Why Big Banks Find Private Banking Difficult

Would you like private banking services? If so, I’d recommend that you not sign up with the private-banking arm of a big retail bank — which is what John Hempton did.

I am a customer of National Australia Bank private bank. Private bank is an area walled off for the "important" customers.

I need something very simple. I need a set of interest statements for my own account and the family trust for the 2006-07 tax year – and I need them in a simple form.

Surprisingly the bank cannot deliver.

Big retail banks tend to look at their high net worth clients and see lots of profits. So they try to pamper those clients as much as they can, with personalized service and dedicated phone numbers and, very often, lots of salespeople pushing some kind of equity derivative or other.

But their org chart, their IT system, their DNA — it’s still Big Retail Bank. If a private-banking client phones up and asks for something they can call up on their computer, then no problem. But ask for something which might be slightly different — and you run into a brick wall.

In a real private bank, one which is built upwards from a rich client base rather than being built by skimming off the richest clients of a much broader client base, such things are much less likely to happen. In a real private bank, the client has a private banker — a human being with first-hand knowledge of his client and the ability and authority to make things happen.

If he were the customer of a real private bank, Hempton wouldn’t be running into walls. He would make one phone call to his private banker, who would immediately understand what he needed. Now there’s a good chance that the private banker wouldn’t be able to immediately call up that information. But that’s the banker’s problem, not the client’s. The banker would then start navigating the bank’s bureaucracy and IT systems on behalf of his client, and would have the great advantage of being inside the bank and being able to talk to people who aren’t "client-facing".

And in a real private bank, the only reason that these people have any job at all is that they’re providing an excellent service to the high-net-worth clients. They’re not providing mass IT support for a bank with millions of customers across the country, they’re delivering a high-end service to a small number of clients. So when the banker comes to them with a request, they’re much more likely to be helpful rather than obstructive.

This is why people get worried when a storied private bank like US Trust gets acquired by a big retail bank like Bank of America — and why they get even more worried when the big retail bank starts talking about back-end synergies and the like. Private banking is nothing without empowered private bankers, and it’s hard for a private banker to be truly empowered in an organization with the size and complexity of BofA. Or even, it would seem, NAB. Put another way, when you’re looking for a private bank, you should never be happy with a private-banking arm. Instead, you should always look for a entire private-banking central nervous system.

Posted in private banking | Comments Off on Why Big Banks Find Private Banking Difficult

Copying Harvard

Swiss funds-of-funds firm Gottex has a new gimmick: a fund which "will emulate the investment principles of U.S. ‘super endowments’" like those of Harvard and Yale. Actually, it might not be so new: maybe other funds-of-funds have been doing this for a while. But in any case the idea is to massively ratchet up "alternative investments", while bringing the equities component of the portfolio down sharply:

In preparation for the new fund launch, Landes said his team determined that a 65% exposure to alternative investments combined with traditional investments did the best in the long term.

Roger Nusbaum makes the excellent point that this ex post determination might not be worth much at all:

The US stock market is getting close to ten years with no gains. Ten years is a long time. This decade long round trip to nowhere we are in is going to skew a lot studies in the future about how to allocate your assets.

In other words, tell me 10 years ago not to invest in equities, that would have been great advice. Nusbaum continues:

Very little equity exposure will be a bad idea unless global stock markets are permanently broken which is not a bet I am willing to make.

I suspect he’s right: global stock markets are huge and liquid, and it seems impetuous to tar them all with the same brush. Dialing down US equities in particular might make sense, but throwing all other equities into the trash along with them makes less sense.

Besides, the investment strategies that work for Harvard and Yale might not work nearly as well for anybody else. For one thing, "alternative investments" are notoriously expensive, with most hedge funds charging a 2-and-20 management fee. Harvard and Yale, by contrast, either invest on their own, or else, if they do invest in hedge funds, negotiate a much lower fee.

Gottex, of course, won’t just pay full whack: it’ll also charge investors its own fees on top. Ouch.

I’ve always wondered why Harvard and Yale don’t offer their alumni an investment service. Park your money with us, and we’ll pour it into the general endowment: we won’t do anything different with your money than we’ll do with our own. You can add money or take money out annually, but if you take money out we will first subtract a tax-deductible 2-and-20 fee. And any time you want to donate funds to the endowment, just check a box and we’ll mark them as ours rather than yours.

There are probably very good legal reasons for not doing this. But it seems like a good way of adding substantially to the endowment to me. Investors generally hate hedge-fund fees; they might be quite attracted to an opportunity where all those fees go to their alma mater.

(Via Alloway)

Posted in hedge funds | Comments Off on Copying Harvard

Extra Credit, Tuesday Edition

Demand and Price Are Falling for Lobster: Not many foods you can say that about.

Need proof of racial profiling in credit card offers? Ask Rich Aguirre. "The credit card offers come to his Arizona home in both English and Spanish — but the terms are dramatically different. English mail offers 9.99 percent interest rates and $5,000 credit limits while the Spanish language offers are for up to $500 with 19.99 percent or higher interest rates plus $100 in annual fees."

And They Could Call It Frannie: Andrew Ross Sorkin on a possible merger between Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac. Or something like that. Barry Ritholtz calls it "an idea so powerfully bad, ill conceived, and poorly thought out, it has precisely zero chance of occurring". I never suspected he was so naive.

Souren Melikian Is Not Impressed: And ties himself up in knots talking about how a painting can be "the victim of its extraordinary quality".

