Individual Responsibility and Financial Meltdowns
By now, most people in the blagosphere have read Matt Taibbi’s roller coaster piece in Rolling Stone on the financial crisis. It’s a fantastic read, macho and bombastic. I want to quibble with the article’s narrative, which starts and ends with greedy financiers and shameless Republicans taking over the government for the benefit of reckless robber barons, but it’s a standard narrative in the Left, and other people are more qualified than me to address that.
What really unsettled me was a recurring populist (and Lord knows I’m no enemy of populism in certain contexts), us-vs-them theme in the story, the subtext of which is, basically, that if you’re financially literate, you’re one of them. This makes the article actually impossible to argue with, since it states that if you disagree with Taibbi, you’re part of the problem because you’re, basically, contaminated by financial literacy:
Because all of this shit is complicated, because most of us mortals don’t know what the hell LIBOR is or how a REIT works or how to use the word “zero coupon bond” in a sentence without sounding stupid — well, then, the people who do speak this idiotic language cannot under any circumstances be bothered to explain it to us and instead spend a lot of time rolling their eyes and asking us to trust them.
Well guess what, I know how to use the word “zero coupon bond” in a sentence without sounding stupid (e.g. “It takes about thirty seconds to understand the difference between a regular bond and a zero coupon bond.”), and it doesn’t make me the enemy. And since I happen to think the world would be much better off if more people were financially literate, I’m concerned about people who argue that the more qualified you are about an issue, the less your opinion matters.
Imagine an article on some constitutional issue that declared that anyone who went to law school (guilty!) is unqualified to comment on the Constitution because lawyers speak this “idiotic language” and the rest of us can’t use the word “eminent domain” in a sentence without sounding stupid.
And the thing is: this shit really ain’t that complicated, Matt. I believe it takes many years of experience and a tremendous amount of knowledge and intelligence to run a bank or a trading desk, qualities that I don’t remotely possess, but I also honestly think that it isn’t that hard to understand broadly (a) how the financial system normally functions and (b) the outlines of the current crisis. People complain about the alphabet soup of CDSs and CDOs but it’s just not very hard to understand, in broad strokes, what these things are. In fact, Matt does a great job of explaining them, even though Wikipedia informs me that he has no educational or professional background in finance.
The reason I care about financial literacy is that with financial illiteracy comes a very serious disease: free lunch mentality.
This brings me to the second article I wanted to mention, by Michael Lewis in Vanity Fair, about Iceland’s meltdown (pun intended). Unlike Taibbi’s article, this one is almost flawless. It’s truly a beauty. Go read it now if you haven’t, and then come back.
…
All done?
As it relates to the point I’m trying to make, the story does a great job of showing how Iceland’s catastrophe is the byproduct of not just reckless bankers (although there certainly were those) but the entire population taking part in the carry trade, borrowing in one currency to buy another, to buy houses, cars, and basically anything else. But the thing is that it is the same people who are now rioting and protesting the government and lobbing death threats at bankers who, a year before, were taking on massive amounts of unsustainable debt. “Ah, but we were told it was safe! We got ripped off!” these people would doubtlessly respond. Well, if you were told… I have a very nice tower in Paris to sell you, beautiful iron latticework, it’s a bit old but it’s the tallest building in the city.
There’s a case to be made that sellers of subprime mortgages to at-risk people with low incomes and low education are mostly to blame when these people end up not being able to pay, but the Icelandic PhDs who took out euro-denominated loans to buy Range Rovers and the Viking equivalents of McMansions aren’t in the same category and, in my view, should have known better.
Some people have already made this point, which is that financial crises such as the one we’re in aren’t merely the fault of reckless bankers and asleep-at-the-wheel regulators (although to be sure there was no lack of those) but, in fact, the entire society. And this is because most of us are blinded by the human impulse to pursue a free lunch. House prices can only go up! There’s gold all over California! Or is it East India? It’s the reason we fall for scams and create financial bubbles. It’s hard-wired into our nature. But so is violence and humping anything that moves, and yet society has come up with mechanisms that keep these impulses in check most of the time.
But the thing is these bubbles create a backlash against finance. This is certainly bad for economic reasons, as stifling finance stifles the entire society. But I want to make the point that it also has a more subtle, but in the longer run perhaps even more damaging effect: to create a backlash against knowledge of finance. Which in turn sows the seeds of the next bubble, as we all lunge for the next free lunch.
Of course you could respond that the most qualified wizards at the best institutions also suffered from free lunch mentality, and that’s true. History is full of extremely intelligent, qualified people thinking and doing incredibly stupid things, from scientists in the early 20th century supporting crackpot racist “theories” to New Coke to Isaac Newton losing his shirt in the biggest financial bubble of his day. Yet you wouldn’t use that as an argument against education.
