The Grayling

Ebony Hillbillies - These Guys Rock

2010-05-06T10:18:00.000-04:00

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Tsingtao Brews

2010-05-05T11:35:00.000-04:00

Beverage market was part of my coverage from 1991 on. Tsingtao has not made any impression on the US market besides Chinese restaurants or
BYOB if you're eating Chinese in all that time. I like the beer but don't see the potential for more. It retails for about the same as Bass and Stella but doesnt taste as good. Personally I don't think it's as good as Tiger or Singha.

If I were running Tsingtao I think would have enough on my hands
improving distribution and increasing my 15% market share in China without
trying to increase from about 0.2% of the unappreciative US to 0.4%.

In a way this may be sadly like the Suntory experience. Suntory had a
lighted sign on top of NY Times Square for years and years and years.
It must have cost them plenty. They never made significant sales in
the US and when they exited I might have been one of eight people who
noticed. Try to sell Japanese whiskey in Jack Daniel's frontyard? Good
luck with that.

By the way, do you know what spirit has the largest market share in the world?

Always remember to drink Tsingtao responsibly.

[US market is ~250 hectoliters, TT's production is around 10
of which about 10% is for export and not a majority of that goes to
the US. So, it's the US market leader for Chinese beer and it's been in the
market since 1972, and in nearly forty years it has rolled up
considerably less than one-half of 1% share -- less than 0.0001 per
year. Look, the beer is fine, but SAB, Inbev, Molson Coors et. al.
need not trouble themselves about Tsingtao in North America.]

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Mo' Motown NJ Tea Party 4/15/10 Photos

2010-04-16T08:20:00.003-04:00

Motown NJ Tea Party 4/15/10 Photos

2010-04-16T08:12:00.005-04:00

Poor Jobless Claims Data

2010-04-15T08:30:00.002-04:00

Down 484,000 in the week. That is an ugly number, 60k more than expected. Is the V-shaped recovery story wildly optimistic?

Chin Music for China

2010-04-08T12:33:00.002-04:00

Last month, two guys known for being handy with slide-rules were trash-talking about balls and bats. Paul Krugman of Princeton University proposed policy hardball over China manipulating its currency. Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley said that was wrong and suggested taking the bat to Krugman.

Look, I may have been the last pick of every ball team I ever played on, but I have been in Chinese business and finance since 1986 and I have some things to interject between the heavy hitters.

For years we have heard the words “currency manipulation” and “China” together so often that they sound as natural as “Mantle and Maris”. But the yuan was stable from 1994 to 2005, it rose almost 20% against the dollar in the next three years, and has been stable since then. Stability like this is not most people’s idea of “manipulation.”

Those who talk about China manipulating its currency are trying to de-legitimize its fixed exchange rate system, but it is legal and valid. The articles of agreement of the International Monetary Fund permit nations to choose fixed exchange rate systems. When the United States pressured the IMF to condemn China’s arrangements, the IMF responded with the brush-back. In 2005, Managing Director Rodrigo de Rato said there’s no evidence of manipulation for competitive gain: “There is a strong argument by the Chinese authorities that their main objective . . . is the stability of the economy.”

Still, the criticism of the Chinese returns with a regularity that it is more Groundhog Day than Opening Day. In 2004, Senator Chuck Schumer said that “many economists estimate that the yuan is now undervalued by between 15 and 40 percent.” In 2009, he said, “China’s currency remains between 21 and 40 percent undervalued against the dollar.”

What happened between 2004 and 2009? As we’ve seen, the Chinese currency appreciated against the dollar. Since the currencies of other countries appreciated about as much, it did not change the context of the US-China trading relationship. The American side can therefore keep on claiming up to 40% undervaluation of the yuan as the dollar drops.

Let's focus on that point. The US dollar has declined in this decade against other currencies in response to American economic conditions and policies that drive it down. Yet the American view is that the yuan is manipulated just because it tracks the dollar’s slide.

It’s wrong-headed, as is the implicit American view that exports will rise if we just weaken the dollar enough. If exchange rates were the key factor in trade competitiveness, then Mexican imports would have streaked ahead of Chinese in the US market at times of peso weakness and Zimbabwe would be the biggest bat in world trade.

Worse frustration is to come. Partly in response to US pressure, partly for its own good reasons, China will alter its currency peg – yet absent other major structural changes, this will not swing the trade balance.

American exporters export, whatever the exchange rate. In the most recent reported quarter, exports accounted for a big 1/3 of the value of goods produced. No one with an idle plant in Paterson NJ is basing the decision to restart production mainly on the Chinese yuan exchange rate.

However, goods production is down to just 23% of GDP. The US economy has gone post-industrial. Clearly our trading partners only buy our manufactures to the extent that we manufacture. They buy none of the output of our government sector. They buy some services, but in a recession they too have less need of services in which American business specializes.

Here’s a difference between Chinese and American business today. A Chinese entrepreneur might as well try his hand at manufacturing, but the American thinks long and hard before taking up the regulatory and tax burdens of making a product for sale.

It's one reason serviceable industrial parks hereabouts rent to ballet schools, medical offices, day care centers, basketball clinics, gymnastics facilities, skate parks, art studios, martial arts gyms, fitness centers, houses of worship, schools, and even government offices, but less and less to industry.

China's scouts might look at Japan’s play since the last time it contended, and conclude China has little to gain by playing ball with the Americans. There was a huge rise in the value of the yen from 250 to the dollar in 1985 to 90 in 2009. However, this neither stopped the US from placing trade restrictions on Japan, nor dissuaded the Japanese from investing heavily here. And after all that, America runs about the same trade deficit with Japan now as it did in 1985.

At that time, by the way, one Chinese yuan bought 75 Japanese yen. In 2009, it bought only 13, but despite that, Japan still runs a trade surplus with China.

In neither situation was the exchange rate the key factor.

Working Man’s Blues: Employment Trends in Democrat States Lag

2010-04-04T11:42:00.002-04:00

During the past winter of discontent, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie emerged as a model and example of political reform. A young Republican who routed a wealthy Democrat incumbent in a solidly blue state, Christie keeps on surprising. He is making a serious effort to rein in government expenditure, declaring that a "state of fiscal emergency exists in the State of New Jersey" and instituting deep cuts. It brings him into conflict with state workers whose lush packages are at the root of the problem, as well as the Democrat establishment whose patronage system created it. But taxpayers appreciate the governor’s position that they have already been milked dry, and seem willing to give spending discipline a try.

It is a changed day when developments in New Jersey furnish a positive example. In the December 30 2008 edition of the Wall Street Journal there was an arresting article entitled "New Jersey Is the Perfect Bad Example." In it, William McGurn showed that the government sector added 93% of all jobs created in New Jersey from 2000 to 2007.

The BLS data for the full ten years to February 2009 underscore McGurn’s findings and fill in some other unsettling information as well. The government employment growth was entirely at state and municipal employment level, and made for 91% of the increase in total NJ employment, while the federal government, the US Postal Service, and the Department of Defense all shed jobs. The goods producing sector is in a headlong free-fall, losing 138,600 jobs in the decade. One-third of manufacturing jobs disappeared. Now government workers outnumber manufacturing workers five-to-two, making a mockery of the old motto "Trenton Makes, The World Takes." One-third of Garden State workers now work for the government or in health care, which increasingly is much the same thing.

Does anyone imagine it is satisfactory or sustainable that an important state’s economy hardly generates employment outside the government sector?

McGurn’s work invited me to extend the analysis to goods-producing, service, and government employment in all states plus the District of Columbia. There is also the question of party political environment: he blamed New Jersey’s sorry state of affairs on its Democrat-dominated political culture and its high-taxing, heavily-regulating, pro-union, and anti-business ways, but does that bear up to analysis, and if so, does it apply more generally?

To try to get to grips with party politics in all states through time, I researched affiliations of the governor and two senators and the plurality of the House of Representatives delegations and the state senate and legislatures for each year since 1990. I assigned a +1 for a Republican in a year, and -1 for a Democrat, so a state that had a Republican governor in a year, with a Senator of each party, majority Democrat state senate and state legislature, and a Congressional delegation split exactly down the middle would +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 0 for a score of -1 for the year. The most solidly Democrat blue state would thus be -6 year after year, the firmest red Republican +6.

Two next door neighbors, Washington and Idaho, bracket the ranking of the 50 states plus DC by political complexion, from most Democrat to most Republican:

>> bluest: WA DC WV MA AR NJ CA MD IL HI DE
>> next: NY VT IA WI RI MI OR CT ME NC
>> middle: NM MN MT LA COPA NH ND IN TN
>> next: SD VA MS NV AL MO NE KS OK FL
>> reddest: KY OH AZ SC WY AK GA UT TX ID

The BLS employment data show that government is not just New Jersey's growth industry – it has been a growth industry in most states, blue or red. Only in a handful of places has government employment been static or falling: MA, MI, NY, DC, and RI. Yes, they are blue states. But most of them have another issue: in general, they are losing population. That is the dominant factor, not party in power.

The predominant pattern in the last ten years has been for employment in goods-producing industry to decline, in service-providing business to grow somewhat, and in government to grow fastest of the three. That pattern is seen in no fewer than thirty-seven states: AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, MD, MS, MO, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NC, OH, OK, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, and WI (in MI government declined, but more slowly than other employment). Government grows at the expense of goods production. In the limit, this places fiscal drag on the economy, which reinforces the original destructive trend and makes it worse. That is New Jersey’s experience.

The states that have experienced the greatest declines in employment in goods-producing industry are (worst first): RI, MI, NJ, CT, NY, NC, OH, ME, MA, and PA. These states are mostly unionized, mostly northeastern or midwestern, and mostly Democrat. The states that have done best in growing employment in goods-producing industry are (worst first): NE, CO, NM, SD, ID, MT, UT, WY, NV, and ND. Near runners-up were TX, AZ, and OK. These states are mostly right-to-work, mostly western, and mostly Republican. Only in strongly Republican Wyoming is employment growth in goods-producing industry consistently positive and higher than either services or government.

Employment in goods-producing industry need not be the holy grail of all economic policy. If someone leaves a job in the declining textile industry in North Carolina, retrains as a radiological technician and gets a better job in that field, no one argues that either that person or North Carolina are worse off.

The problem is when employment in the goods-producing sector as a whole is in total headlong decline. That means industry is giving up on a place. That means industry prefers to take its chances with an administration run by Chinese Communists than by Michigan Democrats.

Of course, productivity has improved the most in goods producing industry, meaning fewer workers are needed to do the same or greater work. This is good. But other things being equal, rising productivity itself should incentivize capital to form in a place and employ workers. If it is not enough, then workers are not sharing in the benefit of their productivity and other things are wrong. Politicians then must ask what else is needed to attract and retain industry. Republicans reliably ask that question. Democrats ask instead what other self-defeating social costs and regulations they can impose on job-creating enterprise, with the dismal results that are here to see.

And this is true despite meaningful regional variation: a Democrat is not the same wherever you go, and neither is a Republican. A Maine Republican is a very different animal than a Texas or Wyoming Republican; in fact, some say it is a RINO. A Mississippi Democrat in 2009 is not ever the same as a Massachusetts Democrat, nor does he necessarily resemble a Mississippi Democrat of twenty years ago.

And speaking of Massachusetts, in connection with the special election there on January 19, the Bay State was commonly referred to as "the blue t of all blue states." It turns out that this is incorrect, and not just because it put Scott Brown (R) into the Senate – Massachusetts is less blue than Washington DC, Washington state, and West Virginia.

Which way does causation run? Are the growth states of the West Republican because they are growth-oriented, or growth-oriented because they are Republican? I would like to think the effects are mutually reinforcing. It makes sense that employment grows in right-to-work states because it can, without restriction. The great Milton Friedman said, "Capital goes where it is welcome and stays where it is well treated."

This much seems clear: the high taxes, restrictive employment conditions, and regulatory activism of the Democrats are utterly failing the working man. In the Democrat fastness of the post-industrial Northeast and Midwest, workers have little to show for their long-term political investment in the party of Roosevelt and Johnson.

This blog has moved

2010-03-26T08:48:00.001-04:00

This blog is now located at http://the-grayling.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://the-grayling.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

Comment on Pension Pulse blog

2010-02-02T09:11:00.002-05:00

Pension Pulse has a post, "Pensions filling the infrastructure gap?" It does not allow comments, but here's mine.

I was formerly a manager & analyst of public securities in emerging markets for one of the big pension funds. We had people in the PE departments working on this. My experience with single-purpose public infrastructure securities (i.e. shares in one airport, one port, one road) had disappointing performance but securities of companies that developed, operated, and invested in portfolios of these things for growth performed well. I wanted Cheung Kong Infrastructure, but not Shekou Port, for example.

Updaate: Saab is saaved!

2010-01-26T13:19:00.000-05:00

GGMM haas found a buuyer for Saab.

American Disease, 2010

2010-01-18T08:07:00.002-05:00

Ann Elk: Where? Oh, what is my theory? This is it. My theory that belongs to me is as follows. This is how it goes. The next thing I'm going to say is my theory. Ready?

TV Interviewer: Yes.

Ann Elk: … This theory goes as follows and begins now. All brontosauruses are thin at one end; much, much thicker in the middle; and then thin again at the far end.

(From Monty Python’s Flying Circus)

I too have a theory, which is to say it is a theory and it is mine. I hope it’s a bit less silly than Ann Elk’s theory, but in any case let’s try it on. The next thing I’m going to say is actually not my theory, but another theory, which is someone else’s and got me to thinking about my theory.

This other theory is something called Dutch Disease, which is an economic diagnosis of the Netherlands’s loss of competitiveness in goods producing industries following a 1959 discovery of natural gas off its North Sea coast. In the simplest terms, this led to inflows of investment, which pumped up the exchange rate and altered terms of trade in such a way that exports became uncompetitive. In this perverse fashion, Dutch Disease describes how a lucky strike in natural resources creates not employment and growth but unemployment and stagnation.

America, my theory proposes, has a version of that, only the resource is money. I want to name the problem “American Disease,” but I read in an article by Bryan Caplan that that's the name of a syndrome of Americans living beyond their means. Actually the problem I pose is closely related, just as H1N1 influenza is closely related to other strains of the flu. Perhaps I can say “American Disease, 2010” to differentiate it from old established strains, or should I call it “California Disease” to reflect the fact that the disease has advanced furthest in the Golden State?

America is a country with real natural resources, of course, but the high costs of extraction and environmental compliance and restrictions on land use places them increasingly out of reach. In the days when the country did produce resources and processed them into manufactured goods which foreigners bought, the U.S. generated a vast amount of wealth, much of which was invested in buildings and infrastructure. These remain visible in the present day, residual wealth as monuments to our peak of economic power.

