A book: All The Devils Are Here

Back in 2007 while waves of defaults occurred after sub-prime loans "reset" (an adjustable rate mortgage payment that increases after the prime interest rate increases) I asked one Loan Officer,  "Why did lenders write variable rate notes when they knew many borrowers had little capacity to make higher payments down the road?"

What I heard in reply was that as risky as these credit bets were, if conventional higher fixed-interest rates were used, the borrower could not have qualified for as much of a loan.   My reaction?  Exactly.

I'm reading a book by Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera - All The Devils Are Here - The Hidden Story Of The Financial Crisis (Portfolio/Penguin).  I'm learning more about the origin of sub-prime lending and the players behind it, but I'm struck by a rhetorical question the authors pose in Chapter Six, concerning the line between predatory lending and what I have called predatory borrowing:

"But in the larger scheme of things, did it really matter who was at fault?"

Yes.  It matters.  Attention to causality (i.e. fault) is important because sweeping policies are being hatched to curb systemic risks for the future.  If they get it wrong, we'll over-regulate mortgage originators -- possibly choking off  liquidity for many qualified, low income borrowers.  My biggest fear is that we'll fail to transfer liability from the American taxpayer to future borrowers-lenders-investors (where it belongs).

A debate over a Kyle Bass interview

Cameron and I are jousting again. 

Wikipedia image

This time the fodder is an hour-long interview with hedge fund manager, Kyle Bass which Cameron and I both viewed with great interest.  Taped last month, I encourage you to view it too.

Cameron writes...

“John, I watched that video, thank you for forwarding it. It was very insightful. There were a lot of things that really popped out but one especially. Bass states that Washington has a spending problem, but in the same breath he states that the solution is simple. He states we need to raise revenues 2 1/2% and reduce expenses by 5%.   

Which is exactly what I wish Washington would do, but the Republicans stance against no new taxes and no compromise on that issue is hardly going to get that accomplished.”

My reply to Cameron...

Cam,

Note that the spending reduction Mr. Bass calls for is two times the tax increase he calls for.  Perhaps that’s because giving (additional) revenue to the federal government is like tossing it in the ocean.  Politically, raising some taxes might be an expedient way to get a budget bill past the Dems in order to ultimately net a much larger reduction in spending, but we don’t raise taxes because it is morally appealing, or because we think it's a prudent way to help the disadvantaged.

I hope to visit Cameron while I'm in Texas during the holidays.  At this time, I'd also like to wish all six readers of this blog a Merry Christmas.

Wikipedia image

Quick hits for combative times

Super committee fails - or did they?
So, across the board (1/2 defense, 1/2 non-defense) federal spending cuts of $1.2T will begin January, 2013 without tax increases.  That's the plan, but there is plenty of time for Congress to derail progress.  Thankfully, President Obama says he'll veto any bill that attempts to overturn the sequester.  Republicans or Dems who try to do it to protect whatever it is they purport to be protecting -- will do so at their peril.  This is the 2012 issue to watch.

GOP nomination and a narrowing field
I felt many of the same hopeful moments and (ultimately) profound disappointments from Herman Cain's candidacy as I felt during the Sarah Palin VP run in 2008.  My view has less to do with Mr. Cain's alleged personal indiscretions than his performance on the campaign trail which has become as painful to watch as Ms. Palin's was during the 2008 election.  

Cameron weighs in on income redistribution
In May of 2010, I began an interesting exchange with my old pal Cameron. 
More recently Cameron sent me the CBO report that has garnered so much attention, "Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007.  CBO says, "... the population with income in the lowest 20 percent (quintile) in 2007 was not necessarily the same population group in that category in 1979."  That point seems lost on some who believe this 20% is the exact same control group tracked during the period of study and thus the one still mired in poverty.  By definition, there always has been and always will be a lowest quintile, ipso facto.  CBO also mentions that the lowest 20 percent actually experienced income "18 percent higher in 2007 than it had been in 1979."  This data point suggests that a rising tide has lifted their boats too, though admittedly, not to the same degree as boat owners in higher quintiles. 

OWS and that "evil" one percent
Debate centers on the top 1% of income earners where the income share has increased dramatically in recent years.  Why?  Because if one looks at the income share by quintile, going back to the late 1960s, one sees that the share percentage of income earned by the top quintile has gone up (and down) in  percentages of total income between roughly 43 percent to 50 percent.  When I looked back further to the 1940s, the data for this quintile was still bouncing around in the mid 40s share percentage.  Thus, the share of total income going to the top quintile, hasn't changed much in relative terms. 