A Talk With: Damien Hirst: He’s more influenced by galleries than by artists. Which maybe explains why he’s so willing to circumvent them.

Posted in remainders | Comments Off on Extra Credit, Tuesday Edition

Goolsbee 1-0 Salmon

Back in March 2006, Austan Goolsbee was a little-known Chicago economics professor, and I was an all-but-unknown blogger. In a fit of dudgeon, I took it upon myself to attack an article that Goolsbee wrote in Slate on the subject of Santigo’s bus system. Goolsbee said that the deregulated system in Chile’s capital was a good thing; I was not so sure, and was much more enthusiastic about the fact that Santiago’s buses were soon to be regulated, with pay-per-passenger being replaced by a more conventional hourly-pay system.

After my blog entry appeared, I had an email exchange with Goolsbee. He predicted:

Are you under the impression that replacing competing companies with a few giant firms and then removing all incentives to the drivers is a good idea? It is a recipe for monopolization. Prices will rise and delays will get worse.

I wasn’t convinced. I said as much, and I got this in return:

No question that I would predict that this new system will lead to more delays and the concentration of ownership to higher prices. We will agree to revisit this issue in a year and see if it was born out. I am prepared to admit that the incentives didn’t work if that doesn’t happen.

After that, life intervened. I started blogging for Nouriel Roubini and then for Portfolio; Goolsbee became the economic advisor to Barack Obama. In Santiago, the new system came onstream in February 2007, and by now the results are crystal-clear:

Almost overnight, the new "planned" system cut mass transit ridership, increased congestion everywhere in the city, and tripled average commute times from forty minutes to two hours. As President Michelle Bachelet later said in a speech, "It is not common for a president to stand before the nation and say ‘Things haven’t gone well…. But that is exactly what I want to say in the case of Transantiago…. The inhabitants of Santiago, especially the poorest, deserve an apology."

The roll-out was not a total disaster, however. The new planned system did solve one of the major problems it had targeted: profits were eliminated overnight. Where the old system had made $60 million a year, the new planned system immediately began to lose, and has continued to lose, more than $600 million per year.

So, Austan, you were right and I was wrong. I guess that makes it a good thing that you’re advising the next president of the United States (probably), and I’m, um, still a blogger.

(HT: Cowen)

Posted in cities, economics, travel | Comments Off on Goolsbee 1-0 Salmon

Opening Brazilian Windows

Brazil has always felt the need to push back against the imposition of international intellectual property rights from the global powers in the US and Europe: it famously simply disregarded TRIPs and decided to manufacture its own antiretroviral drugs when faced with a domestic Aids crisis and extremely high prices from western manufacturers.

Now Andrew Leonard reports on its attempt to wean the country off the Microsoft teat:

In an effort to spread personal computer usage throughout Brazil, the government has for years subsidized the purchase of PCs with low-interest loans — as long as the computers are preinstalled with Linux.

But in a CNET article taking a look at the obstacles hindering the growth of the technology market in Brazil, reporter Ina Fried suggests that many of those computers don’t stick with their Linux-based operating systems for very long.

…Some estimates show as many as 18 or 19 out of every 20 machines sold with Linux ultimately are converted to some form of Windows.

What the CNET article doesn’t mention, of course, is the proportion of those 18 or 19 Windows installations which resulted in any revenue flowing to Redmond. Microsoft is that weirdest of animals: it’s a consumer-facing company, but almost nobody pays cash for Windows, instead buying it bundled in with their hardware. Once you unbundle the hardware from the operating system, as Brazil has done, people are likely to find copies of Windows in non-official channels rather than paying full retail price.

In other words, Brazil might have failed to stop its citizens from using Windows. But it’s probably succeeded in keeping a pretty large amount of money in Brazil which would otherwise have left the country.

Posted in intellectual property, technology | Comments Off on Opening Brazilian Windows

When Picking Stocks, Ignore the News

Many thanks to Andrew at Humble Money for pointing me to a very astute blog entry from Teresa Lo back in November last year. When stocks fall sharply, a lot of people start thinking about picking up bargains: "it’s human nature to do this," says Lo, "because we perceive prices on a relative basis, relative to what it has been in the recent past".

But such temptation should be resisted, at least by buy-and-hold investors. Here’s Lo’s advice, which I’d tell every retail investor to print out in all caps and read every time they’re thinking of making a trade:

Investing tends to work best long after the story has left the front page.

The overwhelming majority of good investments, including good value investments, are made in largely-ignored companies in forgotten-about industries. If a sector like financials is all over the news, avoid it, and wait for the smoke to clear and the caravan to move on.

Justin Fox says, tongue only partly in cheek, that "not enough Americans read the business/financial media". He’s right, but he’s also wrong: for every individual who would benefit from reading the business pages more, there’s another individual who would benefit from reading the business pages less. Reading the news makes us think that we know more than we do, and it also makes us concentrate on the most volatile (and therefore newsworthy) asset classes.

I wonder if anybody’s tried using Nexis results as a contrary indicator: when a company or sector is being unusually ignored by the press, maybe that’s as good a time as any to take a serious look.

Posted in investing | Comments Off on When Picking Stocks, Ignore the News

Luxury Datapoint of the Day

Back in 2005, the luxury segment was booming, but Prada didn’t really know what to do with its loss-making Jil Sander franchise. So it took advantage of the overheated market and sold it, for €50 million, to private-equity shop Change Capital.