(Exactly the same is true of Argentina, by the way, which was the wealthiest country in the world 100 years ago and still has the buildings and boulevards to prove it, even though Mr. Juan Peron and the generals set the country on an unusual course from first world to third world status.)

Now, even after the financial crisis, America’s most important industry is finance, broadly defined. The financial industry differs from the auto industry and the chemicals industry in one interesting respect. The auto industry inputs steel, glass, and plastic and outputs autos; the chemicals industry inputs primary and intermediate materials and outputs finished chemical products – in other words, they work on raw and intermediate goods and change them into something else. Most industries do this. But the finance industry has money both as input and output – it changes money’s form but not its nature in its processes. Money is both the input and the output, the resource base and the finished product.

The American finance industry is competitive, one of the nation’s success stories in terms of services exports. Our political class, which increasingly impedes us from taking coal out of our mountains, irrigating our farmlands, and manufacturing products with processes that are not squeaky clean, has long promoted clean, non-polluting financial services, and it has prospered as the industry prospered.

However, I believe that too much money in an economy based on financial services has given us a condition akin to Dutch Disease. It could probably be shown that the maintenance of the U.S. as a financial center has made the American dollar stronger than it would otherwise have been, reducing our competitiveness in global markets for tradeable goods and services. Moreover, the high level of compensation in the financial industry and supporting services has probably driven up wages and benefits right across the U.S. labor economy, another blow to the competitiveness of any entrepreneur bold enough to defy the odds and manufacture a product for sale in America.

While the American political class stands in the way of development of our (real) natural resources and domestic manufacturing, it does see the residual financial wealth of the nation as a resource that it can cut and drill and strip mine – endlessly, in fact, as it recognizes no restraint on the size of resource, but treats it as effectively infinite. The people entrusted to run the country give no thought to the necessary diminution of the resource as taxes, penalties, and compliance costs leave less and less to reinvest, even as the potential returns on investment are inevitably being reduced. They use static models that fail to capture the fact that producers will not produce – or innovate, or hire – out of sheer altruism and public spirit while the returns on their capital and labor are collapsing.

The impoverishment of the United States by the Argentine model is thus well under way.

Oh, and why do I say California has the most advanced case of the “American Disease, 2010?” Well, just look at the Golden State. There is oil offshore, but its development is not permitted. Manufacturing is being driven out. And the Central Valley is experiencing 40% unemployment in agriculture in order to protect mudfish habitat; but California's fiscal position continues to deteriorate as its political class absolutely will not live within its means, as dictated by the state’s reduced economic circumstances.

As California is the United States only more so, California’s political class is America’s in microcosm, with all its pathologies subjected to magnification.

The mindlessness with which the American money resource is to be run down puts me in mind of a passage from Atlas Shrugged:

As they proclaim their right to consume the unearned, and blank out the question of who's to produce it—so they proclaim that there is no law of identity, that nothing exists but change, and blank out the fact that change presupposes the concepts of what changes, from what and to what, that, without the law of identity no such concept as 'change' is possible. As they rob an industrialist while denying his value, so they seek to seize power over all of existence while denying that existence exists.

GM is shutting down Saab

2009-12-18T10:59:00.001-05:00

It's saad.

12 naughty ways to economize at Christmas [link]

2009-12-13T12:38:00.004-05:00

Via the terrific Girl on the Right Blog, these helpful suggestion from A. Nonymous:

Most of us are not doing God’s work trading credit derivatives at Goldman Sachs. You may be stunned when I tell you this, because I sure as heck was when I found out: the TARP program covers none of our credit card bills. Like, zero. All of that means another tough, tough Christmas, money-wise. The desperate economy calls for desperate measures to economize at Christmas. Here are twelve ways for the twelve days:

1. The first thing to do is to keep doing more of what you’re already doing: bitching and complaining. Cry poor mouth to everyone. Tell everyone you know how tough it is. Make a Bill Clinton face while you share people’s pain and make them feel yours. Next you say, “You know, let’s make it easy this year, you don’t have to buy me anything.” Of course, that means you don’t have an obligation to buy them anything! That works with everyone except your kids.

2. Tell your young kids Santa’s not real. Kids as young as four are old enough to get real in this day and age. In Indonesia and Pakistan kids are out sewing soccer balls to support a family at that age! So just explain to them that it’s all a scam meant to con them into good behavior, tell them how much you know they wouldn’t want to connive in such a fraud, and assure them you know they’ll behave perfectly well without bribery. They’ll thank you. Someday.

3. What about the older kids? They’re all so eco-conscious these days, and that’s an opportunity for the canny cheapskate. Just tell them instead of lame games for Wii and Xbox this year, you’re saving the planet on their behalf by planting a tree with their name on it in the Amazon! You can even work up some kind of authentic-looking certificate on the computer! People in the carbon-credit business are becoming billionaires doing just that, by the way.

4. You still feel you need some real gifts? Well how about re-gifts? You’ve been given things you never opened — herbal soap, crème brûlée mix, thermal bags for keeping wine cold — pass the parcel! Just try to remember not to give it to the person that gave it to you!

5. Books are such a popular item at Christmas. So many books can be had for free! Libraries put out boxes of new, unread, unmarked books that they want to get rid of. These include books about business, money, and investing that are still very attractive and were timely when they were published last year, but are entirely irrelevant under current conditions. Also look for container-loads of books about the Bush and Clinton administrations, and anything by Dick Morris. I don’t normally advocate illegal behavior, but one exception could be Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals. Bookstores are full of this one – it’s the Obama playbook! Somehow it just seems right to go in there and liberate a copy or three, comrade!

6. One of my cheap-ass friends used to always joke, “I wanted to buy you a big plant for Christmas, but GM wouldn’t sell.” What a laff riot, and it got him off the hook for ever buying anything! Of course, now GM desperately wants to sell all its plants, so the 2009 revision of that joke is, “I wanted to buy you a big plant for Christmas, but the Chinese bought them all!” Ha ha! Your friends
will be falling over, and they won’t even notice you didn’t buy a round of drinks!

7. Speaking of drinks, ‘tis the season to bend the elbow, so herewith some recommendations from Chateau Wang. First, drink cheap beer. The cheapest stuff in my local is also the original and greatest . . . it’s Miller at $3.99 a six-pack, compared to $5.29 for Miller Light. That make any sense to you? Me neither, they take stuff out and charge you more? Forget that! Next, drink cheap wine. André’s Cold Duck is back, it’s $4.99, and it’s as good as it was when you were fourteen and sneaked it in the kitchen after the Thanksgiving dinner was cleared away. (You know you did.)

8. As for food, the trick to economizing on food is not to cook any. Instead, head over to your brother’s house and scrounge Christmas dinner there. You need to go unannounced, early in the day, in case they have the same idea of coming over and scrounging from you. If that was the plan and your sister-in-law makes no move to put a turkey in the oven, give her one of your Miller’s and she’ll at least come through with some Dinty Moore. Note: If you were to show up on the doorstep at 7:00 AM, there are secondary benefits – you can reconnect with the Christmases of your childhood, when you punished everyone by getting up too early, and you’ll get breakfast too.

9. Here are the hard liquor recommendations from Chateau Wang. You want to drink cheap, cheap liquor too. The venerable and cheap bourbons and ryes from Old Huckaby, Rebel Heaven, and Elihu Walton lack the sophistication of single-malt Scotch, but they have all of the wallop! Also consider cheap and nasty tequila like Don Cheech and Señor Pepe brand – they mix great with green Gatorade!

10. You don’t feel you can scrounge 100% at your sister-in-law’s house? Try this recipe that will cost about 25 cents: Mix two cups of flour with a quarter teaspoon each of baking power and salt, and add up to two cups of water to make a heavy dough. Add a few raisins if you have any, tie it up in a clean handkerchief, and boil it in water until it’s time to go home. Then discard it. Tell them it’s
the dumpling Oliver Twist had in the workhouse at Christmas. Your brother’s family doesn’t read! They won’t know! Ha ha! Give them a copy of Rules For Radicals.

11. Christmas trees are $60 at the VFW, and wreaths are $20. That make any sense to you? Me neither, so here you have many ways to go. You could wait until 4:30 on Christmas Eve, by which time the guy working at VFW will have gone home and abandoned whatever Charlie Brown Christmas trees he has left. Freebie! Option two, you may live in a place where trees are plentiful all around – neighbor’s yards, parks, and so on, if you “catch” my “drift” (wink wink!) Freebie! Another idea, if Border’s Bookstore actually survives far into this Christmas season, you may be able to buy one of the jokey artificial trees they had there last year – these things were some kind of intellectual joke, made with like a few bare wires covered in tinsel; this choice shows a certain post-modern hauteur which goes very well with Dinty Moore and Cold Duck. It’s about $5.99. But you can make it yourself, using wire coat-hangers, spray adhesive, and metallic flock or confetti. That’s a good thing!

12. Finally, we have to get control of this holiday again. Twelve days my wonderful arse! Our Jewish neighbors get by with just eight nights for Hanukkah, and even that is way too much noodle pudding. Let’s do away with this business of Christmas as a 3-month long retail opportunity. The retailers have been unloading container loads of useless crap from Yiwu, China into their Christmas displays since just after Labor Day! With the cheap and nasty Christmas I have outlined here, we can let them know that that is just not the way we want to be living anymore.

Have a happy.

Mao nostalgia in China

2009-10-20T12:35:00.005-04:00

On October 1, the People's Republic of China marked its 60th anniversary with an impressive military parade, musical performances and portraits of Sun Yat-sen, Deng Xiaoping, and Mao Zedong.

It's the occasion for a boomlet for Mao nostalgia in China. This, one can kind of understand. He was the founder of the PRC. After liquidating his rivals, he was the maximum leader of the Chinese Communist Party.

Here's today's article on the nostalgia for Mao in China: Mao presides again in China as nostalgia runs high. It's fun stuff. Young people who don't know more about him than his name and image are taking the commercial opportunity to sell T-shirts, hats, badges and snow globes.

In the US, within the Obama administration, Mao Zedong is also enjoying a revival. Communications Director Anita Dunn commends him as a political philosopher to the graduating class of a parochial school. Manufacturing Czar Ron Bloom cites with approval Mao's saying that "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" ["Problems of War and Strategy" (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 224].

The thing is this. In China, it is not Mao's Communism that is being celebrated; the country has spent the last thirty years correcting the leftist errors of the previous thirty. Apart from the retail opportunity, Mao's real reputation in China is as a nationalist (not a Nationalist, which in China is a different thing):

1 Mao would work with anyone, anywhere to resist Japanese aggression, including the Nationalists or the Americans, even to the extent of putting the Red Army under their command.

2 Mao unified the war-torn Chinese mainland under Chinese rule for the first time since 1644.

3 In its first five years, the PRC under Mao was drawn into superpower conflict with the US in Korea, and managed to stay in the fight with the nuclear-armed US to secure a draw on the peninsula.

4 When Mao fell out with Khruschev, the PRC found itself surrounded by enemies: the USSR to the north, Taiwan with its US backing to the east, India with its designs on Tibet and implicit backing of the UK, US, and USSR to the south. Mao prosecuted a war in the Himalayas and backed them all down, sustaining the country's independence through a dangerous time.

5 Forty-five years ago this week, the PRC got the bomb; if any of the other powers thought attacking China would be easy, after that it meant mutually assured destruction.

6 When the time came for a new way forward, Mao came to terms with Richard Nixon, and it was easy for the two cold warriors, as if getting reacquainted with old friends. This upset the balance of power in the far east, putting the USSR on the defensive. As much as the US played the China card, China played the America card.

Seek truth from facts, as Deng Xiaoping always said. Mao Zedong's reputation in his homeland has very little to do with his Communism at this stage, and everything to do with his nationalism. Which is fine -- it is his homeland after all.

But like many others, I would like to know just what it is that his highly-placed admirers in the US Obama administration are getting out of Mao Zedong at this time.

Malevolence? Stop the insanity!

2009-10-16T07:31:00.003-04:00

“There has to be a counterweight to the malevolence of the insurance industry.” So says Senator Jay Rockefeller to mop-topped interviewer Al Hunt of Bloomberg.

Malevolence? What's next out of the mouth of the Democratic senator from the state of Tourette's syndrome?

You will wait in vain for the industry to fight back hard against this Alinskyite campaign of vilification. Like all other industries that depend upon the US government to treat them with minimal sanity, the insurance industry deals with Uncle Sam the way you would any other lunatic with a trunkful of loaded guns . . . veeeeeeeeeery caaaaaaarefully, for fear of pissing off the lunatic and having him go berserk.

This is the state of play for all owners of capital in the United States today. They hold their breaths; they hold their tongues; they even contribute to the lunatics' campaign, hoping it will buy them some goodwill! Look how well that has worked for you, health insurers -- you're public enemy number one.

The last trade association leaders who was any damned use at all to his membership was the late Jack Valenti of the Motion Picture Association of America.

General Electric profit slumps 44%

2009-10-16T07:20:00.003-04:00

from Marketwatch: General Electric profit slumps 44%

Financial business being run down rapidly, industrial business, a basic GDP play, seeing 8% lower revenues from the year ago period.

The pre-eminent American industrial company manages decline.

Read Reed Hundt's book, "In China's Shadow"

2009-09-09T09:09:00.000-04:00

If you want to understand Democrat fantasies in the absence of financial constraint or common sense, read Reed Hundt's book, "In China's Shadow." Reed Hundt is a permanent member of the American politcal class, a Yalie, a partner in a high-powered law firm, head of Bill Clinton's FCC, and a member of Barack Obama's transition team.

Free money is Reed Hundt's great idea. Muggins, that is you & me, the hard-pressed American taxpayer, should buy everyone from Nome to Tierra del Fuego a pension, healthcare, and education. By these means, the United States will win in the economic competition with China that furnishes the title of his book and a small fraction of its other content.

No, it's not a joke. People with power and influence really think this way.

Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Real Estate Wars (2)

2009-07-31T09:52:00.005-04:00

I have mentioned my misgivings with the Case-Shiller 20 City Real Estate Index before, but everyone now hangs on it monthly and I have had to get on board too.

I have also mentioned that I am a real estate agent in New Jersey with access to the MLS data here, and a keen follower of the trends in local markets.

Case-Shiller was reported on Tuesday this week for the latest month (May). The news was all positive, confirming a four-month improving trend. The index rose one-half of one percent from the April reading, the first rise since 2006. Prices were higher in 13 of the 20 cities surveyed. The year-on-year statistic was 17.1% lower, but that is the first reading better than -18% in several months.

I don't believe anyone wants to forecast a big uptick in prices -- a V-shaped recovery -- but a lot of people are making the bold call that the residential market is at a bottom. For anyone who may have caught the bottom, congratulations! You know the hardest thing to do is to time a market bottom so precisely.