We all like to trot out statistics that support our own worldview.  I just did.  Don't want to talk about who pays the most income taxes?  Talk about income disparities.  Don't want to talk about higher living standards, or increased consumption by all Americans?  Yes, focus on the income.  Don't want to talk about anemic economic growth or continuing growth in government employment levels?  You got it -- single out the income issue.  One can always make a case and a counter case with quantitatively-supported talking points.  

As these wobbly debates continue, what's troubling is the class envy and resentment boiling over on to our streets.  For additional perspective, check out David Malpass' article in the current issue of Forbes Magazine ("Class Warfare Hurts Growth").  

Image by krakenimages.com on Freepik

'Tis but a scratch

When the bills come due, nations that have fallen prey to the entitlement vortex can foster street violence and class warfare when the coffers are empty.  Some leaders can also breed denial once they run out of money.   

That's the reaction of some Greek politicians who don't appreciate the futility of their fiscal situation.  A year and a half ago, German officials averred that part of a Greek bailout plan could involve the sale or lease of state-owned assets, as well as, other austerity measures. 

This proposal did not amount to a wholesale transfer of Greece's sovereignty as its opponents claimed.  Rather, it was part of a larger plan to lift a struggling debtor out of its self-induced mess through privatization of government assets including some Greek islands.  

In response one Greek government official said, if such asset transfers came to pass, it will result in a Greek boycott of German goods.  This threat seems to ring hollow.  They're broke, they can't borrow and they threaten not to buy products.  I'm reminded of the Black Knight from Monty Python and The Holy Grail.  After being drawn and quartered, the dismembered knight vowed to attack his foe (who didn't want to fight in the first place).  

                                                                 YouTube Video

Above is the clip.  Watch King Arthur's reply to the Black Knight, which could be Germany's reply to the aforementioned Greek official, "What are you going to do, bleed on me?"  

I'm sympathetic to the suffering in Greece, but it's hard to abide politicians who want to perpetuate the irresponsible government spending and market meddling that caused their mess.  

At the end of a 99 year lease, the British honored their treaty with China and transferred sovereignty of Hong Kong in 1997. Life went on.  Perhaps a multi-year lease of Mykonos would help matters. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
October 2, 2011 - NEWS UPDATE - Reuters just released this report on the Greek financial crisis...

"The Greek cabinet is expected to approve a contentious plan Sunday to lay off state workers, and sign off on a draft of next year's budget, in a race to slash spending, free up bailout loans and stave off bankruptcy.

Without the release of an 8 billion euro ($10.7 billion) tranche of an EU bailout, massively indebted Greece could run out of money to pay state wage bills within weeks.  European officials are scrambling to avert a Greek debt default, which could wreck the balance sheets of European banks, damage the prospects of the euro single currency and possibly plunge the world into a new global financial crisis."

When compromise and experts are dangerous

With a title like, "Are Economists Really That Smart" I had to read Bill Flax's piece in this month's issue of Forbes magazine, especially after digesting his first sentence, "Remember when Joe Biden admonished us to keep spending or else we'd go bankrupt?"  Mr. Biden's statement reminded me of something Nancy Pelosi uttered before enactment of the unpopular Obamacare legislation affecting 1/6th of our national economy.  Of course, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are not trained economists, nor am I, but these people are running the country.  This clip is only two seconds...

My timing to read the aforementioned Forbes piece was good since I'd just finished fighting my way through Nassim Taleb's best selling book, The Black Swan.  (I say "fighting" because several technical aspects are beyond me).

In their own ways, Messrs. Flax and Taleb fillet and roast the cadre of economists, public policy-makers and financial journalists who worship at the Keynesian alter.  Living within one's means and free market principles are concepts ignored, even ridiculed, by economic intelligentsia as they advocate for trillions in "stimulus".  

Their voices clamor for more government spending.  The reason QE2 failed, according to these experts, is that the sum wasn't large enough and all the fresh liquidity wasn't given enough time to work.  On the other hand, economists like Nassim Taleb see the economic calamities we now face through a different lens.  But back to the Forbes, piece.  