Most people often view finance, especially in the aftermath of crises such as this one, as some dark magic art, this realm of animal spirits that “most of us mortals” can’t and shouldn’t hope to understand. This is deeply unhealthy. Anyone who saves for retirement, takes out a loan to buy something, or has a bank account, or cares about his country (and his own balance sheet) not imploding a la Iceland, really ought to know a little bit about concepts like the time value of money and portfolio diversification.
It’s staggering to read the arguments Aristotle made against finance 2,500 years ago and read the rants today about these people who “make money out of money,” as if there was any other way, and trade “pieces of paper,” as if the cash in our pockets wasn’t pieces of paper with even less intrinsic value than a stock or a bond. It’s time to realize that finance is one of the greatest inventions of mankind, right there with fire and writing, that yes it blows up in our faces sometimes, but just as we didn’t round up all the physicists and shot them after we split the atom, we should realize that more knowledge and appreciation of finance, not less, is what is going to get us out of this hole (and the next one).
It’s staggering to read the arguments Aristotle made against finance 2,500 years ago and read the rants today about these people who “make money out of money,” as if there was any other way, and trade “pieces of paper,” as if the cash in our pockets wasn’t pieces of paper with even less intrinsic value than a stock or a bond.
It’s staggering to see someone invoke Aristotle and yet leave such a fallacy hanging in the air like these. If you’re saying that support for any financial machinations at all requires support for whatever the boys in the back room can dream up— like, I don’t know, collateralized debt obligations or mortgage-backed securities— that’s not just fallacious, it’s crazy.
And, by the way, the central argument of this post is a simple appeal to expertise, which is itself simply fallacious.
— Freddie · Apr 5, 02:27 PM · #
You’re right, though— many people bear blame for this. I’m afraid that massive credit bubbles become inevitable when real wages are flatlined or contracting, as American real wages have been. In order to keep the citizenry happy, their lack of real earning capacity has to be replaced with the extension of near limitless amounts of personal credit— credit which has close to no value, because it exists only as a promise to pay back the debt from the self-same workers who have had no real wage growth. But you’ve got to keep the hamsters on the wheel, so you keep them in iPods and Xboxs by extending them more and more credit debt that they absolutely, positively cannot repay; and since you can represent as profit this unrecoverable debt, it’s great for everyone. Until your own creditors start coming to look for their actual money, which doesn’t exist beyond the promise from someone to pay back their credit card or mortgage debt— which they absolutely have no capacity to do. Then you get the utter destruction of the financial system.
But it was fun while it lasted!
— Freddie · Apr 5, 02:36 PM · #
Freddie: Your first comment is exactly what I’m talking about. There’s nothing wrong, per se, about a CDO or a mortgage-based security or any other kind of asset-backed security. The same thing with securitization which, by the way, is not some obscure dark art but a mundane fact of finance. The most basic arbitrage strategies rely on building synthetic securities and arbitrage, in turn, helps keep markets liquid and efficient 99% of the time. I knew how to build a (very basic) synthetic security about three months into business school, coming from a liberal arts and legal background. It’s not black magic. It’s mundane. It’s plumbing.
The fact that debt instruments can be bought and sold is a public good an not a new thing. In the 1990s it was half of my mother’s work as a corporate lawyer. Plenty of companies specialize in buying dubious loans off of banks and other institutions’ balance sheets at a discount, and then making a profit by quickly writing off some debtors, pressuring others, and giving a discount to the rest to make sure they pay what they can. The banks get a little cash today instead of maybe some cash later, the companies profit, and the debtors in most cases get a fair deal. Everybody wins. And this was before subprime mortgages and all the rest.
No one would say the internet is bad because there was the dotcom bubble, or railroads are bad because there was the railroad bubble, but everyone nods sternly when someone whinges about these financiers in the “back room”, even though it’s the same kind of obscurantism.
And I can call you obscurantist if you can call me crazy. ;)
— PEG · Apr 5, 03:05 PM · #
And I can call you obscurantist if you can call me crazy. ;)
Deal!
— Freddie · Apr 5, 03:26 PM · #
PEG,
You write:
“People complain about the alphabet soup of CDSs and CDOs but it’s just not very hard to understand, in broad strokes, what these things are.”
I assume by “people” you are referring to the general populace, not technocrats. But I am unsure what basis you say “its not hard” for the general populace to understand. What intellectual abilities/skills/knowledge does someone require to easily understand the financial crisis? Are you saying that the general populace has that skill set and is just choosing not to use it out of sloth and misplaced rage? Or are you saying that the general populace is being willfully stupid?