Lately I notice a lot more inventory "under contract". The Case-Shiller data sent me to the MLS to do my usual selling rate to inventory analysis and find out whether macro data confirm anecdotal experience. Do they ever. What I found is that the months of inventory in the local markets I follow has absolutely crashed. In the spring, we were at 10-11 months to clear the active standing inventory. Currently it is more like 5-7 months. Five month's inventory is comparable to the sellers market of a few years back. Wow!

Is there any reason to think the more active market is a blip rather than a trend? I can think of two. One is the action of the $8000 first time home buyer credit, which expires at the end of November and will not be extended. If you want to capture this, you're running out if time. The other is the regular action of the calendar -- every year sales pick up in the spring and close in the summer so that children can be situated in their new school districts for autumn. So let's keep an eye on this to see whether it has legs or causes disappointment later on.

Financial Market Conditions at Mid-Year

2009-07-06T11:23:00.002-04:00

As one of the many Americans who depends on a positive business and investment environment for his prosperity, I regarded the election of Barack Obama as president with Democrat supermajorities in the House and Senate with some concern.

More than the usual number of my fellow businesspeople and investors went over to that side, contrary to their own interest as it always seemed to me. Of course many of these unlikely Obama voters were as eager for hope and change after eight years of George Bush as anyone else. But if they gave consideration to the implications of Democrats supermajorities led by Obama for the economy from which they draw life and livelihood, they allowed their desire to believe to outweigh more sober analysis.

Obama took them in with the charisma, the gaseous uplift, and the promise of racial reconciliation; they convinced themselves that the redistribtionist, high-tax, anti-business, anti-capital policies to which he rallied his party constituted red meat for the Democrat base, not a program for governing.

This misapprehension survived the election, and permitted modest financial market recovery through the end of December 2008, followed by modest declines through Inauguration Day. On Inauguration Day, President Obama delivered a speech that any fair-minded listener would have to admit was far less than a rhetorical tour de force, and far more evocative of class envy and racial struggle than everyone expected.

Financial markets tanked that day and kept tanking for weeks, pressured further by the stimulus package that offered precious little real economic stimulus, but rather a shocking grab bag of packages to traditional Democrat constituencies, with not the merest nod to the rights or concerns of the minority.

We experienced headlong collapse from Inauguration Day through first week of March. Obama Democrats in the business and investment community awoke too late to the realization that the Democrat program now encompasses nationalization of vast swathes of industry on the pretext of emergency (autos and banks) or necessity (health care); that owners' property rights are provisional and expendable; that the ideological attachment of our rulers' to the green agenda trumps their duty of care to the free-market economy; and that they mean to bleed the productive sectors of the economy to feed the non-productive to the fullest possible extent they can get away with.

So far, so bad. But then something interesting happened -- we had a dramatic bounce in stock markets from March through early May. Some of this is probably discounting the possibility of a 1929-37 depression, correctly. Some might even be what I regard as an unrealistic pricing in of a rapid economic recovery, when what we still have in prospect is a deep and long recession as in the 70s and early 80s.

But some of the bounce is almost certainly due to the business and investment interests of this country re-assessing President Obama's grand and ambitious schemes and concluding that they represent impossible over-reach. Rightly or wrongly, they came around to the view that most of this stuff will never come to pass. On this view, Obama has expressed extreme initial positions just as a negotiating tactic to get more than he could with conventional bipartisanship, but less than he asks. Republicans and responsible Democrats in Congress will push back on the crazier ideas. The American people will not go along, will resist with mute passive aggressiveness and loud argumentation, once the full implications are clear. And if it is not just a tactic, if Obama really insists on every bit of what he says, Republicans will gain enough seats in 2010 to apply the brakes, if not an outright majority. One way or another, the entire Obama agenda can and will be resisted.

This is a bull item in the market since March.

After stock price gains of over 30% from March to May, markets have stalled since then, and fallen into a few air pockets. The public policy problems for the markets at this point remain the administration's apparent readiness to overturn our carbon energy-based economy and its radical intentions toward the 15% of the economy that health care represents.

But the overarching sentiment problem comes from yet another reassessment among business people and investors: even if the entire Obama agenda can be resisted and its worst effects rolled back later, on this new view a tremendous amount of violence can still be done to the U.S. economy now. In the meantime, we are still losing jobs at a sickening pace while Obama and the Congress waste unimaginable sums of money on projects lacking any other point beside paying off their friends and allies.

In the background the Chinese, our principal creditors, are objecting more and more forcefully to American fiscal unsustainability and the debasement of the U.S. Dollar that this portends. The managers of other erstwhile basket-case economies, Russia, India, and Brazil, tut-tut their agreement and back calls for changes to the global reserve system.

At the very least, these mid-year movements call upon investors to review their portfolio allocations with care. My own view is currently defensive on U.S. Dollar assets, light in risk assets in general, and seeking for growth mainly in Chinese stocks.

Don't Re-Elect Jon Corzine

2009-06-22T21:58:00.005-04:00

I get the feeling that Google and its various organs such as Adsense sometimes make sport of their users.

I'm a Republican. I try not to be excessively political, I avoid beating people over the head with it, but you can probably tell from the values I express on this blog and, previously, in my writings for worldlyinvestor.com if you remember the good old days. My values are the values of self-reliance, personal responsibility, equality of opportunity for all, free trade, open markets, strong national defense, and sound public finances.

So it is queer to see an Adsense ad for New Jersey's Democrat Governor Jon Corzine in the right margin. "Re-Elect Jon Corzine", it orders. "Committed to New Jersey Values Working for New Jersey's Success JonCorzine09.com".

Look, by all means click through. I need the money to pay taxes that are among the highest in the nation. But I'm not going to vote for Jon Corzine myself if he pays me hundreds of dollars, which research shows is pretty much how much this Goldman Sachs limousine liberal does pay for every vote he receives. His bad works and those of his Democrat predecessors and co-dependent Democrat legislators are catalogued in a previous article. And if you live here too, I hope you are not going to vote for him either.

Fathers' Day

2009-06-21T17:32:00.004-04:00

A couple of things as I wish all fathers well.

The most important work I do is as father to my daughter. I hope all fathers feel the same way about their children.

On another personal note, my father's best Father's Day was the day I took him to the final round of the 1993 U.S. Open golf tournament at Baltusrol. It was glorious to see all our golf heroes in their natural habitat. He died a year later. There is never a day when I don't miss my father, think about him, and honor his memory.

Dispatches from the Front Line of the Real Estate Wars

2009-06-16T22:41:00.007-04:00

In March, I contributed a piece called "The Coming Real Estate Recovery By The Numbers". I have also written extensively on various plans for real estate recovery policy, my own and other people's, and got some excellent feedback from people in the academic and policy establishment. But in general, the phone has not not stopped ringing. As Chris Mayer of Columbia told me, there is a loss of momentum for all real estate plans.

I can't just sit around writing, as I am among other things a real estate practitioner, a licensed salesperson in the state of New Jersey. Most of my work has been investment and commercial in the urban areas near New York City , but I do residential, I go out of my local market, and have trusted contacts all over the east coast and in California.

At the moment I am working with a couple who have two young children and want to buy in one of the elite towns with a top-rated school system. They have very particular requirements with respect to price, condition, proximity to public transportation, and several other factors. Even in a buyer's market, these limitations make the search challenging.

The action of several recent weekends and the treatment of various offers makes me believe that conditions are moving away from buyers having it all their own way.

On one miserable cold and wet Saturday morning, we found ourselves queuing up to see a new listing that had come on the market at the extreme low end of the price. The wife was hopeful. "It must be a wonderful opportunity at such a low price, and with so many people come to see it." Inside, what a let-down it was. Dirty, small, poor condition. Garbage, even at the price, and disgraceful really to market a house complete with dirt and cobwebs.

And yet the couple who viewed it before us stood across the street in the rain after finally letting us go in, with the husband gazing longingly at it all goo-goo as if it were Megan Fox in her birthday suit instead of a knock-down. The house went under contract immediately, probably to them. If they got any competition for it, no doubt they paid more than asking.

My clients did not compete for the dirty house. On the next one they saw, they did compete and aggressively so, through not one but two rounds of "best and final" offers. This house had the following good points: clean and tastefully decorated living room, dining room, and three good-sized bedrooms, all with good re-done hardwood floors. And it had the following bad points: lousy bathrooms, lousy kitchen, central air on its last legs, and washing machine separated from dryer by 25 feet of dirty unfinished basement. On balance I rated this house just OK, nothing special, and yet if the listing agents are to be believed (agents lie -- I make no judgments on these particular agents) there were a dozen offers. However many offers there were, my clients' full-price offer with 20% down and no house sale contingency was not successful.

If that sounds more like sellers' market conditions, so too did the response of sellers through their agent to my clients' next offer. This time they bid on a house they liked at 95% of asking price. The sellers countered at 99.6% of their asking price, essentially throwing my clients' offer back in their faces with little consideration. Moreover they told us haughtily not to come back without meeting a number of onerous conditions that are not customary in this market.

Guess what? We did not extend ourselves to meet those conditions, and we did not go back to them. My clients found something else instead and had their full-price offer accepted.

A few days later the haughty agent called, and was more than a little miffed that we had done exactly as she told us to do.

The general point is this. At current rates, the inventory in this town will take 10.3 months to clear compared to over 11 months around the county; however, there are micro-markets within the town that are much hotter than that and the behavior of buyers and sellers has to adjust accordingly.

There are other factors to note. One, the $8,000 first-time homebuyer tax credit is going away soon if nothing is done, and the direction of policy-making in DC suggests nothing will be done. That provides impetus in this segment of the market, at least. Two, rising mortgage interest rates can also get buyers off the fence -- if they have been hanging in for lower rates and instead see them going the wrong way, they may be pushed to act for fear their inaction will cost even more later.

New Jersey, the Sorry State

2009-05-03T21:29:00.008-04:00

William McGurn wrote an article entitled "New Jersey Is the Perfect Bad Example" in the December 30 2008 edition of the Wall Street Journal. (http://tinyurl.com/94y8ll) It's all good, but the really arresting part was this:

From 2000 to 2007, says the New Jersey Business & Industry Association, the government added 54,800 jobs. To put that in proper perspective, that works out to 93% of all jobs created in New Jersey over those seven years.

This statistic was picked up and widely discussed by radio and TV talkers, but the problems of one small and increasingly insignificant northeastern state are of little enough interest even to its residents, never mind the rest of America. Since then it has been swept away by the stimulus package, the budget, the stockmarket fall and rise, the G20, Susan Boyle, torture memos, Carrie Prejean, Somali pirates and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. But as one of the people who hasn't left yet, and who paid his real estate taxes today, I want to linger over New Jersey, the sorry state.

I'm never satisfied by what I read, but have to check myself. The info is there for the taking at one of my favorite websites, from the BLS, at http://www.bls.gov/data/#employment.

What I found, using different beginning and ending points, is more or less the same, with some other disconcerting data as well.

In the ten years to February 2009, non-farm employment in New Jersey rose by ninety-six thousand. Population rose around 320 thousand. Labor force participation rose in the middle of the ten years but fell later to end the period where it began at 47%.

State and municipal employment increased by 87,200 over the period which is 91% of the total increase. The federal government, the US Postal Service, and the Department of Defense all shed jobs in the garden state.

The goods producing sector of the state economy is in a total free-fall, losing 138,600 jobs in the decade, or 25% of all jobs in the goods producing sector at the beginning of the period.

One-third of manufacturing jobs were lost, and now government workers outnumber manufacturing workers five-to-two, making a mockery of the old motto "Trenton Makes, The World Takes."

One-third of NJ workers now work for the government, or in health care which increasingly is much the same thing.

Does anybody imagine this state of affairs is satisfactory, or sustainable?

New Jersey's population growth in the decade, at 3.8%, was barely one-third of national population growth. The state has the nation's highest population density, so we can afford to let other places catch up on this measure. But to the extent that we are growing less because we offer an unattractive place to live, work, and do business, it is a problem.

UPDATE May 5 2009 . . . Newark Mayor Cory Booker was quoted today by Bloomberg saying “New Jersey will go bankrupt in 10 to 20 years because we cannot afford our employees as a state. I’m talking about every worker from the cities and counties to the state government. Eventually, we’re going to price ourselves out as a government or tax ourselves to death.” Although he's a Democrat, Booker talks like a pro-growth Republican. He gives the appearance of understanding that a diminishing private sector cannot indefinitely support a boundlessly growing public sector and hundreds of thousands reposing in the soft feather-bed of our ludicrously generous welfare state.

I wish him well. I like Newark, have done business in every neighborhood there, and know them so well at ground level that it horrifies my suburban Bergen County mother, who did her level best to prevent me ever knowing such places existed. The city of Newark is the biggest urban center of the state, but probably not the one that places the largest strain on the state's finances on a per capita basis. Cory Booker deserves our support.

As for this state, it is Booker's to run as governor in a future that is not too remote. No doubt he wants his prize to be worth something when he takes it in his hands. If he can get the ear of his party's apparatchiks, maybe it can be. The trends, however, are not encouraging.

Japan's Golden Week Is Almost Upon Us

2009-04-22T11:36:00.008-04:00

Back when I was working for Argonaut Capital in the 90s, Japanese stocks were part of my coverage. It was four or five years into the bear market that followed the 80s boom. The Japanese authorities had noticed that doing almost anything was better than opening the exchange for trade, so they multiplied meaningless holidays and started taking any excuse to close. Or so I remember the manner in which Golden Week became almost an entire week off from the end of April into the first week of May.

I noticed that one of the most powerful seasonal tendencies in the financial markets was for the Nikkei stock index to break shortly before or after Golden Week and decline meaningfully in percentage and time terms. "Sell in May and Go Away" is an adage quoted by stock traders everywhere, but counter to that there is also the market lore of the summer rally, which endures because it works sometimes. But not, it seemed, in Japan, where the very name "Golden Week" seemed a black joke. Leaden Week for financial markets was more like it.

This observation was bankable. In every year of the decade of the 90s, the Nikkei dropped substantially from its pre-Golden Week highs; the biggest drop was 39%, the smallest 9%, the average about 20%.

In 2000 I presented original research on the effect in the late lamented worldlyinvestor.com (hey there Jeremy Pink! Lay off the Dim Sum, will you?) I forecast the same thing to happen that year, and it did: a 20% drop a few weeks after Golden Week, a 30% drop within a few months.

In 2001, the Nikkei peaked in May and plunged.

In 2002, it rose in May but collapsed later that summer.

In 2003,the pattern failed for the first year in fourteen as the index rose 10% in May and kept on trucking.

In 2004, there was a modest 10% loss.

In 2005, there was again no playable decline around Golden Week. However in 2006 there was a rapid loss of 2500 Nikkei points.