Change Capital injected some common sense into Jil Sander, moving its flagship stores to cheaper locations, and got the brand into the black (if you ignore debt service): it had ebitda of €6.1 million in 2007. And amazingly, given the credit crunch and the strong euro, the market has become even more overheated: the brand is now being sold to Japan’s Onward for €167 million, plus €43 million to pay down debt, for a total enterprise value of €210 million. Or 34 times ebitda.

The interesting thing is that the sale of Jil Sander is emphatically not a play on the growing commodity-fueled nouveau riche in Russia or the Middle East. The brand specializes in the understated: you have to look really close to work out that that black tote bag is actually made of snakeskin and retails for $2,675. (To make it even more unassuming, the modest "Jil Sander" label is designed to be removed very easily.)

The other aspect of the sale worth noting is that the big jump in the value of the brand took place after Jil Sander herself resigned from the company for the second and final time. Jil Sander the company struggled when it was overseen by Jil Sander the woman; today, it has managed to carve out a luxury niche for itself unencumbered by what used to be known as key man risk. Yes, Raf Simons is doing a magnificent job — but if he were to leave for whatever reason, the formula has now largely been perfected.

Onward’s task now is to find a balance between Jil Sander’s hugely valuable exclusivity, on the one hand, and making money off widely-available perfumes and accessories, on the other. If it can be done, maybe even this eye-popping price will turn out to be a good investment.

Posted in fashion | Comments Off on Luxury Datapoint of the Day

The Dynamics of Oil Prices

Sometimes, price action in financial markets really is a consequence of news in the real world. Cause: Hurricane Katrina takes out a huge amount of refinery capacity. Effect: Oil prices rise. Simple. But journalists aren’t having such an easy time of it with Gustav. Oil futures are hitting new lows in the $105 range, well below where they were trading before anybody even knew a hurricane was coming. Can hurricanes cause oil prices to fall?

Surely not, that would be silly. On the other hand, it wouldn’t be much sillier than the stated reason for today’s price action, fears about "slowing global economic growth". After all, there’s been precisely zero news on that front over the past few days.

Sam Jones has a smarter take on the dynamics of oil prices: when trades get crowded, they can unwind quite violently. And in recent weeks the short financials/long commodities position has been very popular. If a lot of people are scrambling to get out of that trade at the same time, that’s much more likely to explain plunging oil prices than vague notions of traders speculating on Chinese demand growth.

Or maybe it’s just that hurricanes in the Gulf always send oil prices towards $100. Seems about as plausible as anything else.

Posted in commodities | Comments Off on The Dynamics of Oil Prices

Food Inflation Datapoint of the Day

Reuters reports from Cambodia:

Demand has pushed a kilogram of rat meat up to around 5,000 riel ($1.28) from 1,200 riel last year.

They don’t say how many rats are needed to provide a kilo of meat, however.

The stated reason for the rise in the price of rat meat is the expense of beef: 20,000 riel per kilo. Which works out to about $2.33 per pound, which seems cheap to me. Is there a website somewhere showing the price of beef in different countries around the world?

(Via Hamermesh)

Posted in food | Comments Off on Food Inflation Datapoint of the Day

The Opportunity Cost of Not Working

The great conductor Carlos Kleiber was not a man to worry about the opportunity cost of not working:

He refuses to be at the beck and call of the record industry or the opera and concert managements who bombard him with offers. Even an admiring Herbert von Karajan himself was unable to tempt Kleiber to take a date with the Berlin Philharmonic, an engagement which any other conductor in the world would have grabbed without a second thought.

The reason, according to Karajan, was that Kleiber does not really enjoy conducting. ‘He tells me, ‘I only conduct when I am hungry.’ And it is true. He has a deep-freeze. He fills it up, and cooks for himself, and when it gets down to a certain level then he thinks, ‘now I might do a concert’. He is like a wolf.’

I like this kind of attitude. Go off and earn a bunch of money, use it to live well, and then, when it runs out, repeat. It’s not just conductors who can do this, or performers in general: lawyers can do it too, if they go "of counsel", and the world of management consultancy is full of such people, who prefer a life of adventure to one shackled to a desk.

Yet as Dalton Conley notes in today’s NYT, statistically speaking, people are likely to move the other way, and work more as their earning power rises.

It is now the rich who are the most stressed out and the most likely to be working the most. Perhaps for the first time since we’ve kept track of such things, higher-income folks work more hours than lower-wage earners do…

This is a stunning moment in economic history: At one time we worked hard so that someday we (or our children) wouldn’t have to. Today, the more we earn, the more we work, since the opportunity cost of not working is all the greater.

This is good news for gross national product, but less good news for gross national happiness:

Even with the same work hours and household duties, women with higher incomes report feeling more stressed than women with lower incomes, according to a recent study by the economists Daniel Hamermesh and Jungmin Lee. In other words, not only does more money not solve our problems at home, it may even make things worse.

Which in turn helps to explain the unhappiness that people earning $250,000 a year feel when they read in the paper that because they’re rich they’re going to have to pay more in taxes. Yes, they’re rich. But money hasn’t made them happy or comfortable: quite the opposite. Taxing that money further feels only like adding insult to injury.

On the other hand, as Mark Thoma notes, maybe Conley is reading too much into the statistics, and the reason that the rich are working more than the rest of us is simply that they’re able to find the work.