Speaking as an individual with a BA and who obsessively follows politics and policy, I find the financial crisis incredibly opaque. The only thing that has helped to alleviate my confusion somewhat was The Crisis of Credit Visualized video. Am I being willfully stupid? Am I lacking some basic intellectual faculty that is required to easily understand the financial crisis? I read Felix Salmon, Calculated Risk, Paul Krugman, Meghan McCardle, the Atlantic Business Channel and I listen to Market Place. Am I reading the wrong people? Is there someone I should read or listen to that would make this easier to understand? I am not engaging in snark. I am genuinely curious. I would LOVE for this situation to be easy to understand. I just haven’t found it to be so in any way, shape, or form.
As for the Matt Taibi article, I want to push back against your charge of anti-intellectualism. Here’s where Taibbi and a lot of other people are coming from and I include myself among them. Here’s the narrative that we share. Here’s our perspective.
For the over the past decade, technocrats – politicians, economists, and finanial experts – told us (the general public) that REGULATION=BAD and FREE MARKET=GOOD, therefore we should relax regulations and when there are regulations only enforce them lightly (read: be asleep at the wheel intentionally… cough AIG and Office of Thrift Supervision cough). We believed you and so we let you deregulate and we got a financial crisis that will cost the taxpayers (which is us), well over a trillion dollars when all is said and done because there were lots of greedy people in the financial industry who were either incompetent or corrupt (I may not understand much, but I do understand that correlation does not equal causation, a fact that “escaped” these titans of industry) and government regulators who suffered from massive regulatory capture and Free Market ideology that said REGULATION=BAD, FREE MARKET=GOOD.
And now we are told that these oligarchs, who perpetuated this crisis through corruption, incompetence, and mind-blowing negligence, should not only stay in control of the financial industry, but we should also transfer trillions of dollars of our money to them? Really? Why that’s absolutely outrageous. At a minimum, we should at least throw those bums out. Why are we enriching these people who destroyed our economy? Why do they get to keep their jobs, which pay millions, while we loose our jobs that paid maybe 50k a year?
That’s our narrative. And what response do we get from the technocrats? Oh, those silly populists, they don’t understand the situation. It’s soooo terribly complex. If they only had a basic understanding of what was going on, then they would see that transferring trillions of dollars to the financial industry is a really awesome idea. Plus, lots of people in the financial industry have lost their jobs. Sure they made millions and will easily be able to live off the money they tunneled out of their industry, while you will be financially devastated, but hey they lost jobs to.
To which we say, SCREW YOU!! The technocrats violated a social contract and instead of addressing are legitimate grievances you patronize us. We don’t trust you any more. Whatever else this financial crisis is, it definitely proves that we should NEVER trust the technocrats with our money. Look at what happen, when we did.
And now you are arguing that in fact the 1. Financial crisis isn’t complicated to understand 3. Implicitly, if you don’t understand the financial crisis you are ignorant/stupid that 3. Finance is the best thing since we invented fire 4. you shouldn’t demonize those poor souls in the financial industry (reminds me of that charming letter from the AIG executive).
I find that to be 1. untrue 2. patronizing 3. not particularly plausible considering our current situation, and 4. BS.
— Joseph · Apr 5, 04:15 PM · #
Then I look forward to your incredibly simple and informative article explaining all this shit to us, genius.
— Chet · Apr 5, 04:25 PM · #
But I want to make the point that it also has a more subtle, but in the longer run perhaps even more damaging effect: to create a backlash against knowledge of finance.
I think it is very important for everyone to understand the idea of compounding interest, and other related ideas towards savings and investments. That is not what constitutes the knowledge of “finance” today though.
I noticed that late last year, in a FT article, Nassim Taleb said that means-variance analysis, GARCH modeling, Black-Scholes, Modigliani-Miller, Value-At-Risk and the other quantitative tools taught to finance students in MBA classes are worthless. He’s particularly hard on them, saying that all the financial theory that has been created since 1950 has to be unlearned by his traders coming out of MBA programs – it is stuff that people “shouldn’t understand.” Do you find that opinion anti-intellectual? Do you think it is something to seriously consider?
As you point out, any average joe can create a CDO. That’s the work for the lawyers. The work of finance is to figure out what it is worth. So how do you go about that? A generalizable methods-of-moments framework? How much do you rely on the central-limit theorem? How many correlation matrices? That’s where what often feels like “dark magic” kicks in…
I think you have it backwards re: free lunch, Taibbi is way more in your camp than the financiers. Hedge Funds by definition think there is alpha robust to leverage that doesn’t involve taking on beta – a free lunch. Taibbi looks as the CDS operation run out of AIGFP and thinks, more or less relying on common sense, that with all this money being created, somebody has to be taking on risk. The AIGFP think they have outsmarted the market, and are feasting on their free lunch accordingly. Guess who turned out to be right.