Then in 2007, the peak did not arrive until the first week in July, and in 2008 the market rallied in May but began the collapse from which it is still suffering in early June.

One might conclude that the pattern is no longer reliable. Possibly as the effect became more widely known it has been arbitraged away through the action of traders. I always felt things changed since 2000 with the inclusion of a number of key technology shares in the Nikkei that year at very high weightings and the near disappearance of financial sector weightings. Over time the Nikkei has become more like a Nasdaq proxy, and the Nasdaq is having a pretty good year in 2009, all things considered.

I'm positioning for the thing to work again this year, even though at time of writing the Nikkei is only at 8686. That's still 1900 points above its low for the year, at a time that the economy is contracting at rates approaching 10% per annum, world markets may have run out of puff, and there are few redeeming factors in sight.

Worst Market Day in Six Weeks

2009-04-20T16:08:00.003-04:00

I know a lot of market participants have been looking for this break long before today. My sense has been that they are wrong and the market recovery in the six weeks through Friday can carry a long way, surprise everyone, and ruin the bears' year as the prices will be set by investors looking beyond the current recession earnings trough. At the moment, I am holding on to that view. But I can be persuaded that I am wrong, and switch my position accordingly.

Recently I have had correspondence with Professor Christopher Mayer of Columbia Business School, regarding his Mayer-Hubbard Plan and my Household Initiative Plan. He says he has been in Washington lately and senses a real loss of momentum for all these plans. I think you can generalize that. There has been a loss of momentum for all the administration's economic schemes as they have had other things on their plates such as foreign summitry, stem cells research, climate change, torture memos, and so on and so forth. Also, Congress has been on Easter recess. It may be a coincidence that the market took a swan dive on the day Congress returned and the administration held its first cabinet meeting. But on the other hand it may not -- market participants have ample cause for concern about the administration of the TARP, the independence of the Federal Reserve, the possibility that Ben Bernanke is not reappointed, and the dawning realization of the scale and scope of the budget deficit to come. And with government back in full domestic operation, players may be pricing that in, and the previous six weeks could turn out to have been a pleasant holiday from hard reality.

Chinese Business Naming: Baby Banana Fettewql, etc.

2009-04-16T10:38:00.006-04:00

I once met with a company in China. It had a great business plan for its proprietary skin care products for men, terrific sales pitch to go with the products, attractive product design and logo. Altogether pretty credible, until you got to the name. Who told them it was a good idea to pick a Chinese name that transliterates to something that sounds exactly like "Lady Man"?

A lot of regular guys feel mildly conflicted about using any product beside the traditional soap and shaving cream on their skin. Offering them Lady Man brand products is going to queer the deal, probably for good.

The Lady Man men have an elaborate explanation of how they came up with their names, trademarks, and trade dress, all of which is really beside the point. They have made the mistake of being unintentionally ridiculous in a major world language. Of course they are not the first or the biggest to do so. Many of us have heard how General Motors struggled to sell Nova’s in Latin America at a time that it apparently had no Spanish speakers on staff to point out that “no va” is Spanish for “doesn’t go.”

There are hundreds of world languages, and no doubt almost everything is ridiculous to some linguistic community or other. For the brand manager it might be OK if your name is smutty in Sinhalese, hilarious in Hittite, or politically incorrect in Papuan, as long as it is OK in all the majors. On the other hand, if you sell Iran’s market-leading detergent Barf, you don’t worry because your customers do not know or care why Americans think that is so funny.

But back to Lady Man. This is one small particular instance of problematic product/business naming in China, where companies are thinking big, trying to graduate from producing dollar-store fodder and white-label products for foreign brand owners to developing international brands in their own right. They need to know that getting the right name is the first and most important part of this, because you are not a brand unless customers ask for you by name.

Some Chinese companies are going international with their Chinese name, transliterated into foreign script -- for example Huaxin Cement, Hai'er Appliances, and Tsingtao Beer. This follows the example of many Japanese and Korean competitors (e.g. Toyota, Samsung). It takes confidence and a willingness to hear foreigners mispronounce your language. It is working pretty well for Hai'er as they establish their brand worldwide.

Other Chinese companies venture out into the wide world with their Chinese name translated into foreign language -- Snow Lotus Cashmere, White Cat Laundry Detergent. These brand names can seem quaintly "Chinese-y" to foreign ears.

It is common for companies and brands all over the world to bear the name of their founder or animating spirit, and this seldom presents any problems. With the growth of individual enterprise and entrepreneurial culture in China, we can expect to see more labels and brands bearing the name of the real people behind them. Yue Sai-Kan had turned herself into a brand before the personal branding consultants in the U.S. ever thought of such a thing. Han Feng, the Shanghai-based fashion designer, is my favorite example in the fashion industry, one of the businesses I know best.

For fashion and allied businesses such as cosmetics and salon and spa services, the Chinese consumer values foreign experiences and foreign brands far above homespun Chinese, so the smart domestic entrepreneur picks an evocative personal name, place name, or foreign language word. In big city malls, the fashion brand Sao Paulo is side by side with Only, Less, and a Korean competitor that rejoices in the name of Mojo S. Phine NY. But it remains to be seen whether Sao Paulo the Chinese fashion brand can gain a following in Sao Paulo the Brazilian business capital.

How about using the Chinese proprietors' names together with foreign language words? Cindy Luo's label Omnialuo reaches for the classics -- the name of her line is literally "all things Luo" in Latin. Will Omnialuo mean anything to modern consumers in the western world? It just might, if they can learn to say it.

But from there things go downhill in some significant respects.

For purposes of this discussion we are concerned with legitimate business, rather than the products of intellectual property theft, made-in-China copies of foreign products with stolen brands and trademarks that make up 7% of global branded consumer product sales according to one estimate. This is criminal activity, understood as such by all concerned.

But in China and even in China's near-abroad, many Chinese companies sell own-design products under close facsimiles of well-known foreign brand names and trademarks -- there are Prader, Pal Zingeri, Dunhïll, and dozens of others, including countless variations on the name and trademark of Valentino, the leading IP victim according to my research. The foreign brand owners object to this abuse of their IP too, but the purveyors of this stuff go about their little activities unmolested. To the extent that these near-knockoffs make it into mainstream outlets such as Isetan in shopping Meccas like Kuala Lumpur, the IP originators can legitimately complain of real displacement and lost sales.

There are facsimile trademarks that rely for their effect on the font style rather than the actual names. In Guangzhou I saw a Frognie Zila store with the name rendered unmistakably in the font style used by Ermengildo Zegna.

One other case that fascinates me is the "Polo" name. There once was a bright, ambitious chap from the Bronx named Ralph Lifshitz who understood the value of names. He changed his own name to Ralph Lauren and called his fashion lines Polo. Ralph has tried to claim a proprietary right to the name and has even disputed the use by the sport's governing body of a polo player logo in its licensed apparel. But because Polo the sport has been around longer than Polo the brands, there is a little space for others to squeeze into, especially outside the U.S. where Ralph and other litigious parties are less likely to prevail. So in China, "Polo" has become a name applied indiscriminately and in dozens of variations to every kind of luggage and leather goods – “New York Polo”, “Polo Club”, “Polo Golf” -- if you can’t identify fifteen different Chinese Polos at a baggage carousel in any mainland airport, I’ll eat a polo mallet. The original and best Chinese Polo is simply Polo, and the proprietor is a friend of my family. His leather goods are excellent and his business operations in Beijing and Guangzhou are substantial. If his brand name did not bring him into conflict with industry heavyweight Lifshitz, er, Lauren, he would have a sure shot at success in international markets.

If abuse of foreign trademarks is a concern, abuse of foreign language is just a laugh. Visitors to China derive hours of amusement from the weird and wonderful uses to which random foreign letters, words, and texts are put there. In the men’s room in Jinan’s airport is a sign that says “Protect Environment Saving Bumf.” I don’t know what Bumf is, but sure, let’s save it. And while we’re at it let’s also save Chinese brand owners some grief by letting them know that silly confections such as Marisfrolg, Baby Banana Fettewql, and Biemlfdlkk are probably not going to work at the Mall of America.

My father told me, “Don’t try to be clever sonny, just be yourself.” It is good advice, which many in Chinese industry lack the self-confidence to employ despite the good progress of Hai'er and others: Just be yourself. The Japanese are always and everywhere themselves. At some early stage, Toyota decided to be Toyota rather than Forb or Fiak (or Fiaklfdlkk). Shiseido did not try to pass itself off as Channel. Yohji Yamamoto did not change his name to Johhny Valentino. Would it be too much to ask our Chinese friends, in just this one respect perhaps, to look at the Japanese and take a page from their book?

Buy a suit at Jos. A. Bank, let them give you a bank!

2009-04-06T22:49:00.002-04:00

Gosh, I'm so sick of their commercials. Where do they get the goofball with the infinitely joyful sing-song voice, who is always offering ever more fantastic deals on clothing that no one needs!

Buy three suits, get five free!!! For what, dude? Don't have no job, don't need no suit!

Or if you had a job to which you might otherwise have worn a suit, the Security Department of your company has sent out a memo telling you to dress like a plumber or electrician just in case demonstrators think you're a bonus recipient and throw garbage at you, or worse.

This is my modest proposal to Jos. A Bank. It's a variation of the old wheeze where you open a CD at the bank and they give you a toaster. I'll buy the goddam suit, and I'll allow you, Jos. A. Bank, to give me a bank. You've got banks, right? That's why you're called that! Plus, if you don't have enough banks to give to the thirteen men in America today who might be persuaded to buy a junky suit if they got a bank with it, you can get more from the TARP. A suit is body cover, and what better to cover bodies than TARP?

Great deal. You unload surplus suits, government unloads surplus banks, I recapitalize my bank by taking Bazooka Joe wrappers and S&H Green Stamps to the Fed discount window. Everyone's a winner.

"Inheriting"

2009-03-24T20:22:00.001-04:00

The word of the day -- this day and every day -- is "inherit".

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

At least he didn't say "Inherited"

2009-03-18T09:39:00.002-04:00

AIG Chairman and CEO Edward M. Liddy has an op-ed in the Washington Post entitled "Our Mission at AIG: Repairs, and Repayment" this morning. He is trying to justify the payment of the $165 million bonuses. Good luck with that there, Mr. Liddy. But for one thing we can be grateful: in telling the tale of his appointment at AIG after the hapless Martin Sullivan, he spares us the word "inherited."

I suppose that word is government property.

The Coming Real Estate Recovery -- By The Numbers

2009-03-17T23:29:00.001-04:00

I have been analyzing real estate and construction since 1991. I can’t even say that our current real estate collapse is unprecedented, because to me it’s not – I went through the Asian Financial Crisis, and this is like that. As a matter of fact, the Hongkong real estate slump of 1994-95 was pretty serious even before the Big One two years later. And Japan's real estate collapse has been both huge and enduring.

But I well remember my first AFC trip to the region. I had been correctly bearish in 1997 and I was analyzing from afar, unwilling to allow myself to make the trip in case my natural sympathy with people should overcome my brutally harsh analysis. So instead of my usual five-times-a-year Asia trips, I took no trips in 1997. Finally in the first quarter of 1998 I was sure things were as bad as they were going to get, and I did not have to worry about personal contagion any longer. I flew into Seoul, and was driven immediately in a black car to the Bank of Korea. Along the way I saw the debris from anti-government demonstrations and grafitti saying “IMF = I AM F¿¢KED”. The last two hundred yards of the way to the BOK, the car went slowly enough for me to see the sad, sunken faces looking with deep suspicion at a foreigner in a limo on his way to the central bank.

From Seoul I flew to Singapore on a Singapore Airlines wide-body aircraft with exactly three passengers on it, just me and a honeymooning couple.

In Bangkok, I visited the offices of one of the big commercial real estate brokers, where the Englishman in charge appeared a broken man. We looked out over the vast city with its forest of cranes all idle for the first time in memory. “No one will build another class A building in Bangkok for fifteen years,” he said.

But he was wrong. Capital did re-form in the real estate markets, and things were humming again inside of three years.

That’s good, and I expect we can look forward to some similar unexpectedly rapid recovery. But enough talk already. What do the data say we can expect here? Let’s dig into the housing market data.

For a long time I have resisted the popular Case-Shiller 20-City Housing Index, for many reasons. I think Shiller’s nutty professor act is off-putting, as is the false precision in the reports, the short history, and my sense that it is hard to index lumpy and illiquid stuff like houses. But everyone now uses it, so I have to relent.

I refer to short history -- Professors Case and Shiller only reach back to 1987, which misses the booms and busts of the seventies and early eighties. I can’t deal with that, so here’s what I did. I took their data, and lined them up with Census data going back to 1959, data that HUD also reports. I did some regressions and other hand-waving trend analysis to try to extend the Case-Shiller Index back in time.

Hey, if hand-waving is good enough for the Treasury Secretary, it’s good enough for me.

I got GDP, PCE Housing, and 10-year Note Yield data (the latter my mortgage interest rate proxy) from my good friend Fred at the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, and lined that up with the housing index stuff reported by the good professors and massaged by me.

Six recessions have been observed since 1959. Twenty quarters (five years) after trough recessionary conditions, the average increase in the price index has been 46.3%, the median increase 55.2%, the maximum 79.8% and the minimum -0.3%.

Eight interest rate spikes over the same period have seen the average price increase 30.0% twenty quarters later, or 34.5% on a median basis. The maximum increase was 75.9% and the minimum -22.3% (i.e. a more than 20% drop, in the period in which we now find ourselves).

There have been only five episodes of declining prices, of which this is by far the worst. Twenty quarters after the midpoint of these episodes, prices are 18.8% higher (average), 17.1% (median), 75.7% higher at best and down 28.3% at worst. But leaving out the current episode, which I suppose is not finished, the figures are respectively 46.3%, 55.2%, 79.8%, and -0.3%.

Food for thought.

The Contributions of AIG in Perspective, & Who Wrecked Them

2009-03-17T22:24:00.007-04:00

I just spent an hour today going through American International Group's last twenty years of Annual Reports, finding out how much tax AIG has paid over the last 20 years, working out estimates of how much tax its employees have paid on their incomes and how much has been remitted to the Treasury on dividends paid by AIG to shareholders on previously-taxed income.

The numbers I come up with are $35 billion of income taxes paid until the company tumbled into loss for its 2008 fiscal year. Taxes on salaries and dividends through 2008 I estimate at another $20 billion, for a total tax rake-off of around $55 billion.

What I cannot work out as easily is how much tax has been paid by service providers, lessors and so many others who prospered when AIG prospered. It would also take study to quantify the other economic benefits conferred on the cities and towns in which AIG operates, and the contributions AIG made to all the good causes it has supported so generously down the years.