Posted in labor | Comments Off on The Opportunity Cost of Not Working

Small Foundations Get Adventurous

Craig Karmin profiles Edward Hunia, who runs the $3.8 billion Kresge Foundation. It’s done well of late, thanks partly to bearish bets and an investment with John Paulson:

a 16.3% total return over the past five fiscal years, and a 9.3% return in the most recent year.

We’re not told how well Hunia has done overall since he joined in 1992, although we do know that assets have risen from $1.2 billion since then. That puts him pretty much in line with the S&P 500 after all the foundation’s expenditures, which is impressive, unless there were further donations to the fund in the interim.

In any event, Hunia’s now retiring to a life of consultancy:

After Kresge, he would like to help smaller foundations and endowments outperform their larger brethren. His advice: Start by reducing fixed income and dropping active equity managers, "since you can’t find a manger who can consistently outperform." Then he would work on getting the right hedge-fund mix and proper use of derivatives.

I agree that it’s impossible to find an equity manager who will consistently outperform, but I’m interested in the fact that Hunia is reluctant to extend that insight to hedge-fund managers as well. After all, hedge-fund managers are much more expensive than most equity-fund managers, which means they need to outperform even more in order to make an investment worthwhile.

But of course investment officers at foundations are, in a sense, hedge fund managers themselves. Enough so that they’re willing and able to ignore their own advice. This, remember, is coming from a man who doesn’t like fixed income:

He believes residential mortgages look attractive at current prices, and has been investing in distressed mortgage-debt funds. Mr. Hunia thinks his position in distressed debt could grow to as much as 15% of his total fund assets, up from 4% now.

But probably distressed debt doesn’t count as fixed income: by fixed-income Hunia probably means playing interest rates and yield curves more than credit spreads. Essentially Hunia seems attracted to the exotic: no boring bonds, few boring equities, and lots of interesting hedge funds and derivatives and "little-known niche investments that have been widely overlooked". Is that really a good strategy for small foundations who might not have the necessary skills to juggle such investments? I’m not convinced.

Posted in investing | Comments Off on Small Foundations Get Adventurous

Extra Credit, Monday Edition

The Kettle? The Pot Says He’s Black: Nocera dismantles Icahn.

Mexico: The Winds of Revolt: "History suggests that another bloody revolution may be somewhere on the horizon," says the irrepressible Walter Molano.

Hirst’s Dealer Denies `Mountain’ of Unsold Works Before Auction: A classic non-denial denial.

Posted in remainders | Comments Off on Extra Credit, Monday Edition

The Upside of Cluelessness

Chris Kissell has a great headline over his story that only 26% of homeowners don’t know what kind of mortgage they have, down from 34% a year ago: "Americans less clueless". But there’s also a silver lining to this cluelessness — and to the fact that 62% of homeowners believe their home’s value has increased or stayed the same in the past year.

If you’re a distressed homeowner, you will know what kind of mortgage you have, and you will know that your house has fallen in value. The fact that so many people are unaware of these things is good news: it means that they’re not distressed.

Or maybe it just means that the mortgage crisis is still in its very early days.

Posted in housing | Comments Off on The Upside of Cluelessness

Credit Cards: Not Dead Yet

Dan Gross has a piece in Slate entitled "The Death of the Credit Card Economy". It tells a plausible and compelling story: as credit-card companies slash credit lines, so are consumers cutting back on their spending.

Gross quotes Dan Ariely as saying that "if it’s more difficult to get credit, it might make people feel more pain of paying and therefore spend less" — and there’s no doubt that it is now more difficult to get credit.

But the actual evidence for this "pain of paying" is hard to come by. Reports Gross:

The tightening of credit is forcing more people to confront these uncomfortable choices. In the second quarter, credit giant MasterCard reported that the gross dollar volume, or GDV, of credit charges processed in the United States rose just 0.7 percent from 2007, while the GDV of debit charges rose 15.8 percent.

Gross could easily have used those figures to make exactly the opposite case:

So far, there’s little evidence that people are spending less money on their credit cards, or that they’re reluctant to pay for goods directly out of their bank accounts. Despite credit lines tightening up, the gross dollar volume (GDV) of credit card charges in the US, as reported by MasterCard, actually rose by 0.7% in the second quarter of 2008. Meanwhile, consumers are going on a rampage with their debit cards, with GDV there soaring by almost 16% year-on-year.

The truth is surely somewhere in the middle. Once you strip out gasoline sales from that credit-card GDV, the number will surely turn negative, even before accounting for population growth and other consumer-price inflation. But the willingness of people to move spending onto their debit cards from their credit cards does make it seem as though Gross’s theory has yet to be proven in practice.

I’m also not a fan of switching statistical horses midstream, as here:

In 2007, according to the National Association of Realtors, 45 percent of first-time homebuyers put no money down, and the median first-time homebuyer financed a massive 98 percent of the purchase. But no-money-down mortgages, like Rudy Giuliani’s presidential candidacy, began fading in late 2007 and largely disappeared in the cruel winter of 2008. No wonder existing home sales fell 13.2 percent in July from last year while new home sales plummeted 35.3 percent.

The first two statistics — about downpayments — refer to first-time homebuyers. The second two statistics — about home sales — refer to all homebuyers. In order to make sense of these figures, we really need to know what’s happened to the proportion of home sales to first-time buyers over the past year. Alternatively, give us the home-sales figures for first-time buyers, or the downpayment figures for homebuyers in aggregate. As it is, this kind of writing risks sounding like a politician massaging figures to his own ends.

