Category: Commentary

The Private Sector Fallacy

By James Kwak

Felix Salmon highlights an important point to bear in mind when it comes to banks and short sales. Actually, it’s an important to bear in mind when you’re thinking about any big private sector company, be in Citigroup or British Petroleum. Yes, companies do things in their own self-interest that hurt other people and may not be net benefits to society. But they also do things that are not in their own self-interest all the time, because companies just aren’t all that efficient.

Felix’s post is largely about two factors. One is that big company executives are prone to exactly the same sort of cognitive fallacies as ordinary people, and hence make stupid decisions routinely. The second is that the incentives of individual people who make decisions (or provide information to people who make decisions) are only tangentially related to the interests of the company as a whole, and certainly not when you think of those interests over the long term.

A third factor is simply that companies are big, dumb, poorly designed institutions. There’s lots of talk about how individual human beings do not resemble the rational actors of textbook economic theory. The same is at least as true of big companies, of which I have seen many, from various perspectives.

Yet the belief that the private sector is the answer to all our problems remains deeply rooted. One might even call it an ideology. I would hope that the financial crisis (and the BP disaster) might cause people to question that ideology, at least a little bit.

What Is Goldman Sachs Thinking?

By Simon Johnson

The next financial boom seems likely to be centered on lending to emerging markets. Sam Finkelstein, head of emerging markets debt at Goldman Sachs Asset Management, summed up the prevailing market view – and no doubt talked up his own positions – with a prominent quote in Monday’s Financial Times (p.13, front of the Companies and Markets section):

“Debt-to-GDP ratios in the developed world are about double those in emerging markets and they’re growing. This makes emerging markets interesting because you’re pick up incremental spread [higher interest rates compared with developed world rates], and in return you’re actually taking less macroeconomic risk.”

This is a dangerous view for three reasons. Continue reading “What Is Goldman Sachs Thinking?” →

JP Morgan Responds To Financial Reform: The Poison Pill Strategy

By Simon Johnson

While the financial reform negotiation process grinds to its meaningless conclusion, the real action lies elsewhere – in Jamie Dimon’s executive suite.

Dimon, the head of JP Morgan Chase, is apparently seeking to (a) become more global, (b) move further into emerging markets, and (c) become more like Citigroup.

This is terrific corporate strategy – and very dangerous for the rest of us. Continue reading “JP Morgan Responds To Financial Reform: The Poison Pill Strategy” →

Tim Geithner and Larry Summers Need Paul Krugman To Replace Peter Orszag

By Simon Johnson. Tim Geithner and Larry Summers are talking a good game on fiscal policy to the G20. But they are struggling with to establish traction for their “spend now, consolidate later” message. Fortunately, there is an easy and obvious opportunity to establish credibility on this issue: Bring Paul Krugman into government.

Earlier this week, Peter Orszag resigned from his cabinet position as director of the Office of Management and Budget. The Washington Post put out one of the first lists of candidates who could replacement him. Senator Byron Dorgan would be a smart pick and some of the Post’s other suggestions could make sense.

But surely the front runner is Jason Furman. The working assumption is that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and National Economic Council director Larry Summers are in positions of influence for the long haul – and they have a track record of preferring team players over people who could bring competing perspectives to the table.

The Hamilton Project, housed at the Brookings Institution, was designed as a government-in-waiting by Robert Rubin. Then-Senator Obama attended its inaugural public meeting, with Peter Orszag as head of the project. Appointing Furman, successor to Orszag at Hamilton and currently a deputy to Larry Summers at the NEC, or another person from the same wing of the Clinton administration would continue in this tradition.

This is unfortunate, because the brilliant choice would be Paul Krugman – completely taking the wind out of the Republicans’ sails on fiscal deficits. Krugman has scolded them, in real-time and to great effect, consistently with regard to ruining the budget. And he has an important point – the Bush administration inherited a fairly sound fiscal position from the Clinton administration but squandered it thoroughly over 8 years. Continue reading “Tim Geithner and Larry Summers Need Paul Krugman To Replace Peter Orszag” →

“Chuck Prince” Is Going To Run This Bank (Into The Ground)

By Simon Johnson

“Breaking up big banks would actually increase system risk” is a refrain heard from top administration officials, ever more vocal after they helped kill the Brown-Kaufman amendment (that would have limited the size and leverage of our largest banks) on the floor of the Senate.

But while Mr. Geithner and his colleagues are still taking their victory laps and congratulating themselves on retaining “business as usual” after the biggest crash-and-bailout in world financial history, educated opinion starts to feel increasingly uncomfortable.

People who worry seriously about system risk break the problem down into several distinct buckets, including the nature of shocks and the way these are propagated across the system. In this typology, the “Chuck Prince problem” is in a class of its own. Continue reading ““Chuck Prince” Is Going To Run This Bank (Into The Ground)” →

Paul Krugman For OMB

By Simon Johnson

The president should nominate Paul Krugman to replace Peter Orszag as director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (Orszag resignation details are here.)