— Rortybomb · Apr 5, 07:06 PM · #
Speaking as someone who caused all this: what Rortybomb said.
Also: Socrates had some harsh things to say about writing. And he wasn’t really wrong.
— Noah Millman · Apr 5, 07:20 PM · #
I think I may have misspoke somewhere. This post isn’t to DEFEND MBAs at financial institutions, or anyone else for that matter, or finance, except in the broadly general sense that a functioning financial sector is a good thing to have. I’m not claiming that finance is an exact science — of course all its models rely on assumptions, just as maps aren’t the territory.
What I am attacking, if anything, is this strange attitude. As Joseph says, people trust “the technocrats” in the good times — but ferociously turn against them in the bad times. NEITHER is good. I once left my 1st floor apartment window open as I went out on an errand, someone climbed in and stole my laptop. Who’s to blame? The burgler, who took advantage of my naïveté? Absolutely. Me, for being naïve? Absolutely.
— PEG · Apr 5, 08:05 PM · #
And by the way, I got a bailout: my mom bought me a new laptop.
— PEG · Apr 5, 08:10 PM · #
To answer Rortybomb more specifically: yes, ABSOLUTELY AIGFP thought they were getting a free lunch. I’m not disputing that. Again, I’m not trying to shield anyone from blame.
As far as unlearning the tools of modern finance, well… First of all, I don’t think Taleb is making these points for the same reasons Taibbi is. Second of all, I think it was Merton who said something to the effect: “It’s not that everyone uses Black-Scholes because it’s true — it’s true because everyone uses it.” If you mean unlearning them in the sense of becoming much better acquainted with their inherent limitations, then ABSOLUTELY yes. If you mean unlearning in the sense of actually unlearning, I’m very curious to see how that would work in practice.
— PEG · Apr 5, 08:28 PM · #
Noah: I’d really like to hear more from you vis-a-vie the financial markets and the crisis, even if it is a retrospective like that excellent post you wrote in December. I also understand if just thinking about blogging about it all is exhausting.
But the thing is these bubbles create a backlash against finance. But I want to make the point that it also has a more subtle, but in the longer run perhaps even more damaging effect: to create a backlash against knowledge of finance. Which in turn sows the seeds of the next bubble, as we all lunge for the next free lunch.
I totally think that financial literacy is a very important part of an education, and would love to see it expanded. Especially because, like “eat fewer calories than you burn”, “spend less money than you make” is easy to say but often hard to do. I don’t want to call that knowledge base “finance” for a second though.
This argument is spinning me around. People need to understand finance to avoid bubbles and stupid mistakes like betting on rising home prices. But cutting edge finance told us that betting on rising home prices was a brilliant idea. Financial Theory really did think the CDOs were AAA, and that CDS would disperse rather than concentrate risk. To the extent that the masses had a say, should they have supported the CDO/CDS market of 2004-2007? Can you really expect the masses to understand finance better than the people who are financiers? That’s a lot of responsibility for the masses, who already have enough on their plate.
I wonder if your concern is more about the authority of finance in the economy going forward. Whether or not we will respect it enough, or if the masses will burn down too much of it. Hence people loving finance technocrats on the up and hating it on the down; as if the downturn was like the weather rather than the result of financiers making out-of-the-money bets on housing that my grandchildren now get to pay for. I would definitely like to see some sledgehammers swing in this regard, so perhaps this is where we disagree….
— Rortybomb · Apr 5, 09:46 PM · #
Like PEG, I think the basic problem is indeed quite simple. I just think I have an opposite notion about what exactly the problem is. The thing is, the complexity of the different financial vehicles aren’t really the problem. Those are just new ways to create the same problem.
I start United Bank of Freddie. I lend money to this guy Bob. I’m responsible, at this point, so I check him out, and decide he can pay me back with interest. So I give him a loan. He does what he does with his money. I represent as profit the money he is supposed to pay me back on my balance sheet. My shareholders are enthused— profits!
I like making the profit. So I find a thousand more Bobs, and I lend them the money. Bob the first has begun to pay me back, with interest, because he’s a good guy, and I checked him out. I’m representing, again, the amount of money the thousand other Bobs have promised to pay me back, for my bookkeeping purposes. The shareholders are very enthused. Record profits! Sure, a few of the thousand Bobs will default. No biggie. Most of them are good guys, and most of them will pay me back. And— this is actually bad, though at the time I think it’s good— I can continue to represent money owed to me as an asset.