Mr. Flax says of economics and its modern day application to fiscal policy, 

"The principal failing of macroeconomics is the intrusion it invites and the certainty it instills in politicians...no planner, no matter how wise, could possibly appreciate all the subjective nuances lurking behind these numbers.  Such schemes are doomed to folly."

There also exists today, a notion that Pols sparring over fiscal policy must "compromise" as if the key to solving our economic morass falls in the middle of some ideological bell curve. 

Icon by Creatype at freepik

Compromise might produce added legislation, but it won't cure a deficit spending addiction.  Consider Nassim Taleb's eighth principle for a Black-Swan-Robust Society,

"Do not give an addict drugs if he has withdrawal pains.  Using leverage to cure the problems of too much leverage is not homeopathy, it's denial.  We need rehab."

1900 advertisement treatment for morphine addiction - Wikipedia

The same metaphor I used in January of 2009 (and used elsewhere by others) of a drug addict who needs to take the pain, was also used by Dr. Taleb.  

The point is one cannot compromise with a drug addict, they only come back for more, which is why we must lower federal spending.  Tax increases and money printing are analogous to a government's morphine fix -- it feels good for a while, but it only makes the problem worse before the inexorable crash.  We must go cold turkey and take the pain incrementally.  

Conflicting voices about the debt crisis

The official position of this blog remains that the United States does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. 

I spoke with Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner at a local Town Hall Meeting last April about an idea advanced by Tim Pawlenty to avoid default without raising the debt limit.  The U.S. Treasury has the power to sequence (i.e. prioritize) payments when bills come due.  So debt holders can indeed be paid first to avert default and buy time while a budget patch is passed.  The idea has been roundly ignored or dismissed as impractical.  Of course, the U.S. government also has over a trillion dollars worth of other assets much of which could be liquidated to pay bills, but that's another post.

Guy tilling soil in front of Financial Temple - Wikipedia

The debt markets have not been as restive as the equity markets.  Bond markets know that the administration would not pull the financial temple down on our heads and allow a default, because it is not in the politicians' interest to do so.  The Obama administration would have little choice but to play the payment sequencing card to avert financial Armageddon. 

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner does not believe the Treasury possesses this ability.  A blog called FairlyConservative.com points out the bluff by citing some July 25th reporting done by Charlie Gasparino.  

What happened two days ago?  Bloomberg News and others reported that "...the Treasury Department will disclose its list of spending priorities in the event the debt limit isn't raised before August 2nd."  Apparently, the rating agencies warn against doing this (the same folks that did such a fine job assigning risk before the housing market cratered).  In the macro-scheme of things, it really wouldn't matter much according to David Wessel, and others. 

I don't want a credit downgrade to occur like Neil Cavuto and I understand the impact on our borrowing costs, but it might be more of a political risk than an economic risk which is a view expressed rather well in this blurb from Politico.

I'm listening to Bloomberg Radio and an interview with Mohamed El-Erian.  Dr. El-Erian understands the bond markets which at this juncture, are a more reliable indicator of danger than political sideshows that reap so much media attention.

The Truth About Wisconsin's Collective Bargaining 'Rights'

American Thinker logo

Published in American Thinker - 4.3.2011

By Tim Peterson, Robert J. Simandl, and John J. Maddente

Right: noun: a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral. 

That's the definition of the word used in connection with Wisconsin's government union employees and their demands to retain collective bargaining privileges.  This issue more than any part of the Budget Repair Bill, has captured the nation's attention.

For weeks, we've heard demonstrators beating drums in Madison and equally vocal sympathizers in the media admonish anyone listening about "rights" of government union employees and the turmoil visited upon "the middle class" due to the Governor's Budget Repair bill.  We've also seen polls suggesting public support for some of their views. 

We do not believe that: 1) government employee collective bargaining constitutes a "right" by any reasonable measure, or 2) poll data spewed out by parts of the media has been properly framed, or useful to gauge public opinion. 

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, collective bargaining is

"A process of negotiation between representatives of workers (usually labor union officials) and management to determine the conditions of employment. The agreement reached may cover not only wages but hiring practices, layoffs, promotions, working conditions and hours, and benefit programs."

Further into the root of the issue, according to West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2, in Constitutional Law rights are classified as natural, civil, and political. Natural rights are those that are believed to grow out of the nature of the individual human being such as rights to life, liberty, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness. Civil Rights belong to every citizen of the state, and are not connected with the organization or administration of government.

