarorum has risen to its current level of moderate obscurity from its previous deep obscurity. Thanks, Tadas!

So this is just to say, Baruch likes the new site very much and wishes AR the best of luck in its new venture.

Peer pressure

One of the many psychological problems Baruch suffers from (in secret) is a desperate need for the respect of his peers. So when on his daily Abnormal Returns troll he saw a link to a Who’s Who of Financial Bloggers at Baruch’s now favourite blog, Reformed Broker, his heart began to beat faster. Then the memory of multiple disappointments and jealousies resurfaced (what’s that Felix Salmon got that Baruch hasn’t?) and a prophylactic, cold resignation set in. But on opening the link what should he see but his name! Right  there! Hooray! Some people actually are reading this stuff! It’s not just bear lovers, looking for pictures of bears, being diverted here by accident!

You’re there too, Bento, but I don’t know why, you are the single most useless blogging partner the world has ever seen.

Question: why the “Library”? It’s lovely being next to Footnoted and Kedrosky, of course, but Baruch was in the Library Society at school, and had he had a second go around would prefer to be with the cool kids behind the bike sheds, hopefully snogging Equity Private. One feels a bit . . . nerdy in the library.

And Broker, dude, where’s Old TED? You could put him in the category of “Kids who are grumpy but fun to hang out with”.

Belatedly, Baruch would also like to say thank you to Condor Options, who said very nice things about us last year. Apologies for being behind the curve on this but another of Baruch’s pathologies is an inability to handle compliments properly.

What the Quants did next

Hey Bento, remember these guys? Interesting article here on the “new realms of science” the Quants are apparently pushing into in order to make a fast buck in stocks without looking at balance sheets or in fact doing any actual work. Mean-reverting Gaussians no more, apparently all the people who survived the Quant blowups of last August (this is what Baruch wrote about them at the time) have now moved on things like “machine learning”, “mathematical linguistics” and “agent simulations”. At least one of them is still working on a grand unified theory of finance! Good luck with that, I say.

I do think some of these ideas sound like they could be amusingly dangerous – “reinforcement” strategies sound well dodgy, for one; is it that you keep throwing more and more money into a winning trade as it keeps on winning? A signed copy of the Ethics to the first commentor who can say why that may not be a good idea!

Of all the strategies in the article I think those that use some degree of behavioural finance sound the most interesting, especially if coupled with what one Dmitri Sogoloff is talking about:

Sogoloff is wary of quants who believe the real world is obliged to conform to a mathematical model. He acknowledges the difficulty of applying scientific disciplines like genetics or chaos theory — which purports to find patterns in seemingly random data — to finance. “Quantitative work will be much more rewarding to the scientist if one concentrates on those theories or areas that attempt to describe nonstable relationships,” he says.

Sogoloff sees promise in disciplines that deal with causal relationships rather than historical ones — like mathematical linguistics, which uses models to analyze the structure of language. “These sciences did not exist five or ten years ago,” he says. “They became possible because of humongous computational improvements.”

But it does all sound dreadfully difficult. A lot of what the Quants seem to be trying now is simply tinkering around to try and find something which makes pots of money guaranteed with no risk, and unsurprisingly they haven’t found it yet. So they apply the old strategies to new markets, like commodities. Let’s see how long that works. Lots of them seem to think running different strategies simultaneously is an end in itself, much like Captain Picard found that if he timed his phasers to fire at the Borg using random frequencies it took the collective mind time to adjust the defenses to block all similar attacks, and you could generally nobble a few of them in the interim. Almost all of them (the Quants, not the Borg), however, seem to accept lower returns from their new strategies than they were used to getting with the old Gaussian ones plus leverage. Worryingly, the article never addresses the topic of leverage at all.

The thing though that all of them seem to be trying to escape from is the essentially unquantifiable nature of the market, unquantifiable in the sense that the data changes on observation. This would be true of even insights gained by behavioural finance, I imagine. Put simply, the moment I come up with the Grand Unified Finance Theory I invalidate it – my understanding of the theory, trying to make money off it by gaming the system, creates the conditions whereby I myself act in violation of its laws by becoming aware of them. And if the great unwashed (or rather, the scrubbed-clean white teeth brigade of the hedge fund hoi polloi) ever get hold of the formula it would be back to the drawing board for sure.

Quants are weird

 

Came upon the most delightfully batshit website, that of Dr Espen Haug, Dolph Lundgren impersonator the co-author with Taleb of the assault on Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing I linked to in my recent history lecture.

I had imagined a tweedy academic with leather patches on his sleeves, someone not at all as interesting as Taleb. Instead Dr. Haug is a rock and roll  — maybe more Kraftwerk — trader-type, who seems to wear sunglasses indoors, and probably at night too. He calls himself “The Collector”, and has been dubbed Derivativens Konge in his native Norway, and seems something of a celebrity. He is a talented cartoonist as well, though his subject matter makes it unlikely he will achieve syndication in, say USA Today. A sample of his work is above, I hope he doesn’t mind. I would not like to see the demise of Quants who are this interesting, but as an avowed non-Gaussian, he should have a longer life expectancy.

Anyway, he linked to us, which shows admirable generosity, if possibly a lack of discernment. I have to say I was not able to follow much of the more abstruse 3D modelling of options “landscapes” on the site, my thinking sort of fuzzed up at that point. It struck me you might appreciate it more, Bento.

When used in a hospital setting, can Spinoza be sterilized?

Ha ha, luckily they are only talking about a cuddly bear robot for sick kids. This is what you get when you google “Spinoza”. But we go straight from entries for Wikipedia and philosophic encyclopediae to the cuddly bear. Where are the other sites like ours? This one, where if you look hard enough you can find some limited exposure to Spinoza from a nice-looking, beardy professor at a community college in California, looks very interesting indeed, but unlike ours is not constantly updated. It doesn’t treat Spinozan thought as real and alive. I never heard of the Friesian school before. Of course, you haven’t either, Bento you ignoramus.

We are number ONE in a field of er, one! We are huge winners, Bento, we have found a gap in the market! Riches and academic recognition are sure to start flowing any minute.