As black as the company is now painted by career-making politicians, including some who now advise AIG personnel to commit suicide out of shame, one must try to remember that there were many benefits of AIG's rise and rise and rise. Far from being a criminal enterprise or a ship of fools, AIG was one of the greatest American companies, right up until it was wrecked by the incompetents brought in after that great man of the people, Eliot Spitzer, made it his special project to destroy Hank Greenberg and the company he built.

Hello Kitty at Lever House

2009-03-15T14:04:00.001-04:00

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

"I Blame the Recession" . . . the wisdom of a 14-year-old

2009-03-13T11:22:00.003-04:00

True story. Yesterday as I was driving my 14-year-old daughter to school, the AM stations we normally listen to at that time for business, news, weather and traffic were all in commercial breaks at the same time.

So we switched over to 92.3 for the first (and probably last) time since K-ROCK signed off and the dopey Z100 wannabe top-40 station came on.

There was some gal I've never heard of singing a Top 40 song I don't know. It sounded like Katy Perry, but without the soul.

Cyrenah asked, "Dad, WTF?"

I explained that K-ROCK was gone and this is what we have instead.

And she said, "I blame the recession."

I asked her why.

"Everything that sucks is because of the recession."

Bernie Madoff Court Appearance Tomorrow

2009-03-11T21:32:00.002-04:00

Beg your pardon for being away from the blog -- pressure of some document preparation with a Friday deadline.

I just want to take note that Bernie Madoff will appear in court tomorrow, reportedly to plead guilty to eleven counts of various frauds.

My opinion since the beginning of this scandal is that he should have been remanded to custody immediately. His lingering under house arrest in the opulent penthouse apartment has mocked his victims and demonstrated how unseriously and inconsistently our system treats white collar crime.

In New York a fellow of a different color or different profession than Madoff would see the inside of Rikers Island if he were charged for the theft of my wallet. Madoff stood accused of a $50 billion fraud initially, now apparently upgraded to over $60 billion. For perspective, consider that the initial insured loss in the 9/11 attacks was determined to be $11 billion.

Employment in Manufacturing & Government & the Deficit with China

2009-03-06T13:24:00.002-05:00

Around the 20th of January, I heard a couple of talkers on business news and talk radio note that government employment had exceeded manufacturing employment in the United States. When I looked into it, I found the origin of this meme at a blogpost of Fabius Maximus entitled America passes a milestone!, with interesting charts and analysis. The charts are from subscription site Contrary Investor. Instapundit, Dr. Melissa Clouthier and Citizen Paine are among the analysts who picked up the story from Fabius, and well done to him.

But I wanted to see the original data, and I found it on one of my favorite sources for primary material, the website of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for which the relevant interactive dialog box is here.

It is the work of a few minutes to find that, yes indeed, according to BLS, the non-seasonally-adjusted figure for workers employed in the goods producing sector of the US economy was set preliminarily at 21,404,000 for 2008, down from 22,221,000 in 2007, while the comparable employment-in-government figures were 22,457,000 preliminarily for 2008, up from 22,203,000 in 2007.

The services sector is bigger than both put together, with a preliminary 115,648,000 employed for the year 2008.

It was two days after Fabius's article that Timothy Geithner had his confirmation hearings in the Senate Finance Committee. One of the hostile Senators, Jim Bunning (R-KY), roasted Geithner over the US-China trade and financial relationship. He got started in his opening statement:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The financial crisis we are experiencing today did not happen overnight and it could have been avoided. As Mr. Greenspan now admits, the easy monetary policy that he and Mr. Geithner championed at the Federal Reserve created an asset bubble. Large capital inflows from countries like China, for the purpose of keeping its currency low, contributed to the bubble and they went unchecked. But, the collapse of the bubble would not have been so devastating if Mr. Geithner had been effective in his role as a regulator. . . .

. . . and in questioning he was if anything tougher, blaming Chinese manufacturers and workers, in effect, for the financial crisis in which we now find ourselves. This, I believe, is a dangerous new aspect of international financial and trade relations, as I stated in my posting of January 26.

It strikes me that there is a direct line between the manufacturing implosion and the current account deficit with China and certain other trading partners, if anyone just cared to draw it. And there's not a thing Mr. Geithner could have done about it in his role as a regulator.

The capital inflows that so trouble Senator Bunning are just the flip side of America's trade deficit with that country. It's a matter of double-entry accounting identities, rather than any cunning device to "keep its currency low."

It can be shown -- I have done the work, and will put it here at some point -- that a portion of the trade deficit with China is really with American companies who have investments there.

Nevertheless, it is clear that the US economy has gone post-industrial.

Our trading partners will not buy our manufactures if we do not manufacture.

They will buy very little of the output of our large and growing government sector.

They will buy some of our services, but of course in these times of financial crisis and straitened circumstances, they too have less need of the financial and creative services in which American business specializes.

Our trading partners will buy hardly any of the spa, tanning, psychotherapy, handyman, coaching, self-actualization, pet grooming, personal-shopping, kitchen-designing, dog-walking, SAT-essay tutoring, Search Engine Optimization consulting, skateboard training, party-planning, eBay-auctioning, credit-counseling, baby-sitting and similar personal services in which a huge number of Americans now occupy themselves and try to scratch a living.

An entrepreneurial Chinese person might as well try his hand at manufacturing. An entrepreneurial American might as well shoot himself in the head as try his hand at manufacturing. The thought of going into the business of manufacturing a product for sale, with all the nightmares of taxation and regulation that go with that in the United States in the year 2009, is not for the faint-hearted among the business-minded.

And that is why perfectly serviceable industrial parks near my home in New Jersey are rented out to ballet schools, medical offices, day care centers, basketball clinics, gymnastics facilities, skate parks, senior centers, art studios, martial arts gyms, fitness centers, churches, mosques, schools, and even government offices, but hardly at all to industry.

If this cannot be changed -- and if anything the anti-manufacturing tide is still at the flood stage -- then how can the US current account deficit be anything but a huge long-term structural problem for us?

The Household Initiative Plan is posted at Household Initiative Plan Blog

China's fiscal deficit -3% of GDP

2009-03-04T22:18:00.001-05:00

What is the US up to now in the Obama budget, 8%? 10%

Big Economic News From China

2009-03-04T21:13:00.004-05:00

We have CCTV4 (China Central TV Channel 4) in our house and at the moment Premier Wen Jiabao is delivering a major speech about economic stimulus. Here are a few of my notes.

The Chinese Communists are cutting corporate taxes, cutting capital gains taxes, cutting stock transfer taxes, promoting the motor industry and the housing market, promising to complete major recovery efforts for the Sichuan earthquake zone this year, and committing themselves to major infrastructure projects, agricultural and rural development, and much more. They are not giving up on their earlier forecast of 8% GDP growth for 2009.

Premier Wen's delivery is certain and confident. He is at pains to remind government officials that this is the people's money they are committing, and not "yi fen" (one penny) is to waste. The objective is to increase productivity in the Chinese economy and support employment in productive industry, and not promote make-work schemes or screwdriver assembly industry. Apart from this feint in the direction of industrial policy, the plan is highly market-oriented. It is detailed, fully-formed and ready to implement.

The Chinese Communist Party, which once said "Whatever you do never forget Class Struggle," has forgotten class struggle. There is apparently nothing in the Chinese plan for condoms, community organizers, or Maglev trains from senior politicians' districts to Disneyland.

You just have to be bullish on China. It is hard to argue that China will not emerge from the current financial crisis relatively stronger than before.

More later.

Why Worry About the Capital Gains Tax Rate?

2009-03-04T10:15:00.003-05:00

GE's drop below $6 is symptomatic of the fact that the investor class of this country has huge capital losses to write off against gains for the next many years. Our losses will outlast this current anti-capital, anti-business government.

GE joins the -90% club.

The Government is Too Much With Us

2009-02-27T21:17:00.004-05:00

The people are sovereign and this is what they voted for.

Obama's speech the other night sounded great, if you paid no attention to the words, which were a lot hair shirt and class struggle guff. Then came the budget announcement, in which those who did not really believe the new president is determined to move the country hard left finally had to face the facts that he means it -- the class warfare, the redistribution, the anti-business, anti-capital worldview -- all of it. Thursday we had attacks on health care and finance, Friday the 40% dilution of Citigroup's common equity. (Citigroup should henceforward be known as Citi Government.) The Dow loses 100 points every day, which wasn't so bad when it was at 14,000 but smarts a bit when it's at 7,000.

One of the most interesting fields of finance is "real options", not the familiar listed options but the features of optionality that are embedded in so many facets of everyday life. It helps me to think of our current predicament in terms of real options: in the face of 100% uncertainty and 200% hostility, the option to withhold my money for investment and keep it in my hip pocket instead is more valuable than ever.

Multiply that attitude by millions of investors and business people, and this economy is heading for a total breakdown.

One half wonders whether the Obama administration actually wants that breakdown in order to be able to ratchet up the class warfare even more . . . "Look, we offered them $3000 to hire new workers, but they laid of people and moved to China instead -- these rotten business people are your class enemies, let's fix them good!" That then is a pretext to move things rapidly in an even more revolutionary direction. It was chief of staff Rahm Emanuel who said crises are great opportunities for rapid and radical change.

On the other hand, the masses of the American people did not really vote for socialism, they voted for charisma and smooth talk and racial reconciliation. Democrats in Congress, who stand for election every two years, are showing their misgivings that when the people see where this is going, how rapidly we are heading towards breakdown, they may change their minds.

What the capital and business class of this country wants, apart from not being demonized and shaken down, is clarity on bailouts, budgets, and the very integrity of the system that produced the wealth and is now under attack for its pains.

There's a sense that the driver does not know the way to go but is driving 110 miles per hour trying to get there. Until we get clarity, or dare we hope a touch on the brakes from a Congress that realizes this is an electoral disaster in the making for them, capital will strike.

The Household Initiative Plan is posted at Household Initiative Plan Blog

While waiting for the Prez's speech, let's talk defaults!

2009-02-24T21:07:00.006-05:00

There is time to dispose of a piece of received wisdom that is abroad in the land, and totally wrong.

Jamie Dimon (that's "Die-mon" not "Dee-mon", Mr. Congressman) of JP Morgan had the opportunity to hit this out of the park the other day when someone asked him about whether borrowers who are underwater on their loans might as well just walk away. Predictably enough, he said no, a mortgage is a contract and when you make a contract you should fulfill its terms.

True, and a large part of the moral truth. But not the whole truth, as there is a practical truth as well, for those who are not bound by moral scruple, who ask not "What's right?", but "What's in this for me?" The practical truth is that walking away has dire consequences that people have to weigh together with other considerations.

If you walk away, and the lender forecloses, it will destroy your credit for eight or ten years. If things improve and you want to buy a house again, or you need a car, a credit card, a student loan for your kids, you will be hard pressed to get one with a foreclosure in your recent past.

Moreover when the sheriff auctions your foreclosed house on the courthouse steps, there could well be a deficiency judgment against you for the difference between the hammer price and the amount on which you have defaulted. That deficiency judgment could follow you around for twenty years, during which the court can garnish your wages, withhold your tax refunds, and sell whatever assets you have that they can attach.

A ten- to twenty-year sentence? It is not worth it. You are far better off, and your lender is far better off, working it out than mailing the keys back to the lender and running off.

OK, now the President.

The Household Initiative Plan is posted at Household Initiative Plan Blog

Confiscation of Retirement Assets?

2009-02-23T16:16:00.008-05:00

There is a lively discussion under way at the Legal Insurrection blog with a post "The Revolt of the Kulaks Has Begun." In the comments it is suggested that the administration will come after tax-advantaged savings assets of American retirement savers.

This is dynamite. It is hard to believe the administration would overreach this way, but congressional Democrats exposed them to the charge by taking advice from Teresa Ghilarducci, a critic of the retirement savings system at the New School. In effect she suggests confiscating private accounts and supplying guaranteed government accounts in their place.

Promoting my Household Initiative Plan or something like it is one way to make the administration tell us what it really has in mind for private retirement accounts.

I have been making free-market proposals to liberalize the current rules for the 46 million IRAs, SEPs, SIMPLE and Keogh retirement accounts and permit them to invest in real estate without the heavy restrictions which pertain to them now. Retirement-minded people who are in good shape, not behind on their bills, and not struggling, could benefit from this opportunity to use retirement savings to take advantage of low real estate prices in popular retirement areas.

If you believe that the money people have contributed to their retirement accounts belongs to them, then it should be their free choice to do with as they think best, to take advantage of such opportunities as they perceive, or to bail themselves out of the trouble they are in. And if the administration thinks differently, then it would have to knock down proposals like my HIP.

Let's speak more generally about the restrictions and penalties that apply to these accounts. They are making a terrible situation even worse by restricting liquidity. Many people are being severely penalized for tapping their retirement accounts in order to try to save their homes and credit scores. Others who are behind on their mortgages and other bills, thereby damaging their credit, are nevertheless unwilling to incur the penalties they would pay to access their money in these accounts to get current on their bills. This is just madness. For the duration of the crisis, let's free things up, and let people access their own money in these accounts to work themselves out of trouble without penalties.

The Household Initiative Plan is posted at Household Initiative Plan Blog

Post-Industrial Winter

2009-02-22T15:59:00.001-05:00

The Household Initiative Plan is posted at Household Initiative Plan Blog

The Question of Capital Flight

2009-02-22T11:27:00.005-05:00

In better times, I was a money manager. My first job was analyzing Asia-Pacific stocks for one of the world's largest pension funds, and my first boss was a very smart, savvy Hongkong Chinese person. I had coffee with her recently and she says she is certain that this country is already experiencing capital flight. Capital flight is one critical step beyond "capital strike," which is how Larry Kudlow on CNBC characterizes it. If true, this is a big problem for a country with a current account deficit such as ours.

The Household Initiative Plan is posted at Household Initiative Plan Blog

Household Initiative Plan to Rescue Real Estate

2009-02-21T21:18:00.000-05:00

Here's a new plan for America's housing problem called the Household Initiative Plan. It’s called that because of all the plans out there it is the only one that asks little of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, or other government agencies besides non-interference in what millions of responsible householders could do for themselves on their own initiative.

My Household Initiative Plan will act to revive the real estate market by attacking three parts of the problem together. It reduces the unsold housing inventory and arrests the decline in home prices by helping liquidity re-form in the real estate market. It does this by making available an untapped source of capital that has previously been hard to access: the IRAs, SEPs, SIMPLE and Keogh plans of American retirement savers. According to the Investment Company Institute, there were over 46 million of these retirement accounts at the most recent survey in 2007, holding an incredible $4.5 trillion. No doubt some has gone in the financial market collapse, but it is still a great deal of money even by current jaded standards.