The shareholders want to be even more enthused. I want to show more profit. I look for more and more Bobs to lend money to. Conveniently for me, my bank is in a country with stagnant wage growth, and the citizens still want to buy their iPods and Xboxs, so they are all looking for credit to buy things. (And all the conservatives are telling us that the stagnant wage growth and spiraling income inequality don’t matter, which makes me and my shareholders happy. It’s what we want to hear.) These people want their iPods and Xboxs so bad they
Unfortunately, I’ve run out of Bobs. The guys who can pay me back are about tapped out. The shareholders want more profits! And so do I. Vikram Pandit and I are gonna buy the Galapagos islands together, after all. So I start looking for Chesters. Chesters aren’t like Bob. Chesters probably aren’t going to pay me back. But the shareholders and my board want the profits, and they know, like I do, that we can represent what the Chesters owe as as profit, even if there is next to no chance we’ll be repaid. Those profits are important, even if they aren’t real. They drive the stock price; they keep people investing. I’ve got a lot of share myself, of course. Plus, the more absurdly high interest rates I can charge, the bigger the return on the investment for my shareholders, and the bigger the United Bank of Freddie becomes. Since Chester isn’t a particularly forward-thinking guy, or particularly responsible, he’s happy to take 18% on his credit cards, and since he never pays his balance, hey— more profits for all of us!
Everybody is happy. Both the Bobs and the Chesters don’t mind the fact that their earning potential hasn’t really grown in their lifetimes, because they can get the latest season of 24 on DVD with their credit. My shareholders love me, I’m a genius. The regulators have wildly expanded the amount that I can be leveraged. The politicians and chattering classes are happy; my profits, even though they’re based on agreements to be paid back by people who can’t pay me back, have driven growth. And growth is all we need! Anybody who questions the wisdom or efficacy of this system hates capitalism, or at least, just doesn’t understand the profound genius of the financial sector. Let the good times roll!
That is, until people start coming for their actual, liquid capital back. People want me to give them their return on their investment, or even just to show that I’ve got the return. And I say, “haha, I don’t have it with me.” And I call Chester and I say, “Chet man, I really, really need that $40 billion.” But Chester’s just like, “Oh, drag, man….” So I say to the investors, “Yo, so, listen, B— I haven’t got it.” And then they go and tell everybody that I don’t actually have the money I’ve said I have for the last couple decades, because really all I had was a bunch of Chesters telling me they were gonna pay me back, even though none of the Chesters wages were growing at all. So we have a financial meltdown. But my buddy Barry is gonna bail us out. Too big to fail, etc. etc.
Now there’s hundreds of different vehicles for lending money that you can’t possibly recoup, and calling the agreement that you’ll get repaid an asset. But they all function in that same way, in the long run. The only way to prevent that is to rebuild the usury laws that we gutted in the 70s, and put strict caps on interest rates and the amounts you can be leveraged, and to come up with a vastly more sensible and honest system for valuing debt obligations.
Which will reduce growth, of course. But maybe then we could focus on actually improving the earning potential of the country’s workers, rather than just the monetary assets of the richest 1%, and generate growth that way. I know, wild concept. I’m just thinking out loud here.
— Freddie · Apr 5, 10:28 PM · #
Freddie: despite starring in it, I actually liked your post quite a bit.
— Chet · Apr 5, 11:28 PM · #
PEG,
I think this is your first post I’ve read over here at TMS and I just wanted to let you know I think it is excellent and enjoyed your comments as well.
I don’t trust ANYTHING written by Taibbi, because he has an obvious ideological axe to grind and he is vulgar and ridiculous. I’ll read the Lewis article, although I should note that one of my favorite writers for “The Weekly Standard” got there first:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/085gtqnt.asp
As for some of your commenters:
Freddie is obviously obsessed with average wage growth, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but he just assumes that American consumers are too stupid and profligate to handle debt. I’d like to think that as long as we listen to PEG and teach people the basics of finance, we’ll be O.K. in the long run (and yes, there will be bubbles along the way, which PEG points out has been true throughout capitalist history). Increasing capital requirements on certain types of loans might be a good idea in certain cases, although it is noteworthy that neither Taibbi or Freddie discuss the role that government regulation had in creating our housing debt-fueled bubble. See Steve Sailer for the data or check out AEI’s many articles on this issue. They both answer the foolishness of Joseph’s ‘argument’ that deregulation caused our current mess. To call the American economy, even post-Reagan revolution, deregulated, is just silly and uninformed. My suggestion is read more Will Wilkinson and other smart libertarian bloggers and learn how heavily regulated the financial markets are even today (I agree they might not be the best regulations, but that is a different story:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjVkNGE0ZGExN2ZjZTI4NTkzZTczNDRlMDk3OWFkOGM=)
Finally, I’d love for Rortybomb (or Noah, since he says he agrees) to explain the following: “Hedge Funds by definition think there is alpha robust to leverage that doesn’t involve taking on beta – a free lunch.” Does he mean to suggest that hedge funds don’t know what they are doing and most regularly lose money for their clients because they take on too much risk?