Posted in personal finance, statistics | Comments Off on Credit Cards: Not Dead Yet

Diluting the WSJ

In a presidential campaign, candidates triangulate towards the center. The Democrat knows he has his party’s hard-core supporters in the bag; the Republican likewise. So both tend to take those hard-core supporters for granted and chase after other voters.

According to Joe Nocera, it seems the Wall Street Journal is doing the same thing: taking its business readership for granted and going for a more mainstream audience.

On Tuesday, there wasn’t a single mainstream business story in the entire first section. And the business stories that did run lacked the kind of nuance, analysis and wonderful story-telling that used to characterize The Wall Street Journal I loved…

He is changing the paper. Mr. Murdoch believes that the country is yearning for a national conservative daily, so that is where he is taking The Wall Street Journal.

Murdoch is betting that the WSJ’s core business audience has nowhere else to turn, and Nocera himself says that he, personally, will never stop subscribing to the Journal. So the strategy does make some sense, in the short to medium term.

But in the longer term, it’s destructive to the WSJ’s franchise. Today’s businessmen — the commuters in suits on the 7:05 from somewhere in Westchester — might be a given for Murdoch. But tomorrow’s aren’t. And if the WSJ becomes increasingly indistinguishable, in terms of the stories it runs, from other mainstream media outlets, there’s no reason that the commuters of tomorrow won’t be consuming something entirely different on their mobile devices. Maybe it will be an alternative business daily, maybe it will be some kind of aggregated content from around the web, maybe it will be a collection of or video business podcasts. But if the WSJ brand becomes diluted, Murdoch will find, sooner or later, that he can’t take the paper’s core readership for granted any more.

Posted in Media, publishing | Comments Off on Diluting the WSJ

On Being Rich

My blog entry about people on $250,000 a year being rich elicited a fair amount of response, both in the blogosphere and via email. One theme running through the responses was that it doesn’t matter how much money you make; what matters is how much money you spend. And if you’re spending almost as much as you’re making, well, then you can hardly be rich.

The main expense that most people have in mind when they make such arguments is location-related. "If you live in New York," says Tom Lindmark, "you might not be rich until you hit, say $450,000". One of my correspondents said that before you started counting up income, you should deduct $4,200 a month in rent, plus "another $1k for phone, water, electricity and heating oil". And Caveat Bettor goes even further with regards to being "middle class in Manhattan":

Of course, a 2 bedroom apartment will cost about $7,000 per month.

No! For one thing, most Manhattan 2-bedroom apartments do not cost $7,000 a month. But even assuming they did, then being able to afford $7,000 a month for a 2-bedroom apartment would make you rich.

BusinessWeek had one of its Debate Room debates on this subject in June. Carl Winfield gamely tried to say that "like everyone else, the estimated 2% of the population that makes more than $250,000 has been hit by a meteoric rise in grain prices that has pushed the cost of a loaf of bread from $1.28 in January to $1.37 in April." Er, no, Carl, if you’re making $250,000 a year you’re very unlikely to even notice an eight-cent rise in the cost of a loaf of bread, let alone be hit by it.

But the most revealing part of the debate came next:

Consumers at all economic levels have been hit by the higher cost of living, but saddling 2% of the population with higher taxes to lessen the tax burden on the remaining 98% caters to a populist myth that national crises have an impact only on the very poor and leave everyone else unscathed.

You see? It’s not that people earning more than $250,000 a year aren’t rich, it’s that anybody earning less than $250,000 a year is "very poor".

In response, Jacob Stokes talked about

the richest American households, or those who make more than $250,000 a year. These are America’s elite. The Mercedes-Benz-driving, Coach-bag-carrying set.

It’s a useful reality check. Are there middle-class people earning less than $200,000 a year who drive a Mercedes and who carry Coach bags? Yes, and there are lots of them. But such luxuries are still signifiers of being rich and elite; that’s one of the reasons that they are bought in the first place.

The point is that "rich", in terms of disposable income, kicks in well before you hit $250k: it kicks in when you start being able to buy a Mercedes or a Coach bag without such an action making any discernible impact in your standard of living elsewhere. These people might not like spending over $100 to fill up their GL450, but they’re not suffering the same pain at the pump as normal people for whom spending more money on gas means having less money left over for groceries.

A lot of the problem, I think, is one of visibility. If you live among people for whom spending $7,000 a month on rent is normal, and if you don’t live among people for whom the Olive Garden constitutes fine Italian cuisine, then it’s easy for your idea of middle-class to gravitate towards the former and away from the latter. Even I’ve made cheap cracks about how "you know it’s a recession when PF Chang’s is considered ‘aspirational’".

There’s a good reason why the overwhelming majority of Americans consider themselves to be middle-class — including a large number of the super-rich on seven-figure incomes with multiple houses and multi-million-dollar life insurance policies. Everybody looks around them and sees some people who have less and some people have more; they’re in the middle. Said my email correspondent, in high dudgeon:

Ranking me among the "rich" — among bankers plunking down $4m for condos, among hedge fund managers spending a $100m in art for their Bridgehampton pad, etc. — seems completely divorced from reality to me. But then I’m just one of the cigar-smoking, top hat wearing upper crust, so I probably don’t get it.

What he’s doing is looking at the behavior of people who have more money — a lot more money — than he does, and then using that behavior to define "rich". Are those people rich? Yes. Maybe it would be useful to reclassify them as the "very rich" — people who don’t know how many houses they own, or who don’t even think about checking commercial airline schedules when they need to fly back to New York for a vital board meeting.