While it has been possible to buy real estate with IRA funds all along, the heavy restrictions and complicated regulations have kept people from doing so. This plan calls for suspending the restrictions and regulations on the use of IRAs for real estate purchase.

At present, if you buy property through your IRA, you do not own the property, the IRA does. You cannot pay the taxes and maintenance expenses of the property, the IRA has to have enough funds to cover them. You cannot make personal use of the property while the IRA owns it, it must be held only for investment until distribution upon your retirement. You cannot manage the property, the IRA trustee has to designate a manager. You cannot collect rents, they have to be paid to the IRA. You can apply monies from more than one IRA account to the purchase and expenses, but in effect you cannot buy the property with a mortgage simply because no lender is going to have IRA accounts as mortgagors.

At least for the duration of the economic crisis, why not liberalize and simplify the system, so that more people might take advantage of low real estate prices using IRA money that they have but would not think to use for this purpose? Let's allow people to take as much of their money as they want out of IRAs, SEPs, SIMPLE and Keogh plans, without taxes or penalties, for any real estate purchase – investment property or principal residence, first, second, or seventh home. They can then write contracts and take title as real persons in the regular way, without the complication of having a trustee execute these instruments on behalf of the IRA. Subject to market conditions and substantial down-payments, buyers should be able to get mortgages for regular-way purchases.

Let's permit buyers using IRA funds to pay property taxes and maintenance expenses and collect any rents of the property either personally if they prefer, or through the IRA if they can. On an investment property, if they receive net investment income personally, it can be taxable, if through the IRA, then not. That will provide an incentive for directing investment income back to the retirement accounts. If the property is used as the principal personal residence of the owners, the normal mortgage interest deduction can apply. If it is a vacation home, then perhaps disallow that, because there has already been a tax advantage conferred by the liberalized use of the IRA monies.

If a property paid for with IRA funds is sold before the owners' retirement, there are at least two sensible ways of handling the net proceeds. They can either go into another property without any capital gains tax but also without the further complication of a Section 1031 Exchange. Or the proceeds can return to the IRA, without fees, taxes, or penalties. Also – and this is important – if the account holders suspended IRA contributions after their property purchase, they should be permitted to catch up on their contributions and top up their accounts to the full extent that they could have funded their accounts under IRA rules.

The idea of my Household Initiative Plan is to make things easy for people to choose to use their IRA assets to buy real estate now. It removes the preference for financial assets over real assets and places both on a level playing field. Financial experts will object that retirement-minded investors should prefer stocks at today's low prices. However, real estate is also very cheap now, particularly in popular retirement regions of the southwest and southeast, and there is no way of knowing whether houses or stocks will treat people's money better in the coming years. As they always say, past performance is not an indicator of future results, but it is noteworthy that even after its sharp decline, the broad real estate asset class has performed better than the S&P500 over the last ten years.

The key point at this time of financial uncertainty is this: The people's money in IRA accounts belongs to them, and it should be their free choice to do with as they think best. If their choice can help the national prosperity as they prosper themselves, and at no additional public expense, what could be better for the general welfare?

D.H. Smith, Mt. Freedom NJ, 2/16/2009
Cross-posted at Household Initiative Plan Blog
Glad to get your feedback at "the.grayling at gmail dot com"

Notes on the HIP

2009-02-21T21:17:00.002-05:00

1. The careful reading and valuable insights of Harriet Baldwin, Charles Burns, Timothy Gildner, Cameron Adams, Swee Hsien Tsung and Terry Zou are gratefully acknowledged.

2. Other plans to fix the housing market focus variously on one or more parts of the problem: they aim to shore up the capital of banks, re-constitute the mortgage markets with private or government investment, re-work loan terms to mitigate foreclosures and keep people in their houses, clear the market oversupply of houses, and stop the spiral of house price declines. No single plan acts upon all of parts of the problem. Most act upon more than just one part. No useful plan acts upon only one.

3. The following are the key points of the well-known real estate plans, no doubt digested to the point that their originators would not recognize them:

a) The Zingales Plan (Luigi Zingales, of the University of Chicago) -- A decline in an index of local property prices triggers a government-mandated reduction of principal balance on securitized mortgages; lenders thus crammed-down may recapture some of future price appreciation in underlying assets.

b) The Columbia Plan (Glenn Hubbard and Chris Mayer, Columbia Business School) -- Calls for nationalized institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide home loans to new and existing borrowers with positive equity on such terms as would be available were markets working normally e.g 4.75% for 30 year loans.

c) The Feldstein Plan (Martin Feldstein, Harvard) --Proposes “mortgage-replacement” loans from the treasury at low cost (e.g. 2%) for all mortgage holders, up to 20% of their outstanding mortgage debt, to reduce their cost of debt service. These loans are full recourse, in first place ahead of mortgage, and aim to reduce the incentive for owners to abandon their properties.

d) The Immigration Plan suggests allowing an increased flow of immigrants to take up the excess housing stock.

e) The National Association of Realtors Plan: Expand and extend the home purchase tax credit, increase conforming loan limits, use TARP funds for mortgage interest buy-downs, and keep banks out of Realtors’ traditional business.

f) The National Association of Home Builders Plan: Extend tax credits of 10% of purchase price up to $22k to all new home buyers, and use TARP funds to buy down interest on conforming mortgages.

g) The Fix Housing First Plan (Sen. Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia, et. al.) -- Extend tax credits as per the NAHB plan, applicable to 2008 income tax, and make them monetizable, so that buyers can apply them at closing.

h) The Stimulus Plan as signed on 2/17/09 -- Expanded a program of $8000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers, repayment not required.

4. Most of the well-known real estate plans have their good points, but the one thing none of them do is allow the American people a free choice to apply their own existing resources in the service of their own economic interests.

Some Reaction to the HIP

2009-02-21T21:16:00.000-05:00

I ran the Household Initiative Plan by the strong free market advocates of the Ayn Rand "Atlas Shrugged" group on Linkedin, and got back strong opinions. One comment:

“The defect [of the HIP] is that it's just minor tinkering. Instead, let's repeal the community investment act, privatize or abolish the GSEs. Repeal the income tax, lay off all government employees . . . this plan is illogical since it seeks to artificially make real estate go back up again . . . "

Another:

"The defect [of the HIP] is that is a plan and a planned economy never works. You describe it as a plan to turn the housing market around. Around from what and in which direction? I don’t know if real estate has to come down [and] neither do you . . . the only way to know what should happen is to free the market and watch it work."

I answered as follows. First, there is no way that liberating 46 million accounts and trillions of dollars constitutes minor tinkering.

Second, I think my use of the word “plan” has caused more grief than the actual contents of the plan. Among strong free market believers it is a word that elicits negative reactions. I only chose the word plan in order to try to compete for attention among all the other plans that are out there -- Zingales, Hubbard/Mayer, Feldstein and all the rest. I could have called it a proposal, an idea, or following an ancient Fed official, a banana.

My plan, or banana if you object to the word plan, is non-interference, a level playing field, clearing away the regulatory debris, and letting the owners of capital decide how to apply their capital.

The "planned economy" is not part of my proposal. On the contrary the "planned economy" was introduced to this situation years ago when the current structures of IRAs, Keoghs, SEPs Simples and all the IRS apparatus that goes with them were created. By the way, it should be understood by one and all that this whole apparatus was a giant gift for investment companies, banks, financial planners and accountants.

Surely I am not the only one with money in IRAs, losing money in financial assets and thinking about the future, who might choose to buy a condo in Florida instead with the money if the restrictions were lifted. That would be my choice, freely made, well considered, possibly wrong, but I'm willing to take the risk on that if I am permitted and not ask for a bailout if I am wrong. If someone else chooses to stick with their Fidelity and Putnam funds, I would be the last to tell them they can't.

At least for now, the money in these accounts belongs to the people who own the accounts. (There are professors at the New School who are advising the administration to do something about that too.) Let the people make their own choices. I don't see how that can be objectionable.

Still More Reaction to the HIP

2009-02-21T21:15:00.003-05:00

I got a valuable contribution from my best college friend. He writes:

Dave,

. . . First, the biggest problem is selling the idea. It sounds good, but who in the government is going to buy it? Democrats don't trust that people are smart enough to be able to handle their own retirement accounts - isn't that the purpose of Social Security? The cushion that an IRA, et. al., offers is still a piece that is supposedly handled by people that have some idea as to what they're doing - not Joe Bag O'Donuts next door. Republicans don't think that people with small investments are worth supporting in this measure, as they get their support from those money managers who are handling all the IRAs. You're going to take away their revenue stream.

Second, it seems that more people have problems with their existing mortgages. Emptying out their IRAs will have already occurred in some cases, in an attempt to stave off that foreclosure. Others will have to figure out how to draw out that IRA to buy fresh real estate while still being upside down on their existing mortgage. How do you handling buying a $300k home, with your $250k IRA when you already owe $250k on a house now valued at $200k? Insert whatever relevant numbers you want here, the problem is still the same.

Third, how do you convince people that investing in real estate is a good idea. [My city] ranks third among emptying cities. There's a glut of available real estate, and the prices continue to drop, but even those people with money are refusing to part with it - at least not for tickets that pricey. It's the same reason car sales have dropped. You can survive in a house with drafty windows and too small rooms, while you wait for the recovery. You can milk another 20 thousand miles out of that car, squirreling away the finally-relieved car payments, rather than upgrade, just to make sure that HP doesn't decide to downsize your department.

All that being said, I do think that your idea seems worthwhile. The problem has always been what the Dutch discovered hundreds of years ago - it's all just a bunch of tulips. Speculation leads to false value leads to soaring investment, finally to gossamer worth. When you discover all it ever was is a flower, then it all falls down on itself. Real estate has a quantifiable value. While it may not always be monetary, it is always concrete in its being. (Picture bad pun here.)

Hope that helps.

I replied as follows:

Hey there, I really appreciate you looking at it and giving me this well-considered feedback.

I'm a strong free market guy, so my best hope of sponsorship is not in either of the parties as you say, but in think tanks like Cato, Hudson, AEI. If they get behind something like it, the Republicans may pick it up in their role as opposition.

There is nothing for Republicans from Wall Street anymore, and no risk in attacking the franchise of the investment companies, banks and financial advisors.

You allude to a major problem that bothers me too: the fact that people are struggling when they have money that could help them, or are being subjected to penalties when they go into that money. I think it would be best to get rid of these penalties for the duration of the crisis. (Or forever.)

The candidates for buying condos in Florida and Phoenix are not the people who are upside down in their principal residence. They are the ones who could take $75k out of their accounts and finance $25-50k . . . in other words, buyers who would buy with a low loan-to-value ratio, if not a zero LTV.

I would be the last guy to try to convince anybody that they should do this or that with their money. Some people would make this choice freely if it were open to them. I sure would. That said, I believe the loss of confidence in financial assets will last for many years, while there is some baseline real-life demand for real estate. As you say, it is concrete and you can live in it.

If governments gets things wrong now and print money to paper over the cracks in the system, we will get to where you need bushel baskets of dollar bills to buy a Big Mac. The gold price is telling you there is real concern about this outcome. Real estate prices are indexed for inflation, but financial asset prices generally are not.

Federal Open Mouth Policy is a Big Sell

2009-02-19T09:12:00.010-05:00

The first time I realized that the Federal Open Mouth Policy is a Big Sell was over a year ago, when Fed Chief Ben Bernanke made some innocuous remarks about financial conditions that at that point did not yet rise to the level of panic. The stock market sold off hard.

Bear Stearns rescue -- short term relief, after which market sold off hard.

The statements that have followed every one of the Fed's and Treasury's Sunday evening interventions -- short term relief, after which market sold off hard.

Every one of these schemes to expand the type of security they'll take at the Fed window to include S&H green stamps, Pokemon cards, Indian wampum and pocket lint -- short term gain, after which, well, you know.

TARP, TALF . . . barf.

George W. Bush, Ben Bernanke, and Hank Paulson -- just the headline on CNBC that any of them would make any kind of a statement those last many months of 2008 unleashed a blizzard of sell orders. If the latter two had to go to Congress, same thing, only worse. It has been singularly unedifying to see the people who run the world questioned by the likes of Maxine Waters, Ron Paul, and Bernie Sanders.

The sands ran out of the glass on the hapless Bush administration, and everyone hoped for change. Just the good feeling and positive energy engendered by the new Obama administration would improve the economy in short order, or so I was told by business friends including some Wall Street people.

The Inauguration Address went over like a lead balloon. Big, big sell.

But there were high hopes for the Stimulus Bill . . . until that turned out to be a carnival of wasteful payoffs to favored constituencies, of which capital is emphatically not one. Sell.

The president's first press conference. Surely even his fans can't think this was a great performance. Apart from the oddly angry demeanor, the one takeaway is the he didn't want to steal the thunder of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Geithner, the indispensable man who had to be confirmed, despite his defects, because he is the career financial policy fixer who lives breathes eats and drinks financial and economic policy, and only he can prevent the ailing system of free market capitalism from falling about our feet. He will have a banking plan for us the next day. Can't steal his thunder.

The finger was on the sell button, but we held back on pressing it.

It turns out there's no thunder! Timothy Geithner may be a career financial and economic policy geek whose entire life has been preparation for the moment. He may have been Treasury Secretary in waiting for many months, during which time he presumably could have given some thought to our systemic issues and what he might like to do to address them. But on the day he had nothing. The indispensable man had no plan. There was some hand waving and some expressions of good intentions. What a disappointment. Big, big sell.

The bank chieftains went to Washington to get punched out by Congress. You knew what to do. It's become routine.

So yesterday we had the housing plan, and a speech by Ben Bernanke at the National Press Club. Bernanke sounded at ease, and very sensible. What do you know . . . these have actually been taken on board without another tsunami of selling. Maybe the capital interests of this country are exhausted, or have put as much into gold and Chinese stocks as they care to for now, or maybe they actually think that socializing the debts of the fiscally unsound is the way to move America forward.

Or maybe they will wait till later in the day. It's early yet.

While I wait, I'll express my hope that everyone in government would reconsider their open mouth policy for a while.

UPDATE: No mistake, they sold it hard in the afternoon. After the close, a few companies blew up, portending more of the same tomorrow.

MORE UPDATES: The selling continued all week, taking the indices down to 1997 levels. In other words, if you have been investing since 1997, you needn't have bothered.

NY Fashion Week . . . Not What It Once Was

2009-02-16T19:46:00.003-05:00

Just as Wall Street is not merely a street but a designation for the entire far-flung financial world of which it is the center, so Seventh Avenue is not just an avenue but the symbol of the American fashion and retail industry. Wall Street and Seventh Avenue are New York's #1 and #2 major businesses, and they have both fallen on hard times.