— Jeff Singer · Apr 5, 11:28 PM · #
Freddie, I think you would enjoy reading THE BOMBARDIERS and I think it would help you understand the effect that the (artificially inflated IMO) appetite for “safe” investments” had on the financial bubble and resulting banking crisis. Also, there was an excellent article in FORTUNE on derivatives, an issue with an crocodile on the over; but this is going back a few years.
— Tony Comstock · Apr 6, 12:03 AM · #
Does he mean to suggest that hedge funds don’t know what they are doing and most regularly lose money for their clients because they take on too much risk?
Jeff, economics/finance tells us to believe markets are efficient. If markets are efficient, there are no free lunches – in this financial markets context, if you make higher returns on your investments, it is because you have taken on extra risk. Not to make it a lecture on CAPM, I’m just going to call this market risk (beta).
Hedge funds think they can make a profit without taking on market risk. The hedge in HF means it is hedged against the market risk (beta neutral). They believe markets are not actually efficient, and that by buying stocks not based on their fundamentals of earnings and risk, but on mean reversion, or investor sentiment, or slow spread of earnings information, or other market inefficiencies, they can make a profit. Since they are making a profit without taking on market risk, they are eating the free lunches the market leaves laying around. This is the opposite lesson of what PEG wants the masses to learn about finance (I agree with PEG on that).
I think hedge fund people are very smart, incredibly so. I think that when one is making all kinds of sweet lewt off so-called market inefficiencies, they should be very, very careful that they haven’t actually just piled onto a risk factor that they are unaware of, one outside of where our current finance theory is capable of looking, but I’m all Fama like that. Whether or not hedge funds make their clients a profit over a market index net their high 2-and-20 fees is an empirical question, one I don’t have the tools to answer. Because of survivorship bias and many other data release manipulations, that is a very hard question to answer, but I think some critical surveys show not much. One can google all that.
— Rortybomb · Apr 6, 12:44 AM · #
Rortybomb,
Thanks for the clarification — that was really helpful. Time to do some Google research!
— Jeff Singer · Apr 6, 01:32 AM · #
Great post and thread, I got to it late.
Rortybomb, I really appreciate the insight you deposit here, and I’m out of my comfort zone on this topic. All I know about this stuff is theoretical (i.e., what I’ve read).
That being the case, isn’t it more accurate to say that HFs believe in the efficiency of the market but operate on the assumption that true beliefs about the market are inefficiently distributed? And isn’t that, in fact, a reasonable position to take?
— JA · Apr 6, 03:17 AM · #
Thanks.
JA – maybe time is a better way of viewing it? it has been a while since I’ve remember my what constitutes what kinds of market efficiencies. A way to think of it is that markets moves toward efficiency, but are not always there, and by getting there faster than everyone else, hedge funds can take advantage of those inefficiencies without bearing the market risk. (Obviously there are a lot of strategies, I’m speaking in general here.) That is very reasonable. The problem is being able to tell the difference between market inefficiency and genuine risks to holding positions. There’s also the risk of the market becoming more inefficient before it gets better….
There’s a $100 bill in front of a bush. Is it there because nobody has found it yet, or because there is a tiger on the other side of the bush waiting to leap out? Can you tell in advance? It’s sort of like that…
— Rortybomb · Apr 6, 03:29 AM · #
Yeah, I am kind of obsessed with real wage growth for our citizenry. Call me crazy!
— Freddie · Apr 6, 04:01 AM · #
This new Rortybomb Tiger Analogy is a great starting point for thinking this through. A zoo would have rules in place to prevent one from climbing into the tiger exhibit. Nobody would climb over the fence for a Washington or Lincoln, even if it were close to the fence and the tigers were asleep 100 yards away, because of the threat of being evicted from the zoo and losing the $15 investment in admission (more like $50 for a family).
But what about for a Franklin? If the physical danger seemed negligible, the risk of eviction would be less intimidating.
What if it were a thick wallet with at least a few Franklins hanging out? At what point would the two risks (eviction and painful death) become acceptable?
Say the view of the wallet were obstructed, and you had unique temporary knowledge of its presence and its value. How much would you pay an idle teenager to climb over and retrieve it for you?
How much would you be willing to borrow from your buddy (and at what rate) to pay the teenager to climb over and retrieve the wallet?
Say the “zoo rules” were more stringent than eviction, and that local ordinances also include a $500 fine for climbing over? Who assumes that risk—you or the teenager?