Such individuals are useful from a wealth-porn perspective, but they’re not useful for setting a "rich" baseline. There’s a very long tail of wealth in this country, and all of it counts as rich, even when parts of it are orders of magnitude richer than other parts.

To get a more useful feeling for what counts as rich, don’t wonder at the excesses of billionaires, but rather look at what counts as poor. For a family of four in the US, the poverty level is a household income of $21,027. And yes, there are thousands of people even in Manhattan living below the poverty level. Once you start bearing that in mind, it becomes much harder to say with a straight face that people earning $250,000 — people who can spend $21,027 on a family holiday — aren’t rich.

Do such people feel rich? No, because they think that holiday is expensive. Because their life isn’t easy. Because they still worry about money. Just like all of us. They’ve reached the top 2% of the population, and they realize that it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. Well, that’s reality for you. Life’s very rarely a bed of roses, no matter how much money you have in the bank. But the reason that your life isn’t easy? Isn’t that you’re not rich. It’s that you’re human.

Posted in wealth | 1 Comment

Ben Stein Watch: August 31, 2008

Of the two candidates for president of the United States, one has an intelligent, coherent, and sophisticated economic policy. The other is quite open about the fact that he has almost no grasp of economics and that he is utterly unqualified to choose economic advisors, let alone a Treasury secretary or Fed chairman; it’s sometimes hard to tell whether his economic policy is incoherent or simply nonexistent. No prizes, then, for guessing which candidate Ben Stein takes aim at in this week’s column.

Putting the substance of the column aside for one minute, I’ll concede at the outset that this is an explicitly partisan column from an unabashedly Republican pundit. I did hear, once, second-hand, that NYT business editor Larry Ingrassia, when questioned, defends the inclusion of Ben Stein in his paper specifically because he’s a Republican who somehow "balances out" the more left-leaning tendencies of fellow Sunday columnist Gretchen Morgenson.

But Morgenson is no party-political hack, and indeed has shown far more sense during the present economic crisis than the crazed populist rantings of Stein. She doesn’t accuse Goldman Sachs of deliberately trying to profit by bringing down the US economy; instead, she’s much more likely to file a boring-but-important reported story like her column this week on municipal bond disclosures.

As political thermometer ratchets up between now and November, I’m sure we’ll see many columns about Obama’s economic policy written by Republicans. This one is probably a reasonably good expectation of what to expect: there will be better, and there will be worse. But it’s quite clearly a column that only a Republican could ever write. If the NYT business section really thinks that it’s a natural home to such animals, it should really start running similar columns from Democrats too. I’m sure Brad DeLong would be happy to oblige.

In any case, Stein declares this week that he’s not in favor of economic stimulus on the grounds that rebates tend to be saved and not spent. He asks:

[B]ecause we now know that sporadic rebates of limited duration do not generate much consumption stimulus, why offer them?

He then moves on to Obama’s economic-stimulus policies, which are neither sporadic nor of limited duration. Instead, they’re long-term investments in America’s economy, combined with rebate checks aimed at precisely the people who are most likely to spend rather than save them — it’s almost as if Obama’s plan were crafted with Stein’s criticisms in mind.

But of course Stein’s still not at all happy. First, he complains that the list of projects is so long that Obama is "dividing the stimulus pie into homeopathic slices" — a weird complaint, given that as any Keynesian will tell you, it’s the size of the pie that matters, not the number of slices.

Then comes this:

Whether this plan would be more effective than Mr. Bush’s remains to be seen. But, in practice, there is little more wasteful than pork-barrel public works — and, in practice, that is what this plan could turn out to be. And such a plan can rarely be put into effect before the countercyclical need for it has passed. Rebuilding bridges and runways, while much needed, takes much longer to put into action than writing a check.

Yes, Stein has barely finished complaining that "there is little more wasteful than pork-barrel public works" before he starts telling us that such infrastructure investments are "much needed". Is it too much to ask that even if he contradicts himself within the space of one column, he try at least to refrain from doing so within a single paragraph?

Of course, the simple announcement of a big infrastructure investment program can kick-start a large amount of economic activity: you don’t need to wait until the bridges and runways are completely rebuilt to see an economic effect. And what Obama is offering here would seem to be exactly the kind of stimulus that Stein should love: a nourishing meal rather than a sugary snack.

But before Stein can bring himself to admit this, he’s on to another subject entirely: Obama’s proposed windfall tax on oil companies. Stein doesn’t like it — he uses the word "punish" three times in six sentences, so you can be sure of that — but his arguments against it are pretty weak, as Dean Baker demonstrates.

Stein ends up by admitting that he doesn’t have any better ideas than Obama — which makes it even harder to understand why he spent a whole column bashing Obama’s policies. Stein normally files every other week, but this column came just one week after the last one: is the NYT actually ramping up the number of Stein columns it runs, as we move into election season? I do hope not. But the same thing happened at the end of June: we’ve now had seven columns in eleven weeks. With any luck, most people will have had better things to do, this Labor Day weekend, than read this one.

Posted in ben stein watch | Comments Off on Ben Stein Watch: August 31, 2008

Extra Credit, Friday Edition

Why Do We Use Core Inflation? A clear essay from Mark Thoma.

Citigroup Settles Charges of Widespread Theft of Customer Funds: Mostly from the "poor or recently deceased".

