Day: January 19, 2009

Obama Can; The Rest Of The World, Not So Much

The US will shortly have a new President. Congratulations to all concerned, particularly those who kept their cool during the intense moments of crisis during the fall and who surmised – early and correctly – that the current situation requires decisive and comprehensive action.  We already have a large fiscal stimulus in the works, a significant housing refinance program was surely being signalled last week, and we are waiting to hear through exactly what kind of new structure the bulk of TARP II funding will be deployed.

If banking stabilizes of its own accord over the next week or so, the new Administration will lean towards a New Bank focused primarily on restarting consumer lending (or they can expand the mandate of a relatively clean existing structure such as Fannie or Freddie).  If banking continues to deteriorate, then more of an RTC-type structure is likely to prevail, i.e., at least partially cleaning up banks’ balance sheets – presumably in return for lending requirements. 

There is definite potential for inflation in this strategy, but this would not be the worst thing – the gap between the consensus and our view is narrowing on this.  And in any case President Obama can, quite reasonably, blame his predesssor for almost everything that goes wrong.  And Obama can also argue, plausibly, that things would be even worse without his bold actions. 

Unfortunately, in most of the rest of the world the economics and politics are not so favorable.  Let me remind you of the main points, illustrated with some of the latest developments. Continue reading “Obama Can; The Rest Of The World, Not So Much”

The Importance of Education

Robert Shiller, he of the Case-Shiller Index (and therefore a reasonable symbolic candidate for 2008 Man of the Year, were it not for a certain presidential election), has an op-ed in The New York Times advocating a government program to subsidize financial advice for anyone, particularly low-income people. There is a lot to like about this idea. In Shiller’s proposal, the subsidy would only apply to advisors who charge by the hour and do not take commissions or fund management fees, so they would have no incentive to steer clients into particular investments or into unnecessary transactions. It seems reasonable that, if they had access to impartial advice, some people might not have taken on mortgages they had no hope of paying back or, more prosaically, some people might do a better job of budgeting and take on less credit card debt.

But I have one major reservation, which is that I’m not sure how good the financial advice would be. In my opinion, most financial advice floating around is worth less than nothing. To take the most obvious example: by sheer volume, the largest proportion of financial advice that exists (counting all advice that anyone gives to anyone else via any means of communication) is almost certainly advice on buying individual stocks, and the second largest is probably advice on choosing mutual funds. I am firmly in the camp that believes that whether or not stocks obey the efficent market hypothesis, it is not within the capabilities of any individual investor to identify stock trades that will have an expected risk-adjusted return higher than the market as a whole, net of transaction costs. I also believe it is not in within the capabilities of any stock mutual fund manager, and that all of the variation in risk-adjusted mutual fund performance can be explained by pure statistical variation. And even if I’m wrong about that, and there are a few exceptional fund managers out there, I don’t believe that any individual could distinguish the exceptional managers from the simply lucky ones; and even if he could, by the time he did he would be buying into a fund that had grown so big it was no longer capable of above-market returns.

If this is so, why doesn’t the market for financial advice take care of this problem?

Continue reading “The Importance of Education”