There are bazillions of considerations in this simple scenario, despite the simple rules. Our financial crisis has less to do with the risk considerations (there will always be daredevils and investors in daredevils) than with the rules that effectively restrain the daredevils.
And when the daredevils are bankrolled by institutions that are “too big to fail”…well.
What if the penalty for “climbing over” were 10 years? And the zoo were in Alaska? And the teenager was Levi Johnson? And Ted Stephens was the bankroll/accessory?
— tim a · Apr 6, 05:04 AM · #
If I was a partner at an investment bank I would send a junior analyst to go get the $100.
— Rortybomb · Apr 6, 05:24 AM · #
If I may go meta for a second, I’m starting to rethink how I blog because I never seem to be able to say what I mean.
In each of my last three posts including this one I tried to make a narrow and mostly inoffensive point about something, which grew to be interpreted as a broad assertion about something else. What worries most is the virulent tone of some of the comments, which is very unusual for such a great place as TAS. I think it’s me because it really doesn’t have that effect with the other writers here. I need to do some soul searching on this and I’m open to advice.
As for this post, which I most certainly should have titled differently, the three narrow and interconnected points I was trying to make could be summarized as follows:
1. The responsibility for financial crises/bubbles does not rest solely with a small elite, but also with the broader population, with each enabling the other (yet the elite bears a lot of responsibility nonetheless).
2. This is made worse by the fact that most people, even though they rely on finance on a daily basis for saving and consumption, are financially illiterate, and are therefore prone to enable risky behavior by “elites”.
3. There is a sort of vicious circle where each bust incites greater mistrust of finance and thereby financial knowledge, which only serves to set the stage for the next roller-coaster ride.
I used the Iceland story and the Blodget piece I linked to as evidence for #1, #2 I consider(ed) obvious and I used the Taibbi story as evidence for #3.
Let me use an analogy. In the realm of politics, I think very few people would say that citizens really shouldn’t be informed about politics and policy. I think most people who care about policy would say that the citizenry ought to be better informed, or at least have a certain baseline of knowledge about politics. No doubt most people here would agree that this would be in citizens’ best interests and would ultimately result in better policy, as citizens would be better equipped to keep officials accountable.
You would want everyone in the US to know, say, how a bill becomes a law, what is in the Bill of Rights and what it contains, including the major Supreme Court jurisprudence on these, what the current policy agenda is, who their representatives in Congress are, who the main Cabinet members are, etc. You would think people, and the country at large, would be better off if most people had a better grasp of policy.
I am making the same point about finance and the economy. I think there is a baseline of knowledge about finance that most people should have, that they don’t, in part because finance has this “dark magic” aura and is often viewed negatively, and that if they did we would all be better off.
For example, Rortybomb mentioned compounding interest and I certainly agree. I would also add the time value of money, risk and return and portfolio diversification, the main financial instruments including options. Black-Scholes would not be part of the equation (pun intended).
I think these things do not require any particular expertise to understand. I think that if more people understood these things, especially retail investors, we would all collectively be better off. And I think stories such as Taibbi’s, that portray finance as impenetrable rocket science-cum-black magic pull us away from that goal and therefore leave themselves open to critique.
What I am saying is the equivalent of “We drive cars to work every day, yet few of us know how to drive properly, and that’s a shame because it’s not really hard and it would save many lives.” I’m not saying that cars f*cking rock man, and if you get run over you’re a loser and you had it coming.
I see the comment thread has proliferated here and I’ll try to respond to everyone. But I wanted to try and clarify myself first.
— PEG · Apr 6, 06:32 AM · #
PEG,
You are an excellent poster at TAS – don’t sweat the comments section. Blog comments blow up, go all over the place, they take a life of their own and emotions run crazy. I really enjoy commenting on this blog; although many comments I read back later and think “man do I sound like a jerk!” I think everyone here is just passionate about this topic hence what reads as a virulent tone, and how could you not be? It’s a big deal. Don’t read too much into it.
I still think Taibbi is right though he did a bad job referring to zero-coupon bonds; I think there is a wall where finance becomes dark arts-like. Backwards-recursive option modeling. Copulas. Implied probabilities. PDEs of stochastic functions. I could go on. Those things are what the big players are all about, and it is in fact rocket science!
— Rortybomb · Apr 6, 06:53 AM · #
I agree with Freddie: The bipartisan consensus Grand Strategy of the United States for decades has been for the rich to end up holding all the IOUs and for everybody else to be placated with really expensive houses, TVs, and rims.
This never made any sense for the long run.
— Steve Sailer · Apr 6, 08:15 AM · #
PEG, widespread financial literacy is a pipe dream. An understanding of finance is predicated on an understanding of statistics, probability, utility theory, etc. These are the tools of rational economic decisionmaking and, simply put, a depressingly small fraction of the population have any grasp of these concepts. Furthermore, even those who have studied these topics rarely use them to make decisions. Gut instinct and cognitive biases play a vastly larger role in most financial choices.