We have previously reviewed Krugman’s outstanding qualifications for this (or any other top level) job (link to details). The main reason Krugman himself has been reluctant in the past relates to a potentially difficult Senate confirmation hearing – for example, if Krugman had been put forward to replace Ben Bernanke.

But for the OMB position, the dynamic of a hearing would be terrific for the president’s specific agenda and broader messages. Krugman, of course, is the leading advocate for continued (or increased) fiscal stimulus. This is exactly President Obama’s message to the G20 this weekend. Continue reading “Paul Krugman For OMB” →

Dead On Arrival: Financial Reform Fails

By Simon Johnson

The House-Senate reconciliation process is still underway and some details will still change. But the broad contours of “financial reform” are already completely clear; there are no last minute miracles at this level of politics. The new consumer protection agency for financial products is a good idea and worth supporting – assuming someone sensible is appointed by the president to run it. Yet, at the end of the day, essentially nothing in the entire legislation will reduce the potential for massive system risk as we head into the next credit cycle.

Go, for example, through the summary of “comprehensive financial regulatory reform bills” in President Obama’s letter to the G20 last week. Continue reading “Dead On Arrival: Financial Reform Fails” →

G-20 Rules; Time for Germany-Bashing

This guest post is by Arvind Subramanian, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Yesterday’s announcement by China to introduce greater exchange rate flexibility is unambiguously good news. Greater currency flexibility will help China with its domestic overheating problem. But China deserves a lot of credit for its act of responsible international citizenship, for making its contribution to global re-balancing. Two implications follow.

First, the G-20 deserves a lot of credit for the change in China’s policy. True, Secretary Geithner played his cards skillfully, balancing private chiding with public encouragement. It is also true that recent sabre-rattling by the US Congress to impose trade measures against Chinese exports may have played a role in persuading China. But it is the fact of the G-20 that allowed Secretary Geithner to convert the China currency issue from a bilateral US-China matter (on which little progress had been made for many years) to one in which a broader set of countries had a stake. The public pronouncements by Brazil and India earlier this year re-inforced this “multilateralization” of China’s currency undervaluation. This multilateralization had two positive effects. It forced China to take more seriously the international consequences of its currency policy. And it also made the politics of changing policy easier because China is seen not as caving to bilateral pressure but as responding to the wider international community. Regardless of what happens at the G-20 Summit in Toronto over this week-end, the G-20 can already count the change in China’s currency policy as its victory. Continue reading “G-20 Rules; Time for Germany-Bashing” →

Why “Living Wills” Fail

By Simon Johnson

A central idea in the financial reforms currently undergoing final negotiation in the United States – and also in similar initiatives in Europe – is that large banks must draw up “living wills” that should explain, in considerable detail, how they will be wound down in the event of future failure.

The concept is appealing in theory. No one knows their business better than the banks, the reasoning goes, so they should have responsibility for explaining how they can close down their various operations – or perhaps sell more valuable parts while limiting losses for unprofitable activities. This is often presented as “smart regulation”, with government regulators requiring private sector experts to do the difficult technical work.

Tuesday’s hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee shed considerable light on why living wills are highly unlikely to work in practice. The hearing was actually about the oil industry – and its government-mandated plans to deal with oil spills. The committee posted the spill response plans for the Gulf of Mexico of five companies – BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, and Shell – which demonstrated striking, peculiar and disconcerting similarities. Continue reading “Why “Living Wills” Fail” →

After “Financial Reform”

By Simon Johnson

Informed opinion is sharply divided about how the next 12 months will play out for the global economy. Those focused on emerging markets are emphasizing accelerating growth, with some forecasts projecting a 5% increase in world output. Others, concerned about problems in Europe and the United States, remain more pessimistic, with growth projections closer to 4% – and some are even inclined to see a possible “double dip” recession.

This is an interesting debate, but it misses the bigger picture. In response to the crisis of 2007-2009, governments in most industrialized countries put in place some of the most generous bailouts ever seen for large financial institutions. Of course, it is not politically correct to call them bailouts – the preferred language of policymakers is “liquidity support” or “systemic protection.” But it amounts to essentially the same thing: when the chips were down, the most powerful governments in the world (on paper, at least) deferred again and again to the needs and wishes of people who had lent money to big banks.

[to read the rest of this article, on Project Syndicate, click here]

They’re Just Irrational?

By James Kwak

Don’t get me wrong: I like behavioral economics as much as the next guy. It’s quite clear that people are irrational in ways that the neoclassical model assumes away, and you can’t see human nature quite the same way after hearing Dan Ariely talk about his experiments on cheating. But I don’t think cognitive fallacies are the answer to everything, and I don’t think you can explain away the myriad crises of our time as the result of them, as Richard Thaler does in his recent New York Times article.