A couple of years ago, when Bryant Park wanted to kick out Fashion Week, there was so much lamentation and gnashing of teeth from designers that IMG and Bryant Park had to extend the arrangement. Now, with the economy in the tank, many designers have decided there are better things to do with a few spare hundred thousand dollars than spend them on twenty-minute shows in the tents.

Who has opted not to show in the Bryant Park tents? Carmen Marc Valvo, J. Mendel, Vera Wang, Sass & Bide, Betsey Johnson . . .

This may be all for the best. The excess of NYFW, like the excesses of the industry it showcases, had reached an extreme point. There was too much on the schedule, too much traffic, too many celebrities, too many paparazzi. It was becoming a burden on the people to whom it is supposed to targeted, buyers and editors. Some of them will be glad to get back to viewing collections from committed designers under more suitable conditions.

In the mean time that means less of this:

and this:

Sigh.

And It Was Not Good

2009-02-15T11:31:00.004-05:00

AND it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Obamus, that all the world should be taxed.

(And this taxing was first made when Corzinus Corruptus was governor of Nova Ieiursii.)

And all went to his own city to be taxed.

And lo, the Stimulus came upon them; and they were sore afraid.

And a chorus of Pelosim descended from on high, and said unto them, Fear not; for I bring a million million simoleons which shall be to some people.

And even unto the ACORNs of the field, who toil not, neither do they spin, but do turn out a heavenly host on election day; unto ACORN shall be two thousand million gold simoleons.

Hosannah in the highest.

No Bailouts for Commercial Real Estate

2009-02-14T17:33:00.002-05:00

I heard this news from Diana Olick on CNBC and read the Reuters article about it on forexpros.com -- MIT's Center for Real Estate says commercial real estate prices fell 10% in the fourth quarter of 2008, according to an index they track of sales by institutional investors. But we know real estate is crummy without benefit of indices.

And we know why. Real estate people are always bullish. They never ask whether the office park or regional mall they are building on marginal sites miles from anywhere or right next to existing space that is 80% let is a good idea. If they have money to build, they build. When money was free, developers built mindlessly and sprawl became more than ever a blot on the American landscape, with results you can see. Now financial companies that are retrenching don't need office space, and Circuit City and Linens & Things are two of the chains whose space is going begging.

So real estate people are going begging for their piece of government pork.

This must be resisted.

We think rules for bail-outs have to limit them to industries the failure of which will cause systemic failure for the economy overall, or that employ huge numbers.

Commercial real estate industry does not qualify on either count. If commercial real estate employs half a million people directly, that would be a lot. And if the worst that happens is that the commercial mortgages of loser developers with marginal properties go bad, then that is going to be among the least of the hits the economy takes in the course of this financial crisis. It will not be Armageddon. Lenders will take a haircut; get in line with everyone else. Some viable properties will be taken over and operated by lenders, who are insitutional investors with real estate that they own. Some will be sold on to new investors at low prices that give them an opportunity to profit.

Some may be converted to alternative use, in the same way that a lot of surplus industrial space in Newark and Paterson is used for churches and mosques.

Some, let's face it, can just be abandoned, monuments to greed and stupidity in a bygone era of American economic history.

Set Rules for Bailouts Now!

2009-02-14T17:32:00.002-05:00

If we are giving up free market purism for the duration of the crisis maybe we could at least set rules for bail-outs. These are absolutely necessary. Markets abhor uncertainty, and the ad hocery we have had in the last several months pumps up the uncertainty. It is part of what is killing us -- this one gets rescued on easy terms, this one survives but its shareholders are snuffed, that one is allowed to go under. The sane investor looks at this and says, "I'm out of here."

So Bail-outs should only be considered if:

(1) industry impairment is likely to cause a systemic failure for the economy as a whole.

or

(2) the employment impact of the industry's collapse are unacceptably high.

The financial industry qualifies under (1) -- without a financial system, ATMs have no money, checks don't clear, and we are in the stone age.

The auto industry qualifies under (2) -- not only scores of thousands of Detroit Three employees are wiped out, but also millions more working for the transplants, the dealers, the suppliers who make thousands of the parts that go into vehicles, and in all kinds of jobs in towns across the country where car and parts factories operate.

The snowboard industry does not qualify.

The commercial real estate industry does not qualify.

Larry Flynt and the porn industry do not qualify. The Detroit Lions do not qualify. The City of Philadelphia does not qualify.

Kung Pao Chinese Stocks Ding

2009-02-11T09:16:00.000-05:00

I worked in China from 1986-88. People I trained were later instrumental in the establishment of Chinese securities markets. Some of what I did, as theoretical as it seemed then, helped lay a basis for their subsequent development. Before there were Chinese stocks, I owned Chinese bonds. When the first issue of Chinese shares was offered to foreign investors, China Southern Glass in 1991, my company bought in.

I have been involved in modern China’s financial system since before its creation, and stayed involved continuously. So let’s declare biases honestly and note that I am not impartial. I am called a China hand by my Chinese friends, and dismissed as an apologist by . . . others. I’m not a dreamy China head (though I did go through that dreamy China head phase for about three weeks in 1986). I am sharply critical of what I see as deficiencies of their system.

I have been fortunate to make money in Chinese financial markets. Sometimes it has been a simple matter of doing the diametric opposite of whatever the top Wall Street firms advise in their China strategy. But when they have gotten it right and their clients have done well, as during the latest Chinese bull markets, it has been a wonderful thing to see. I’m glad so many people have good success, because in the 90s it sometimes seemed that everyone who ever invested in China lost money and ended up sour on the experience.

Certainly there have been problems that have bedeviled the Chinese markets all these years.

As a nominally communist country, China struggled at first with the very concept of financial markets. When they began to be introduced in the late 80s, they were described as “experimental.” The designation endured for a long time. It is not much of an endorsement, is it? “Welcome Capitalist Roaders to Invest in Our Experimental Markets that We Might Shut Down if We Don’t Like the Way it Goes.”

If markets were purely experimental, the social scientists running the experiment figured they might as well do lots of trials. To that end, the Chinese markets have been finely sliced and diced like Kung Pao Chicken Ding. The authorities set up a Shanghai A share market for local people and a Shanghai B share market for foreigners. Then they replicated the pair in Shenzhen – that’s four venues in China for the trading of Chinese shares. Two classes of Chinese shares, the H shares and the Red Chips, traded in Hong Kong. There were N shares, for which the initial listing was on the NYSE – China Brilliance (CBA), Shandong Huaneng (SH), and Huaneng International (HNP). Later they lost control of the process, and various stray Chinese companies did IPOs in Singapore, Tokyo, Sydney, London, and I lose track of where all else. There has been a major boom in backdoor listings of Chinese companies on junior stock exchanges around the world.

And that’s a big problem – no one can keep track. If I want Italian shares, I pretty much know where to look. If I want Chinese shares, where do I start?

(I met a Chinese market regulator, an executive of the Chinese Securities Regulatory commission, in May 2007 during the raging bull market. He was in a self-congratulatory mood, and invited me to offer congratulations too. I demurred, and instead took the opportunity to point out that their sclerotic regulatory process had prevented too many decent Chinese issuers from doing IPOs in the Chinese markets where home-team investors would most welcome them, sending them instead to go for Rube-Goldberg RTO and SPAC listings on junior stock exchanges abroad where they would struggle to gain a following or a fair valuation.)

The B share markets in particular became bogged down in a morass of low liquidity and poor quality. There were a few corporate governance issues. Many foreign institutions believed that the Chinese securities market experiment was designed to let the Chinese government move garbage off its books into foreign portfolios. I have had big investors tell me with a straight face that they assumed the Chinese meant to hose them.

Some of the international stock offerings have had that effect, but I don’t believe it was ever intentional or malicious. The Chinese thought they would impress us by making their biggest enterprises available to us – their giant steelworks, shipyards, and petrochemical complexes. It turns out that bigger is not better. The social burdens on these cities-within-factory were hard to lift.

It can be quantitatively proven that the closer a share gets to the domestic Chinese investor the better the average quality, if such a concept can be distilled from growth rates and balance sheet items. H shares that do not also list A shares are worse than H shares that do, and A shares that do not issue any class of share to foreigners are of the best quality. I have done the work on this. I’ll report the research in this space shortly.

More than one fund manager has rejected my research finding, without offering to rework the numbers. But the alternative is to believe that they have sold us better stuff than they sold themselves. Does that make sense to you? No, it is intuitively hard to accept. It could not be, because whole attractive parts of the Chinese economy, including retail/wholesale trade and part of the telecom and media space, have been off limits to foreign investment in the past or even now. That alone would raise the quality of the average domestic Chinese share, and it has nothing to do with the Chinese government going out of its way to dump its garbage on foreigners.

If you run an international mutual fund, then the Chinese markets are just one part of your opportunity set. Given that they are sliced and diced beyond comprehension and riddled with pockets of low liquidity and poor quality, you could always make the case that it’s more bother than it’s worth.

But if you are a domestic Chinese saver, then Chinese A shares are a huge part of your opportunity set. As a Chinese investor, what alternatives do you have? Interest rates on bank deposits have been reduced from 24% to very, very small, bonds are not popular, and real estate is relatively illiquid. And some of the stocks in the opportunity set are really good after all.

For most of the time, this fact has eluded detection by the so-called experts of Wall Street, who have not generally examined domestic Chinese shares as long as they remained off-limits to their international clientele. But one feature of this latest bull market has been that some foreign investors are gaining access to the domestic Chinese opportunity set, while some Chinese investors are venturing abroad. That means Chinese investors, at least the biggest exemplars of the breed, are now clients of Wall Street, and Wall Street had to open its mind and its eyes and assign some analysts to take a look at the A shares.

Formerly, when the A share markets have gone crazy on the upside every once in a while, the foreign brokers who ostensibly “cover” Chinese markets have had nothing to say. These periodic bull moves have been totally incomprehensible to them. Don’t they just prove how stupid and gullible the Chinese individual investor is? Well, no . . . there has been another obvious conclusion, but these foreigners have not always had enough information to arrive at it. That conclusion is: some domestic shares are good, and there is a time and place to buy them, if you can.

China is complicated. More than once I have had to argue with analysts over points of fact – not opinion, fact -- arguments of the Kafkaesque “Black is white” variety. Well, the facts are sometimes obscure. So who does Wall Street send to deal with this most confusing and delicate market? Often its youngest, least experienced, least capable analysts, of course! Since China is relatively speaking a small part of the global opportunity set, why send a top gun analyst? You need that guy back in Hongkong to write the thirtieth report this week on HSBC.

So what is changing these problems? The passage of time. The action of price, making China a bigger piece of global market capitalization, bringing in more investors in the good times and lately attracting more critical scrutiny in the bad. How about regulation? The financial markets’ place in modern China is not the subject of an experiment anymore. They are clearly here to stay. With this belated acceptance the worst of the slicing and dicing should be undone. Short of allowing A and B share markets to merge, the regulators can easily allow domestic investors to gain access to B and H shares and expand foreigners’ access to A shares. My sense is that China emerges from the current global financial crisis with its relative position enhanced compared to other economic players. It has national savings, it has surpluses, it can adjust policy at short notice. Sclerosis now is a bigger problem for the developed west.

I still hope for root and branch restructuring of the regulatory system that allows these changes and many others to come more quickly. But my CSRC official as well as many other Chinese advise me not to hold my breath. Even though it is a relatively new bureaucracy, it is still a bureaucracy, and an entrenched, calcified one at that.

Louis Vuitton in Shenyang, China at night

2009-02-10T23:28:00.002-05:00

Yep, that's their store.

This would be the same China that Peter Morici called the most protectionist country in the history of the world.

I was eating chicken the other day

2009-02-10T18:15:00.001-05:00

and I told my wife and kids, "This tastes just like frogs legs!"

Not that many kids named Hrothgar anymore

2009-02-10T18:14:00.000-05:00

Did you ever notice that?

Conformity to Chinese Practice

2009-02-06T23:23:00.005-05:00

On a message thread about manufacturing in China, someone said the usual thing about Chinese disregarding our patents and ripping off our IP. No doubt this is a problem. Let's remember, though: the main thing patents & copyrights confer is a right to sue, which is minimal protection from a determined infringer whether in China, America, or wherever.

Coming out of this economic crisis, I am thinking that we will are going to be adjusting ourselves to Chinese ways of doing business more than we think. Their movement toward conformity with our practice on IP and other things has probably gone as far as it will for now. In China they have the surpluses, and we in the U.S. with our deficits are going to them cap in hand.

Already I get from my Chinese partners the confidence in their own ways that the Japanese exhibited at their peak in the 80s: "Why should we listen to you? Look at the bad situation you're in."

As far as IP theft is concerned, I have mixed feelings. Historically Americans have not always been on the side of the angels: Dickens notoriously had trouble getting paid for his books in the US. Funny how becoming the major producer of IP has turned us so righteous about IPR.

I love the story about English and Chinese potters learning from each other by copying each other in the 17th century. The English copied the Chinese, the Chinese thought the copies were great and they copied the copies, and so on, to the enrichment of both sides'production.

And the Chinese have a respectable tradition of copying going back to the Han dynasty. After the Qin destroyed all the written literature of the country, Han scribes set about recovering by copying the remnants.

In our world, there is so much sampling in music and visual arts that, anyway, originality belongs in quotes.

Trade Restrictions? Won't Help You

2009-02-05T09:02:00.003-05:00

The administration, the managed-trade segment of the policy establishment, and the labor unions should consider the experience of the auto industry. General Motors, Ford and Chrysler strong-armed Japan’s auto industry to accept voluntary export restraints (VERs) in the mid-80s. The results of the VERs are named Lexus, Acura, and Infiniti. The Japanese motor industry drove up-market and developed an unassailable reputation for superior quality, not only in their luxury marques but across their full lines. Meanwhile the market share of U.S. motor nameplates dropped from 74% in 1985 to barely 60% in 2004 in spite of the VERs. Now it is worse, and one or more of Detroit’s former big three may not survive.

VERs made negligible difference to Detroit's rate of market share erosion. Take a look market share data from 1970 through 2004 (Sources - US Dept. of Commerce, Ward’s Automotive Yearbook, D H Smith):

Beat up trade partners over exchange rates? No!

2009-02-05T09:01:00.002-05:00

American trading experience with Japan shows there’s much more to trade balances than just the exchange rate, and beating up trading partners over exchange rates is useless. In 1985, the Japanese yen traded at 250 to the dollar, and Japan ran a $46 billion surplus with America. In spite of billions wasted by the Bank of Japan in costly and ineffectual currency market intervention between 1985 and 2005, the value of the yen more than doubled to 109 per dollar. During the same two decades, Japanese industry suffered barriers against its motorcycles, semiconductors, and steel in the U.S. market, accepted voluntary export restraints on cars, and localized production in America through its investments of over $100 billion. Neither the huge currency appreciation, nor the restraints on trade, nor the transplanting of Japanese industry stateside prevented Japan’s trade surplus with the U.S. from rising to $75 billion by 2004.