So my question is: who exactly will financial education help? Most people don’t have adequate mathematical fluency to tackle finance topics, and even those who do won’t employ their education to make rational decisions. In some cases, financial education might even be destructive. Inadequately sophisticated investors could fool themselves, on the basis of finance concepts they don’t fully understand, into involving themselves with complicated financial instruments far beyond their competency. Labeling finance a “black art” serves a purpose: it scares the layman away from dangerous waters—there be dragons here.
I’m going to suggest that you are approaching this problem from the wrong end. Rather than educating the people up to the level of finance, it would be easier to dumb finance down to the level of the people. This would mean, for instance, eliminating instruments like the negatively amortizing ARM. I don’t care how successful your financial education program is, the vast majority of the population will never attain the level of sophistication required to understand a security that complicated. Making finance simpler, especially the part of finance which regularly interacts with the “end-user”, will do more than financial education ever could.
(I know the two aren’t mutually exclusive, but I think my point still stands)
— salacious · Apr 6, 08:35 AM · #
eliminating instruments like the negatively amortizing ARM. I don’t care how successful your financial education program is, the vast majority of the population will never attain the level of sophistication required to understand a security that complicated
Tranched derivatives; somewhat complex. Negative amortizing ARM, (what should be) high school math. I know James thinks this will be the end of civiization; but where would we be with out false either/or propositions.
I’m a freaking artist fer crying out loud, and I’ve I can see that PEG’s basic premise is correct.
— Tony Comstock · Apr 6, 12:53 PM · #
99% of the finance that “regular folks” encounter on a day-to-day basis only requires (what should be, indeed) high school maths.
Of course in this crisis it’s the remaining % that’s killed us but that’s another subject altogether.
— PEG · Apr 6, 01:27 PM · #
Wow, you guy’s have a lot of faith in a high school education.
Have you ever taught high school or early college level math? If you have, then you will know how students freeze up when you give them word problems. Even for the ones who seem to have a good grasp of the concept, applying it to a situation where the method isn’t exceedingly clear incites panic. Confidently tackling word problems requires a degree of mathematical fluency that, in my experience, most students don’t and never will have.
This is the fundamental obstacle to widespread financial literacy. I just can’t see a situation where average citizens will have enough confidence in their mathematical abilities so that they make financial decisions by sitting down with a pencil and pad of paper. Certainly not to the point where they trust the answers they get over their friend Fred’s advice and Jim Cramer blaring stock picks on CNBC.
— salacious · Apr 6, 02:16 PM · #
Have you ever taught high school or early college level math?
I have some experience teach math at both a high school and low college level (which is to say, math the students should have learned in high school.)
My experience is that students are (mostly) more than capable, but have been poorly taught, often for years.
Either that or I am some sort of genius of mathematics instruction.
— Tony Comstock · Apr 6, 02:20 PM · #
I guess I just have a natural, reptile-brain aversion to saying “Trust them— they’re geniuses!” after everything that’s happened.
— Freddie · Apr 6, 02:48 PM · #
PEG, yeah, don’t sweat it. Your stuff is legit.
And for heaven’s sake don’t go Flaubert on us and torture yourself looking for le mot juste. Down that path lies the dark side.
Rortybomb, thanks; it’s been a while for me as well.
— JA · Apr 6, 03:25 PM · #
PEG-
Your post showed up in my google reader and I cheered. Then I came and read the comments and nearly started to cry.
You were right on the first time, comments to the contrary notwithstanding. I hate to see you retreating in the thread, even if it is a fighting retreat.
Joseph – the OTS may well have been asleep at the wheel. But ultimately, doesn’t the citizenry have some responsibility for watching the watchers? (This is the case even if the new season of ‘24’ is out on DVD.)
Rortybomb – a lot of great stuff, but I don’t think the argument was that you have to have MBA level knowledge in order to provide something useful to the conversation (about how we got here, how we get out of here, and how we never return). One can probably do this without knowing his alpha from his beta.
Anyway. I thought it was a great post.
— Jeremy R. Shown · Apr 7, 01:40 AM · #
Pascal,
I know most folks have moved on to other newer TAS posts, but when I read this awful column today by the normally very good Rick Telender (who is a sports columnist) I immediately thought of you as Telender exhibits the dangerous attitude you eloquently warn against:
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/telander/1516334,CST-SPT-rick08.article
When even our sports columnists decide to talk ignorantly about finance, we are all in trouble.
— Jeff Singer · Apr 9, 02:18 AM · #