The Economic Argument Is Over — And Paul Krugman Won

Can we please stop arguing over this? Krugman won the argument. Austerity in the times of crisis makes things worse.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/economic-argument-over-paul-krugman-won-150247189.html?vp=1

My take on that Excel error that changed the world.

Here’s my article on that Rogoff/Reinhart research paper. The editors went a little overboard with the headline and the picture, but the text is largely intact.

Do you wanna be right, or do you wanna make money?

This has been my sentiment for the last 3 years. You can agree with the Fed’s monetary policy, you may disagree with it, but the trade for the last 3 years was to be long equities. And that’s that.

Hitchens and the Iron Lady

With all this financial reform stuff I got distracted from politics. I meant to post it on the day of Maggie Thatcher passing but only got to it now.

This is how Christopher Hitchens got to meet the Prime Minister, from his memoirs:

“Care to meet the new leader?” Who could refuse? Within moments, Margaret Thatcher and I were face to face.

Within moments, too, I had turned away and was showing her my buttocks. I suppose that I must give some sort of explanation for this. Almost as soon as we shook hands on immediate introduction, I felt that she knew my name and had perhaps connected it to the socialist weekly that had recently called her rather sexy. While she struggled adorably with this moment of pretty confusion, I felt obliged to seek controversy and picked a fight with her on a detail of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe policy. She took me up on it. I was (as it chances) right on the small point of fact, and she was wrong. But she maintained her wrongness with such adamantine strength that I eventually conceded the point and bowed slightly to emphasize my acknowledgement. “No,” she said. “Bow lower!” Smiling agreeably, I bent forward a bit farther. “No, no,” she trilled. “Much lower!” By this time a little group of interested bystanders was gathering. I again bent forward, this time much more self-consciously. Stepping around behind me, she unmasked her batteries and smote me on the rear with the parliamentary order-paper that she had been rolling into a cylinder behind her back. I regained the vertical with some awkwardness. As she walked away, she looked back over her shoulder and gave an almost imperceptibly slight roll of the hip while mouthing the words: “Naughty boy!” ….

Big Banks should Deleverage or Perish (My follow up in Am. Banker)

Big Banks should deleverage or perish.

But there’s a bright side, albeit with a cruel irony, to such institutional failure. If we’re powerless to break up the banks, then we’re also powerless to bail them out should they fail. There will be no more bailouts, because we’ve simply run out of options.

Preempt the Fed

As I was doing some research on my follow up article for Am. Banker I began to look at the TBTF problem from a much higher view. The dysfunction of our institutions, of all the government and private entities that supposedly have tools to address the situation is so apparent that there’s no way they can all come together, in a timely and efficient manner to fix anything. We ran out of tools to remedy system’s dislocations. As such, they will take care of themselves, in a Darwinian manner.

The main argument of banks for leverage (that is borrowed money) is that being bigger makes them more competitive and provides a bigger return on equity. But at some point size begins to work against  you: The more leveraged you are, the smaller market hiccup is required to wipe out your entire equity. I hope that our big banks’ leaders realize that and are putting some mechanisms in place to eventually reduce leverage voluntarily, without any decrees from above. To do a sort of “preempt the Fed” trade. Everyone is so obsessed right now about Bernanke’s QE exit, that if they really think it’s going to be apocalypse then wouldn’t it be prudent to reduce leverage in advance?

Just a thought.

Follow Up on Jamie Dimon and TBTF.

Perhaps, I overestimated Jamie Dimon’s ability to recognize what the correct play is under certain circumstances. This is a poker term, and for poker players “correct play” carries almost religious connotations. You always have to play correctly, even if you lose that one hand due to chance. This is because in the long run you always win. You don’t always have to demonstrate your strength. It’s ok to fold every now and then. By folding one hand and saving chips you can get a monster hand the next time. I thought that Jamie Dimon understood this in general, and, with the London Whale fiasco he just had that one bad hand from which he could quickly recover. But this issue drags on for more than a year now and the scrutiny is only intensifying. It just won’t go away, especially if met with more resistance from JPM quarters. Entrenched attitude is the worst attitude in these circumstances. That is why I thought embracing reform is the best next move for him. If he did that everyone would immediately forget about London whale trade.

Well, Jamie Dimon read my article, which was a surprise. I have accomplished getting my point across to the very person it was intended for, and that’s all that matters. He disagreed that embracing breakdown of TBTF is a smart thing to do, because he thinks size gives him the advantage. He’s competing with European banks that are even bigger. A valid concern for a person whose obligation is to shareholders and bondholders. But also a surprisingly short-sighted view. Perhaps, he’s mistaken by attributing the JPM success (stockwise) to the size of the firm. Maybe it’s due to the cheap financing that banks enjoy and other industries (or smaller banks) don’t. Even assuming that JPMorgan doesn’t use the Fed’s window to borrow at 25bps (hard to believe that someone would forgo free cash), the supposed profitability of other banks like his could be directly tied to that window. If we recall, JD did not want to take that cash in 2008 because he thought it would stigmatize him and he had valid reason – JPM was in the better shape (relatively) compared to all other (Citi, BofA). So, it’s likely that he’s misattributing stock performance to his managerial style.

Also, it’s safe to assume that Jamie Dimon spent the last year surrounded by lawyers and consultants and have mastered the art of defending his position in either platitudes or legalese. Defending it to such an extend that he began to believe his own spin. And this is the most unfortunate part of this whole thing. In his daily routines he’s surrounded by sycophants, people who take orders and people who’re paid to tell him what he wants to hear. When everyone around  you tells you that you’re doing the right thing you begin to believe it yourself. It’s as if they have their own “unskewed polls”. It’s one thing for politicians or for talking heads or for consultants to fall under such spell. But in a supposedly Darwinian world of business, a world where Dimon has excelled for decades, to lose such perspective is a deadly sin. Losing touch with the outside world is the worst transgression. We did have a short telephone conversation (he spoke mostly) and that is the impression that I got. He had a prepared speech that he has delivered a hunderd times before to hundreds of other people.

Dimon lost perspective. Oh, well. At least I tried.

Jamie Dimon Should Embrace TBTF reform (My new article in the American Banker)

Here’s my new take on TBTF problem.

To summarize, to embrace the TBTF reform is a winning issue for Jamie Dimon. It has a limited downside/unlimited upside an has a potential to repair his tarnished reputation and turn him into  the industry leader. He holds a winning hand and doesn’t know it.