(Source: US Dept. of Commerce, DH Smith)

Consider America’s trade deficit with China – it certainly is growing, having quadrupled between 1996 and 2004. Note that this was a period during which the dollar/renminbi exchange rate was stable to within 1.1%. During the exact same period, the Mexican peso declined by about one-third against the dollar. If the exchange rate were the principal factor in relative competitiveness, we might expect Mexico’s export performance in the United States market to be better than China’s. In fact, Mexico did increase its surplus by a factor of three — a strong performance, but not as strong as China’s.

Geithner, Obama, Pelosi

2009-02-04T13:55:00.004-05:00

Before they talked: Dow + 70
After they talked: Dow - 116

Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

2009-02-04T13:40:00.002-05:00

The local Barnes and Noble had a big display of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals on a table.

It took a lot of effort to resist the urge to liberate some copies.

(DISCLAIMER: We do not recommend shoplifting or other crimes.)

Harry Markopolous flays the SEC

2009-02-04T10:31:00.002-05:00

It is damning stuff. Root and branch restructuring is coming soon to the SEC.

Protect Environment Saving Bumf

2009-02-03T23:16:00.004-05:00

Dude, that's just what I was thinking. We have to save that bumf.

(Airport, Jinan, China)

Banking for Smart People who aren't Bankers

2009-01-31T09:48:00.014-05:00

Those "For Dummies" books and "Complete Idiots Guides" always rubbed me the wrong way. Who buys this stuff? "Hey, I'm a complete idiot, that's for me!" Uh-uh. You're smart and so am I. So let's talk about banking. I'd like you to understand, in simple terms, what's going on when they build a pyre of French antique commodes where Nassau runs into Broad at the corner of Wall Street and start burning bankers alive.

For the show trials they are a'comin. There is a lot of outrage that Uncle Sugar has provided bank capital and weeks later those damned banks are still not lending it. Well, let's examine that.

Basic banking is just a little more complicated than regular industrial enterprises. In a regular industrial enterprise the raw material is, say, habanero peppers and the end product after some processing is hot sauce. For a basic bank, the raw material is money and the end product, after no real processing, is also money.

So an investor -- you remember investors, right? they used to have money to invest -- an investor or investor group gets a bank charter, puts capital in to capitalize their bank, and opens for business. The bank charter allows the bank to take deposits and make loans. The bank loans its deposits. It does not loan its capital. Its capital sits in the vault.

That sets up popular misconception number 1: that having new capital from Uncle Sugar, banks should be lending it. No they shouldn't.

Banking regulations permit banks to lend out up to twelve times their capital.

What about deposits? Simple, plain vanilla banking is taking in deposits, and making loans. The bank pays as little interest as it can on deposits, and charges as much interest as it can on loans (plus points, fees, service charges, and whatever else it can get away with). The difference between interest and fees charged on loans and interest paid on deposits is profit.

The limit on the bank's lending is capital, not loans. If the bank wants to grow, that is to lend more, it needs more capital. A bank that lends less than its capital would permit is considered a conservative bank -- it has a capital surplus backstopping and its lending activities.

As for loans and deposits, the bank can lend out less than it takes in, the same amount as it takes in, or more than it takes in. If it lends out less to regular borrowers than it takes in from depositors, that excess doesn't sit in the vault. The bank buys bonds -- corporate bonds, government bonds, mortgage bonds, whatever. (A bond is just a loan in the form of a security.) If the bank wants to lend out more than it actually has from depositors, it can bid for deposits by raising the interest it pays, it may be able to borrow from the Federal Reserve, or it can borrow from other banks in a huge inter-bank market. Have you been hearing anxious talk about LIBOR, and not knowing what that is? LIBOR is the London Inter-Bank Offer Rate, a rate at which banks commonly lend to each other on a short-term basis.

Banking is a great business . . . you make a margin between what you give and what you receive. It is not a large margin as a percent of the loans and deposits, but because those are a multiple of capital, the returns on capital are large. Or they should be. But then there are losses.

Losses. Ugh. Banks expect that a small percentage of the loans they make to go bad. Some borrowers just get in trouble, some are crooks who never intended to pay back. In that case the bank forecloses on the house or repos the car, and takes what it can recover.

What the bank never expected was that so many of the mortgage bonds would go bad. Those bonds were supposed to be safe. Isn't that why Moody's and S&P put their great triple-A ratings on them?

So the bank looks at its loans and its bonds, and instead of a profitable portfolio it has bad loans, loans in collection, real estate on its own books losing value while no one maintains it and lawyers fight over it, and triple-A rated mortgage bonds in default. These losses are reported on the Profit and Loss Statement, and also charged against capital on the Balance Sheet.

Capital. You remember capital. Capital limits the loans that the bank can make. If the bank loses capital, it loses lending capacity. It can lend less to borrowers. Loan limits get cut. Lines get called, or not renewed.

When you multiply this effect by ten thousand banks across the national economy, you get a liquidity crunch and the economy judders to crawl almost immediately. You probably remember when it happened this time around: it was right around the day when Lehman Brothers went belly-up and we all realized how bad things were. We held our wallets closer, and stopped opening them for discretionary purchases. The economic motor slowed as if its power cord were yanked from the wall socket.

Banks can lend less, but with individuals and businesses cleaving tightly to their wallets, borrowers want to borrow even less. This answers popular misconception number 2: with new capital from Uncle Sugar, banks' capital is not constraining lending and liquidity should immediately re-form in loan markets. No it shouldn't. At this point the problem is not so much supply of loans. It is demand for loans.

With the economy slow and uncertain, everyone pulls back. If unemployment is rising, jobs are scarce, pay raises are hard to come by (and bonuses are made illegal by Acts of Congress), it is absolutely rational behavior for consumers to cut back on their use of credit. If business opportunities are thin on the ground and companies lack confidence, it is absolutely rational for business owners to hunker down, defer capital projects and try to cut back their demand for working capital.

There are some complications that I haven't got into here. I have tipped my hat to the ratings agencies, who have screwed up big time. I believe the standards-setting organizations for accounting and auditing have made this situation worse than it it needs to be by forcing banks to recognize losses too early on loans that can be worked out, crushing their capital. I have not talked about the Federal Reserve, the operations of which influence the price and availability of money.

What is the cure? I just alluded to part of the cure, it is that which cures all ills -- time. Given time, banks can work out of losses on many bad assets. Given time, individuals and business owners will regain confidence and begin to demand loans again.

Next, price. The Federal Reserve has hooked up the economy the a veritable firehose of liquidity and reduced the price to about zero. That lets banks cut their lending rates to levels that bring back prospective borrowers and yet still allows them to make a great margin.

Also, money. Banks are being recapitalized as the leaders of the industry and government figure out how to deal with the upsurge in bad loans. It is not only government money coming in to recapitalize banks, but also private capital that banks call upon from those that still have it. This also takes time (see above).

Hang in there. It gets better.

Will Exxon Apologize? Who will be first to denounce XOM?

2009-01-30T08:51:00.002-05:00

AP Headline: "Exxon Mobil shatters US record for annual profit". Published Friday January 30, 8:32 am ET. See it here.

"Where is the outrage?"

If you take their money you will take their direction

2009-01-29T21:56:00.007-05:00

President Obama took another shot at Wall Street today. "I saw an article today that indicated Wall Street bankers had given themselves $20 billion worth of bonuses. That is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful."

We are uneasy about the anti-business tone being taken by the new administration and Congress. There's a ready market for this kind of populism, but after the bankers are burned alive on pyres of corporate jets and commodes, the economy catches no rise thereby.

American businesspeople are facing a world in which all their contracts and undertakings are examined line-by-line by government officials, second-guessed by PIRGs, NGOS, and the media (which is doing such a bang-up job managing its own affairs after all), and subjected to subpoena or prosecution by career-making politicians.

To advance themselves, they will not scruple to destroy you.

If you take their money, you will have to take their direction. Simple as that.

Burberry in China

2009-01-26T22:55:00.005-05:00

Or as Morici said, "the most protectionist country in the history of the world."

Dangerous New Phase of Financial Crisis (4)

2009-01-26T22:30:00.003-05:00

From the official designation of China as a currency manipulator, it is but a short step to actually blaming China for the whole financial crisis, as the Washington Post does in an article entitled "An OPEC Lesson for China".

When I heard about the article, I thought it had to be satirical. I thought you would have to be joking to assert that it was the Chinese who did this to us, forcing cheap money on American financial institutions to on-lend to subprime borrowers who couldn't pay back. But apparently they're serious. Expect to hear more of this, as well as outraged push-back from the Chinese whose narrative is that it is American dissipation and profligacy that is responsible for the economic mess of the entire world.

Dangerous New Phase of Financial Crisis (3)

2009-01-26T22:18:00.006-05:00

Let me just send you to the account in The Independent newspaper of the UK: "America Goes Green" The title tells you a lot, but there is much more. As the article says, "Tilting at Mr Bush has become a hallmark of the Obama presidency," and today's windmill is the Bush admininstration's approach to environmental regulation of the motor industry, CAFE standards and so on.

The light touch is going away. At a time when the US auto industry is fighting for survival, this administration wants to lay whole new environmental regulatory and compliance burdens on them. I really don't believe they can bear up.

Dangerous New Phase of Financial Crisis (2)

2009-01-26T21:38:00.007-05:00

In the inaugural address and on every subsequent working day of the new administration, the president has made remarks related to the economy and the financial situation. I already commented on the political theater aspects of the inaugural address; these were fully understandable, and even necessary.

But in the following days, the president has kept up the same line of discourse -- hammer the previous administration, talk down the economy. This is not uniting the public or restoring confidence, but rather the opposite. If there is very much more of this kind of talk, it will reinforce the lack of confidence in the economy and deepen the recession.

On Friday the president lowered himself to comment disparagingly on the office renovations of John Thain, late of Merrill Lynch; hours later he told congressional Republicans, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."

Both Thain and Limbaugh are private citizens engaged in legitimate business, just like the other bankers and business-people that the administration appears to want to use regularly as foils in their play.

I expected this to be a less business-friendly administration, but I admit I did not expect it to be outright anti-business, or that there would be personal attacks on individual private citizens engaged in legitimate business. There is just something not right about an American president going in for this stuff . . . is "unseemly" the word for it?

Dangerous New Phase of Financial Crisis (1)

2009-01-26T21:21:00.002-05:00

For no particularly good reason, Tim Geithner on Friday in his confirmation hearing set off after China, declaring it a currency manipulator in decidedly undiplomatic language.

China is a major trading partner and a principal creditor of the United States. At a time of financial stress maybe a little more delicacy is called for in this key relationship. Or if not, then batten down for capital flight and a dollar crisis.

FT reports China hits back in kind, says of Geithner: "This is a sign of his immaturity and his inability to do such an important job."

Not a good start. Not change I can believe in.

Just sayin'.

Note the political theater aspect of some of the economic discourse

2009-01-22T12:53:00.002-05:00

In this trading week, the DJIA has been down 300+, up 200+, and as I write this note, down another 200+.

A significant part of Tuesday's drop occurred during and after Barack Obama's inaugural address. Whether you were wowed by the address or not, you have to admit there was a lot less gaseous uplift than we have come to expect from his speeches, and a bracing amount of sober description of the economic problems we now face.

There was also considerable weakness during our up 200+ Wednesday, as Treasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner was telling the Senate Finance Committee confirmation how gravely serious these problems are.

Unquestionably, there are real difficulties now, but it is necessary to bear one thing firmly in mind when the new president and his administration talk down the US economy. This is necessary and effective political theater. Now that they have taken ownership of the situation:

1) The new administration has to blame everything on the old administration.
2) They have to accentuate the old administration's responsiblity for all problems, so that they can take full credit for their remediation.
3) They have to set low expectations that they can expect to exceed.
4) And they have to enhance the crisis atmosphere, because that is the environment most receptive to their proposals for radical action.

I recall dark days during the Asian Financial Crisis, one of the several hundred-year floods I have experienced in an 18-year financial career. It was Christmas week, 1997. In Korea, Kim Dae-Jung won the election to succeed Kim Young-Sam, and the next day he made his inaugural speech. In so many words, this what he said: "Wow. Holy $h|t. Things are way more screwed up than even we thought. I don't know whether we are going to go bust tomorrow or the day after tomorrow."

The KOSPI did another belly-flop off the 10-meter board. But recognizing the speech as just great political theater rather than pure reasoned analysis, I thought that market break was buyable. And that buy turned out very well indeed.

If the theatrical elements follow the same script, this market break may also turn out very well, or so I may, ahem, hope.

The administration has a fine line to walk, however. They want to pursue the script only far enough to meet their political objectives, but not so far that everyone takes an even greater fright than they already have, killing confidence and tipping the economy into a depression from which it can't be pulled out.

Parnell, by W.B. Yeats

2009-01-20T21:17:00.001-05:00

I called my best friend today, who is an Obama supporter and an African American gentleman, to congratulate him on the occasion of the inauguration. There's a two line poem by W.B. Yeats called "Parnell" that might have some relevance to the African American community at this time. Or not. But here it is:

"Parnell came down the road, he said to a cheering man;
'Ireland shall get her freedom and you still break stone.'"

(New Poems, 1938)

The Street didn't care for it

2009-01-20T17:21:00.001-05:00

The Dow Jones Industrial Average went from -130 to -200 during President Obama's Inaugural Address, and kept dropping through the rest of the day. Finally -330 with hardly a skidmark, for the worst Inauguration Day in the history of the index.

Those looking for an "Obama Bounce" can hope it will be stronger as it begins from lower levels.

Inauguration Day

2009-01-20T08:46:00.001-05:00

Whether Barack Obama was your choice or not, this is a great moment for the country. Wish him well, and hold on to the hope that the next four years will be also be great.

Perspective. 9/11 insured loss estimate was $40.2 billion

2009-01-14T17:04:00.001-05:00

That is according to 2002 estimates from the Insurance Information Institute.

This puts the Bernie Madoff fraud into some perspective. Note I don't say "alleged" after our touchy-touchy American media fashion -- old Bernie has admitted it, and put a $50 billion number on it. While it is not clear there was ever really that much money there, that is the working number we have.

Whatever the number, it's a big one, of the order of the insured financial loss from the 9/11 attacks.

So what's up with the way our system seems to take the Madoff very lightly, while we went to war over 9/11? Why is this guy not down at Guantanamo getting waterboarded, instead of watching his life unfold on the big screen while he sits at home under house arrest?

I also have to wonder how much dollar value one of New York's minority citizens would have to steal from a corner store uptown from the Madoffs to be remanded to Riker's Island. It's probably less than $1 billion.

What do you think?