Are Louis Vuitton’s Artist Collaborations Nearing Their End? Probably not, but they might not be particularly frequent.

Russian Roulette: Some of the unexpected risks associated with running a hedge fund in Russia.

Posted in remainders | Comments Off on Extra Credit, Friday Edition

Joe Nocera, Blogger

This is why newspapers should want all their columnists to blog. Joe Nocera:

Although Lehman has been the number one rated equity research shop (again, according to Institutional Investor), that just shows how flawed such ratings are. Everybody on Wall Street knows that Sanford Bernstein does by far the best equity research on the Street. It tends to hire former industry players like Brad Hintz, who was once Lehman Brothers’ chief financial officer, to cover the industries they were once part of. Mr. Hintz; Craig Moffett, the lead telecommunications and cable analyst; Mr. Sacconaghi, who is the technology axe; and a raft of others give Bernstein’s research a depth — an intelligence, really — that no other firm can match.

Such unambiguous and forcefully-expressed opinions, backed up by genuine knowledge and expertise, are vanishingly rare in the world of newspaper journalism. You’ll see them safely ensconced in quotation marks, sometimes, attributed to someone who agrees with what the columnist in question is trying to say, but in general journalists are trained from day one at J-school not to present opinion as fact. That Nocera is able to do so in his blog is refreshing and encouraging.

Posted in Media, research | Comments Off on Joe Nocera, Blogger

How to Stop Stocks from Falling

Last month the Pakistani Small Investors Association made a "demand that all stock prices be frozen at current levels". Ask, it seems, and you shall receive: The Board of Directors of the Karachi Stock Exchange has decreed that although stock prices are free to rise as much as 5% per day, they’re not allowed to fall below Wednesday’s closing price.

Genius. Next step: why not decree that no trade can be made at less than 1% above the previous day’s closing price? Guaranteed profits for everyone!

(Via Bloomberg via Campbell via Wiesenthal, I know I’m late to this.)

Posted in regulation, stocks | Comments Off on How to Stop Stocks from Falling

Chart of the Day: Palin on InTrade

Here’s today’s intraday chart of Sarah Palin’s contract at InTrade: this is meant to show the crowd’s wisdom on the question of whether she will be John McCain’s vice-presidential nominee. (The times are Irish, so they’re 5 hours ahead of Eastern.)

palin.jpg

Yesterday’s close on the Palin contract was 4; today’s open was 6. By 8:23am Eastern time she was at 90; by 9:13am, less than an hour later, she was at 12. An hour after that, at 10:14am, she was at 95.

What does this prove? That in the final hours or days before a big political result/announcement, prediction markets become less, not more, reliable. I’ve made this point about the Democratic New Hampshire primary, and it’s worth repeating: contra Justin Wolfers, who believes that "in a moderately efficient market today’s market price consolidates not only today’s wisdom, but also the wisdom of those who traded in the past," prediction markets regularly fail in the feverishness of fluid and soon-to-be crystallized political speculation.

There’s simply no real-world justification for the degree of volatility we saw in the Palin contract this morning; this is not a consolidation of "the wisdom of those who traded in the past" but rather a crazed market resembling nothing so much as a bunch of six-year-olds chasing a soccer ball. From here until the official announcement, ignore all noise in the vice-presidential nomination markets. It’ll save you a lot of sanity.

Update: McCain’s picked Palin. Congratulations to whomever it was who bought 49 contracts at 12 at 9:13am, less than two hours before the announcement. Nice trade, that person!

(HT: Cowen)

Posted in prediction markets | Comments Off on Chart of the Day: Palin on InTrade

$250,000 per Year Counts as Rich

Slate’s Moneybox column is mostly home to Dan Gross, but occasionally other people write for it too. Back in May, it was fine for Sam Grobart and Tara Siegel Bernard to write that "for a family of four living in high-cost Chicago, $200K isn’t exactly rolling in it" — but obviously enough time has passed at this point that it’s now safe for Gross to note that, sorry, people making that kind of money really are rich.

Cheers, Dan! It’s good to have you on board, especially now that the presidential election campaign is going to put a lot of attention on whether tax hikes for people making $250,000 or more count as tax hikes on the rich.

And to answer some of the responses I got last time round, yes, I know that "rich" is more a function of wealth than of income. But as far as fiscal politics are concerned, this debate centers on income taxes. If you’re going to set an income cut-off for what counts as rich, then $250k is high, not low.

Posted in fiscal and monetary policy, pay, Politics, wealth | Comments Off on $250,000 per Year Counts as Rich

0% is Not a Useful Stock Fund Benchmark

Barry Ritholtz says it’s "amazing" that out of

2,100 diversified retail U.S. stock mutual funds open to new investors, just 17 have positive returns for both the past 12 months and year-to-date.

The factoid comes, depressingly enough, from a very complimentary story about a fund manger who runs three of those funds. Her funds are small and expensive (net of fees, you’d still be down for the year) — and it’s impossible to see what her long-term performance is, because she’s only been managing these funds since 2006.

But more generally, if you were looking for a fund manager on the basis of year-to-date performance, I’m not sure you’d want one of the few in positive territory. The job of a stock mutual fund manager is to outperform a benchmark, and the benchmark is never a 0% return. (If you want to outperform the 0% return benchmark, you should be in bond funds, not stock funds.)