Political rights entail the power to participate directly or indirectly in the establishment or administration of government, such as the right of citizenship, the right to vote, and the right to hold public office.  Nothing in Wisconsin's Declaration of Rights (found in the State Constitution) guarantees a right to collective bargaining for any citizen, yet the reaction coming from government unions sounds as though the 1857 Dred Scott decision was dropped on them to enshrine slavery. 

One point appears lost in this discussion of "rights" (even coming from some commentators who supported the bill's passage).  Neither the U.S. Constitution nor Wisconsin's Constitution identifies collective bargaining as a right.  One can argue for an amendment at the state level -- and some advocates have recently done so -- but you can't credibly maintain that the legal equivalent presently exists. 

Therefore since collective bargaining is neither a natural, civil, nor political right, at best it is a right only in the colloquial sense of the term and merely a privilege in a purely constitutional sense.  It is a privilege in our view that has been badly abused in Wisconsin to the detriment of state taxpayers.  Collective bargaining actually denies the individual employee -- who might otherwise choose to decline a contract, or even decline the requirement to bargain collectively -- an ability to act independently, yet many continue to refer to this bargaining mechanism as a right.

While the recently enacted bill has caused much consternation, what it actually will do is replace collective bargaining with distributed bargaining and push down negotiations to the local school district levels -- where, in our view, they belonged in the first place.  We are bothered by the oft-used phrase of an "assault on the middle class" believing as we do, that it is not an assault on government employees who possess Cadillac health care benefits and retirement plans the rest of us only dream of.  Further, at 15% of the workforce (and even less of the populace), they hardly constitute the sweeping characterization we often hear as -- "Wisconsin's Middle Class."

The fact is, at the local level in many rural Wisconsin communities, public employment has become a fiefdom of privilege where, owing to binding interest arbitration based upon comparability, the never-ending spiral of wage and benefit improvements often results in local government compensation exceeding community "middle class" standards. The need to bargain virtually every operational issue makes implementing policy decisions and providing services a protracted struggle, often ending in grievance arbitration.

Perhaps this is why President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the patron saint of the American labor movement warned:

"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations...The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for...officials...to bind the employer...The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives."

We believe by limiting Collective Bargaining, the legislature has enriched individual workers ability to work where they want and associate and negotiate with whom they choose and taken steps to reign in runaway costs.

We also take issue with the way poll takers have tried to report public opinion, and trumpet results.  Consider the USA Today/Gallup poll asking respondents, "Would you favor or oppose a law in your state taking away some collective bargaining rights of most public unions, including the state teachers union?"  Their poll data revealed that 61% of respondents said "oppose" and so the Feb. 22^rd article title in USA Today blared, "Poll: Americans favor union bargaining rights"

We say -- not so fast.  In the first place, a more reasonably framed question would have been,

Would you favor or oppose a law in your state that substituted some collective bargaining privileges, including those of the state teachers union, with a move toward local bargaining?* 

The aforementioned USA/Gallup poll also indicated that 71% of us do not favor any tax increases as a means to reduce state budget deficits.  The problem with the USA/Gallup poll and those who like to seize only on responses to the first question mentioned above, is that they fail to ask respondents to choose between tax increases or spending cuts, as an either or proposition. Assuming we want present government employee staffing levels, we must choose between reducing costs, and levying tax increases for taxpayers.

A few commentators maintain that the $3.6B structural deficit Governor Walker inherited, does not actually mean our state is broke.  Of course the state can simply borrow more, raise taxes and user fees, engage in more accounting gimmickry (e.g. raiding segregated funds to close budget gaps), or some combination thereof.  That's what we have been doing for decades by kicking the proverbial can down the road. 

Change is never easy, but meaningful reform has come from duly-elected officials in Madison, Wisconsin.  We applaud our Governor and the Republicans for their leadership in standing for fiscal restraint and we remind our fellow taxpayers this boils down to a debate over controlling costs. Too much deficit requires lower and sustained limits on government employee benefits -- just like in real life where private businesses and taxpayers dwell. 

*Question shortened form published version.

Tim Peterson is a Milwaukee businessman and former Libertarian Party Candidate for US Senate, Robert Simandl is a Wisconsin attorney practicing employee benefit, labor and employment law and John Maddente is a Milwaukee businessman and former community columnist.