Like many people, Thaler wants to write about the parallels between the financial crisis and the BP oil leak. For Thaler, the root cause of both crises is that “people in general are not good at estimating the true chances of rare events, especially when human error may be involved” — catastrophic market seizures in the first case, catastrophic oil rig explosions in the latter case.

I have no doubt that it is true that people have problems estimating the chances of certain rare events.* But to stop there is to whitewash the sins of the companies and the executives who created these crises.

Continue reading “They’re Just Irrational?” →

Don’t Forget The Kanjorski Amendment

By Simon Johnson

Substantive discussion in the House-Senate financial reform reconciliation conference is focusing on the Lincoln amendment, with some back-and-forth on the Volcker Rule (as manifest in the Merkley-Levin amendment). The FT reports today that Paul Volcker is no longer opposed to the Lincoln approach – now it has become clear that this is really just about (substantially) raising the capital that banks need to back derivatives trading. And the influential Tom Hoenig, of the Kansas City Fed, appears to be strongly in the Lincoln camp.

While our most experienced regulators weigh in, the lobbyists start to struggle. The mobilization of broader support against gutting the legislation also helps – the earlier Senate debate has raised sensitivity levels and there is a new concentration to the public scrutiny. The reconciliation process itself is much more open than would ordinarily be the case – a result of outside pressure.

But amidst all this excitement and potential moving parts, don’t forget about the Kanjorski amendment (not currently on the list of most prominent topics). Continue reading “Don’t Forget The Kanjorski Amendment” →

Decision Time: Has the President Abandoned Paul Volcker’s Ideas On Financial Reform?

By Simon Johnson

The official reconciliation process between Senate and House reform bills will get underway next week, but the behind-the-scenes maneuvering (and intense lobbying) is already well underway. The main remaining question is whether the final legislation will ultimately make the financial system at all safer than it was in the run up to the crisis of September 2008.

How do big banks repeatedly get themselves into so much trouble? Dangerous banking in today’s world involves banks trading securities and, in that context, taking positions – i.e., betting their own capital. For example, almost all the profits made by big banks in 2009 came from securities trading. When market conditions are favorable and traders get lucky, the people running these banks (and hopefully their shareholders) get tremendous upside. But when this same risk-taking behavior results in big losses, the major negative impact is felt in terms of a major recession, raising government debt, and sharply lower employment.

“Wall Street gets the upside, and society gets the downside” is an old saying that is now more relevant than ever. This asymmetry in incentives explains how smart people with concentrated financial power can cause so much damage – according to, for example, the Bank of England’s analysis. Continue reading “Decision Time: Has the President Abandoned Paul Volcker’s Ideas On Financial Reform?” →

Can the Buy Side Take on the Sell Side?

By James Kwak

The Economist did not like 13 Bankers: “A broader perspective would have led to more nuanced conclusions. The origins of America’s financial ‘oligarchy’, for instance, might have more to do with campaign-finance rules and political appointees than banks’ size. The faith that Messrs Johnson and Kwak put in merely capping the size of banks is misplaced.”*

But a reader pointed us to the Economist columnist who goes by the name of Buttonwood (the site of the founding of the New York Stock Exchange), who seems a bit more favorable. In a recent column criticizing the rent-seeking of the financial sector, Buttonwood seems to tell broadly the same story:

“Something has clearly changed within the past 40 years. Banking and asset management used to be perceived as fairly dull jobs, which did not attract a significant wage premium. But after 1980, financial wages started to climb much more quickly than those of engineers, another profession that ought to have benefited from technological complexity.

“Around the same time, banks became more profitable.”

He even nods toward breaking up the banks:

“At the moment, governments are wading in with all kinds of levies and regulations, which will probably have unintended consequences. Rather than tackle the big problem (for example, by breaking up the banks), they waste their time on populist measures like banning short-selling.”

Continue reading “Can the Buy Side Take on the Sell Side?” →

The Perils of Studying Economics

By James Kwak

Patrick McGeehan at the New York Times recently wrote about a New York Fed study finding that studying economics makes you a Republican. The headline conclusion is that the more economics classes you take, the more likely you are to be a Republican. Majoring in economics or business is also more likely to make you a Republican. (See Table 2 in the original paper.) The study is based on thousands of observations of undergraduates at four large universities over three decades, so it is focused on undergraduate-level economics.

Studying economics also affects your position on several public policy issues. Of seven issues, economics courses were significantly associated with the five following positions (Table 6):

Tariffs are bad.
Trade deficits are not so bad.
The government should not cap oil prices in response to a supply shock.
Raising the minimum wage increase unemployment for low-wage workers.
Income distribution should not be more equal.

These are all pro-free market, anti-government intervention positions.

Continue reading “The Perils of Studying Economics” →