Looking at funds in this manner is a way of changing the goalposts ex post: once you’ve asked a fund manager to outperform one benchmark, it’s unfair and unhelpful to suddenly hold her to another. And the 0% benchmark is particularly silly for a small-cap mutual fund — the kind of thing which no one invests in with a primary objective of not losing money.

Given what’s happened to stocks generally over the past year, it’s hardly surprising that managers who benchmark those stock are in negative territory. The S&P 500 — the most commonly-used of all benchmarks — is down more than 11% over the past 12 months: you could outperform that by 10 percentage points and still be in negative territory, thereby counting yourself out of the running for one of those 17 precious spots on the list of fund managers in positive territory year-to-date and over 12 months. It’s a very frivolous list indeed, and not one that anybody should use to make mutual-fund investment decisions.

What heartens me, however, is reading the comments on the Marketwatch story. Almost unanimously they pour scorn on the idea that this particular fund manager is genuinely worth listening to, as opposed to being just a random statistical anomaly. Investors are learning: maybe journalists will follow suit.

Posted in investing, personal finance | 1 Comment

Peter Niculescu, Teflon Executive

How did Peter Niculescu manage to get promoted to the important new position of Chief Business Officer at Fannie Mae? This is how Fannie Mae describes his history at the company after he joined in 1999:

In his previous position as Executive Vice President and head of the Capital Markets business, Niculescu was responsible for the management of the company’s on-balance sheet portfolio investments including interest rate risk management, asset acquisition and funding.

But wasn’t it precisely Fannie Mae’s interest rate risk management which led to the accounting scandals and the firing of CEO Franklin Raines and CFO Timothy Howard? Bethany McLean explained in the January 2005 issue of Fortune just what went wrong at Fannie:

In 2002 accounting sleuths and short-sellers became suspicious of Fannie’s smoothly growing earnings. Fannie’s duration gap made it clear that the company had been on the wrong side of interest rate bets during a period of rapidly declining rates in the fall of that year. Yet that didn’t seem to have had any effect on Fannie’s earnings. John Barnett, then an analyst at the Center for Financial Research and Analysis, which produces detailed accounting reports for institutional investors, suggested that Fannie Mae was distorting economic reality by putting billions of dollars in derivative losses on its balance sheet instead of on its income statement…

In fact the situation was worse than even the harshest critics believed. "We thought their accounting was lousy but legal," said Mark Haefele, who helps run Sonic Capital, a hedge fund that is short Fannie’s stock. "It turns out it was just lousy."

Today, the accounting scandals are in Fannie’s past, and it’s not interest-rate risk bringing Fannie down but rather credit risk. But I spoke recently to someone who’s been following Fannie closely for some time, and he says that it’s it’s more than a little weird that Niculescu not only survived the 2004 putsch but has now been put in charge of all three of Fannie’s business divisions.

Given Niculescu’s position from 1999 onwards, says my source, he should have known that Fannie’s books were being cooked. If that was the case, he should have been fired rather than promoted. And if Niculescu didn’t know what was going on, that bespeaks a lack of ability which puts this latest promotion into question.

At the very least, there’s an appearance of something weird going on here, and it would be nice if Fannie cleared it up. Was Niculescu not in charge of a derivatives book which lost billions of dollars? Did Fannie not get into a lot of trouble for trying to those losses on its balance sheet? And what qualifies Niculescu for his new job?

Posted in accounting, derivatives, housing | Comments Off on Peter Niculescu, Teflon Executive

Another Anonymous Wall Street Blogger is Fired

Another day, another Wall Street analyst gets fired for his anonymous blog, despite taking precautions after the same thing happened to former Citigroup trader Michael McCarthy. The blogger known as "1-2" was never all that anonymous: for starters, he happily posted links to his blog entries on his Facebook page where he was also a member of his employer’s group.

But more to the point, 1-2 is 24 years old and hasn’t done anything to embarrass himself: while his blog entries weren’t always particularly highbrow, they never came close to McCarthy’s levels of obnoxiousness. 1-2 can now join the pretty happy ranks of other young twentysomethings recently laid off from Wall Street with generous payoffs.

Wall Street is not a particularly hospitable place for the kind of person who feels such a need to express himself that he starts an anonymous blog. 1-2 will find a better job soon: it might not pay quite as well, but that’s not everything. People who are fired while in their early 20s are much more likely to put the experience in the "best thing that happened to me" category rather than the "one of the worst days of my life" category — which is where firings often are when they happen to longstanding and loyal employees with dependant families.

Besides, statistically speaking, given the number of layoffs happening on Wall Street, there was a good chance that 1-2 was going to get laid off in any event. At least this way he has a good story to tell, and he managed to do something he loved at the same time as slaving away over some earnings spreadsheet. A comment of his on Dealbreaker shows maturity and perspective:

Look. We always knew we were playing with fire. We never indulged ourselves with delusions of being "too good to be caught" or anything. But, to be honest, i needed the outlet. I took every precaution to never disparage anyone around my firm or release any proprietary information. In the end it was still poor judgement, and I messed up, but that’s life. I loved my firm–if not my exact position–and I do not wish ill will towards anyone there for what happened. Obviously I wish things had gone differently, but they didnt. So I move on. I’ll land on my feet faster than anyone expects–I always do.

One word of advice, 1-2: don’t just take the first job that comes along. Especially if it’s another job which prohibits personal blogging. Even if you don’t want to keep up the blog any more, you clearly chafe under such restrictions. So wait until an offer arrives which doesn’t impose them. It will.

Posted in employment | 1 Comment